1965-03-04

Mr. Speaker:: Two weeks ago this house was honoured by a visit from the members of the council of the Northwest Territories. Today we have in the Speaker's gallery four members of the council of Canada's other far northern territory, the Yukon. In addition to council members John Watt, Donald Taylor and Kenneth Thompson, we have present the Speaker of the Yukon council, Mr. George Shaw. I am sure all hon. members would want me, on their behalf, to extend a very warm welcome to these members of a small but important legislative body that is taking so much responsibility for the growth and development of the Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: There are two members
standing at the same time. Is this a question of privilege?


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is the question of privilege I indicated yesterday that I intended to bring up today.


Mr. Speaker:: When two members stand at the same time the Chair has to decide between them. It does seem to me, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris is a privy councillor, perhaps the courtesy of the house might be extended to him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of personal privilege. Yesteday it was my pleasure to visit the city of Montreal and spend a few hours in that very friendly and warm hearted
community. It was my privilege to speak to the students of Sir George Williams college, but I must confess that during my brief stay there I very soon came to the conclusion they were interested in other matters that had occurred not too far from that spot a few hours earlier.
It was only upon my return, Mr. Speaker, that I discovered there had also been a rather warm, but not so cordial, occurrence in this distinguished House of Commons and that during the course of the discussion my name had become involved in a way that was not as cordial and friendly as that in which it had been involved during my visit to Montreal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to raise a question of privilege of this kind, even though the matter had been before the house a few days earlier as the result of a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso). I must confess that I had been surprised at the interest of the hon. member for Hamilton West in the very vexing and in many respects unfortunate episode in the history of this parliament concerning the investigation of Chinese immigration cases. The hon. member for Hamilton West was not in the house when those events took place, and I was surprised that he should have expressed an interest in a subject which I thought had been long ago resolved to the mutual satisfaction and with the unanimous agreement of ail members of this house.
However, I am not going to pursue that thought further, because I understand the hon. member for Port Arthur has already indicated that he will be bringing a formal motion before this chamber based on the interest of the hon. member for Hamilton West. All I can say is that I am disappointed that he has been the one who has indulged in activities that revive the shadow of suspicion that has hung over our Chinese community for so long.


Mr. Macaluso:: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I don't intend to sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we might start quietly this afternoon by considering

Question of Privilege
this question of privilege and then, if the hon. member is involved-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have decided to present this question of privilege because the matter was brought up yesterday by the Minister of Justice; and I must say that his action, as recorded in yesterday's Hansard, causes me even greater surprise than that of the hon. member for Hamilton West, because I can only conclude that he is now substituting witch hunting techniques for the administration of justice in Canada, which is typical-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Although the Minister of Justice was not a member of this chamber when these events to which I have referred took place he has since formally, as recorded in Hansard, given his full approval to the handling of the Chinese immigration cases as it was carried out in formal policy announcements in the house; and if he had not been personally aware of this he must have become aware of it anyway because his first portfolio was that of citizenship and immigration-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He messed that up, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and now he is Minister of Justice. He has been deeply involved in both departments which were vitally concerned with this very difficult problem. But failing this, had he not known personally he could have consulted with his deskmate, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill).


Some hon. Members:: He did.


Mr. Bell:: That is the trouble.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was in the house when these matters were debated here and he took part in those discussions. From the opposition benches in those days he made strong representations against what he called smear tactics being used against Canadians of Chinese origin.


Mr. Starr:: It suited his purpose then.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And I am quite sure too, knowing his interest in this matter-and I believe it was a sincere interest-that he also wrote letters to the departments concerned

in this matter, particularly if the house was poj; in session; because I as a former minister of the crown, as minister of northern affairs, received letters from him in much the same terms as I have written in reference to this Chinese immigration case.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? He has said I wrote letters. Did I ever write to the hon. gentleman about any prosecutions that had been instituted?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I merely surmise that the minister had written letters on this subject because he was actively interested, as was indicated by his comments in the house; and I know he was a great letter writer because he wrote to me on several occasions concerning employment matters.


Mr. Favreau:: Not forgery cases.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can sympathize with the Minister of Transport's concern, for I had brought to his attention when he was minister of citizenship and immigration many examples of discrimination in this matter of Chinese immigration. I always tried to be discreet and responsible in these matters because we were dealing with sensitive areas of human relations. The hon. gentleman will remember one case in particular-I think this is what brought out my interest in the subject of Chinese immigration more than anything else-where an unfortunate suicide occurred in the city of Brandon as a result of our discriminatory attitude in matters of this kind.
All I want today is to let the Hansard record speak for itself. As I said at the outset of my statement, anything which was done in respect to the handling of investigations of irregularities in Chinese immigration was done in accordance with definite policy statements made where they should be made, on the floor of the House of Commons, policies which were wholeheartedly acquiesced in by both the present Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Transport and which, as I have indicated, received the wholehearted support of all the members of this house.
I will point out also with regard to the letter which has been brought into question that it was written on August 17 from my home in the city of Brandon at a time when the house was not in session. This is the only means by which a member of parliament can draw the attention of government departments to a local situation as he sees it. This

is what I have always attempted to do in my letters to government officials and government departments. We are aware that it is not possible for members of parliament to telephone; this subject has come up in the house from time to time. We have to resort to the postal service in order to communicate with the people responsible.
The first announcement on this Chinese immigration investigation came on January 19, 1960. As reported at page 83 of Hansard for that date Hon. Ellen Fairclough said:
Mr. Speaker, the alleged illegal entry of persons into Canada from the mainland of China, Macao and Hong Kong has been a matter of grave concern to my department for some time. Early last year I directed that the situation should be thoroughly investigated. A departmental official went from Ottawa to Hong Kong to consult with the British police, and an exhaustive examination of the situation has been in progress for some months in close co-operation with the authorities of the colony.
On June 6, 1960 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate became active in this matter, and as reported on page 4533 of Hansard he demanded a statement of policy from the government. He asserted that reports in the press had cast suspicion on the whole of the Chinese community in Canada, and termed fantastic a report that some 11,000 Chinese had entered the country illegally. In reply to this statement and to a question by the hon. member for Skeena the minister of justice said, in part:
The intention is not to persecute but to establish what are the facts and then do our best to clear up and regularize the situation.
On June 9, 1960 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate speaking again, as reported at page 4716, said as follows:
I am going to recommend to the government, and I am doing this without seeking to be unduly critical, that many of the problems they now have as a result of this investigation could very easily be removed if the minister, the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister would say, on behalf of the government, that the government has no intention whatever of opening any case or dealing with any case where those people who entered were the sons, daughters, wives or parents of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, even though they may have misrepresented some of the other facts for which the department asked.
Again, Mr. Speaker, at page 4717:
-it is of the utmost importance that we should make clear at once that so far as those people who are relatives of Chinese Canadian citizens are concerned, who may have committed some technical irregularity in connection with their entry, they are not going to face deportation or any other charges.
Then on June 9, 1960, as reported at page 4722 of Hansard, Hon. Mrs. Fairclough, the then minister, said as follows:
Question of Privilege
-I can assure all members of this house that there is no intention to prosecute those people who are, let us say, victims of these transactions. The intention is rather to curb the activities of the racketeers.
That was on June 9, 1960, Mr. Speaker. I am reciting this Hansard record because it is out of the background of the recommendations made by the Minister of Transport that I wrote the letter to the justice department indicating the situation as I found it when I was able to return to the constituency. The minister of justice was also, of course, involved in policy statements on this matter, and on July 6, 1960, the then minister, Hon. E. D. Fulton, discussed government policy during a supply debate. This is reported at page 5813 of Hansard:
Now, with regard to the whole operation, Mr. Chairman, it must be borne in mind that we are investigating a racket.
Again, at page 5815:
I refer now to persons who are guilty of operating an illegal racket. I am satisfied that when that is established and the Chinese community know that so far as we can we will get these racketeers off their backs, then the feeling of the Chinese community will be one of relief and satisfaction.
And further:
-our intention is to convict racketeers and not to prosecute or harass people who have in many cases committed no more than a technical offence-
On the same page the then minister of justice is reported as having said:
-the minister-
That is the minister of citizenship and immigration:
-has made her stand clear as far as the Chinese are concerned who were what I might call innocent passengers in this vehicle. We are after those who operated the vehicle itself.
A year later, on June 10, 1961, as reported at page 6138 of Hansard, the minister of justice once again referred to government policy in the following terms:
-when the minister-
That is the minister of citizenship and immigration:
-announced the inquiry and the steps that had been taken to date and would be taken in the subsequent period, she said that she counted particularly, in what is described colloquially but somewhat inaccurately as the amnesty program, on the co-operation of the Chinese community to clear those who might be referred to as innocent passengers in this traffic and to establish who are the ringleaders in organized criminal activity.
At page 6139:
The intent of my colleague's statement was to make clear that persons who with respect to themselves or their immediate relatives may have

Question of Privilege
given misinformation in order to bring themselves or their relatives here to Canada, not for the purpose of profit, would not be pushed around or prosecuted.
Hon. Richard Bell took over as minister of citizenship and immigration, and he reiterated the same policy. On November 16, 1962 he announced that the investigation had been concluded and the Hong Kong police would be returning to Hong Kong. I noticed that something has been made of my reference to a police state. I would merely remind hon. members of this house that the Hong Kong police carried out this particular investigation.
In response to the statement made by the new minister, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as recorded at page 1694 of Hansard for 1962-63, he said:
Mr. Speaker, without any qualification I congratulate the new minister on accepting the advice which was tendered from this side of the house two years ago as to the proper method of dealing with this problem. I am very glad indeed that the minister is now removing the shadow that has hung for far too long over the whole Chinese community in Canada-
That policy was accepted and adopted by the new minister of citizenship and immigration under the Liberal government, the man who is now Minister of Justice, who attacked me vehemently yesterday in this chamber. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues in this house, which is the highest court of public opinion in the land and which usually operates with dignity and responsibility, that there was no bribery or coercion involved in any representations I made. I merely wrote a letter to the Department of Justice at a time when I was in my constituency in respect of the attitude of constituents about this particular aspect of a very unhappy situation. I also provided a character reference on behalf of the man concerned. I have written dozens of letters of a similar nature during the 14 years I have been a member of this House of Commons, as no doubt have most the hon. members of this house.
My attention has been drawn to a statement made by one of the oldest members of this house. Perhaps I should not use that term but rather say that he is a man who has been a member of this House of Commons for a lengthy period of time-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-in an answer he gave to a ques-

tion regarding the responsibilities of a member of parliament as a representative of his constituents. That hon. gentleman said that he followed one rule in regard to writing letters to government departments, to the effect that they must be of such a nature that he would not hesitate to have them tabled in the house.


Mr. Knowles:: That is a good rule.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my letter has been tabled in this house, and I believe that all fair minded members will agree that it speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a lengthy statement at this time, but I do rise now because the hon. member for Brandon-Souris mentioned my name in connection with his question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I think we are all entitled to a fair hearing, Mr. Speaker, and I expect the same courtesy which was extended to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.
Surely that hon. member and every other member of this house, as well as every citizen of Canada, cannot be surprised at my interest in the situation in question at the time the Chinese immigration problem occurred. We all abhor what happened, and we all realize that only after public pressure was brought to bear was the former policy of the Conservative government changed.
I wish to state that my interest was not directed specifically toward the Chinese immigration problem-and I have very many friends of Chinese origin in my constituency and in other areas-but was raised because of certain information I had received and because of certain pious statements which were made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I assure the hon. member that there was no intention on my part to create any-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Some hon. members say "no", but let me remind them that I am expressing my personal opinion, and I did not think that charges of forgery once laid were technical affairs. Mr. Speaker, I only wish to state quite clearly that my conscience is clear in respect of putting these questions on the order paper.



MR. FISHER-COLLUSION IN PREPARATION OF QUESTIONS FOR ORDER PAPER

['Mr. Speaker,\nsince the question of privilege I raised yesterday is brought up again, and that as a justification it is claimed that the translators were overworked, I would like to point out that the committee sat chiefly during the recess when the translators of the House of Commons could have been assigned to this committee, in order to produce rapidly an urgently needed French translation of the proceedings of the committee.\nSuch an excuse cannot be accepted by those who wish to obtain the French version of the deliberations of that committee which held 51 meetings before the resumption of the session on February 16 last. Therefore, translators could have been available to translate the discussions which were held\n\nin English in that committee. We can definitely not accept that excuse that easily.\nWhen I claim that we do not have all the necessary documents and tools, that is, the French version of the proceedings of that committee-and after all, there are 13 members who belong to the Ralliement Creditiste and I was their only representative on that committee-I believe that I am right and that many more like myself would have liked to have a translation of those proceedings on this bill, which will be passed even before we receive that version.\nTherefore, the so-called excuse profferred today to justify the delay in this French translation is definitely not acceptable.']
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege which appears to involve collusion between officials of the Department of Justice and certain members of parliament, in particular Messrs. Francis, Basford and Macaluso. To illustrate this collusion I should like to make reference to certain questions on the order paper, being questions Nos. 2,042, 2,608, 2,766 and 2,805.
Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this question of privilege there seem to be two alternatives open to me. The first involves a formal motion to refer this matter to the standing committee on privileges and elections. The second, which may well be a preliminary to the first, is to suggest that Your Honour take this matter under advisement.
Under the accepted rules of this house the right to ask questions is part of the privileges extended to hon. members of this House of Commons, but as I understand the situation this privilege is not extended in the same way, or at least to the same degree, to members on the government side. It is my belief that when you, sir, and other members of this house read these questions to which I have made reference you will wonder why they were ever accepted. The rules indicate that questions should be framed in such a way as to elicit information rather than give it. These questions appear to me to transgress many of the rules we have in respect of the kind of questions which should be allowed.
I should like to read one of these questions as an example of what I mean, and I shall read question 2,042, which was filed by Mr. Francis on October 2, 1964. The question reads as follows:
1.	Did the Department of Justice, in 1358, through the R.C.M.P., conduct an investigation to determine if Hal Banks had been employing intimidation and violence in the furtherance of union activities?
2.	Did the government on February 23, 1959, as a result of the aforementioned investigation, receive a full account of the conspiracy which resulted in the Walsh beatings?
3.	Was any action taken by the government of that day to bring Banks to trial as a result of that evidence?
4.	Was another report, which included a further account of the Walsh conspiracy, sent on June 14, 1961, to the government by the Department of Justice?
5.	Was any action taken against Banks as a result of that evidence?
6.	On what date was the commission, concerning matters relating to the destruction of shipping on the great lakes, the St. Lawrence river system, and connecting waters, established?
Question of Privilege
7.	When did the commission report?
8.	When was action initiated by the government to prosecute Hal Banks?
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from the information contained in that question that it is extremely unlikely the hon. member for Carleton had the specified dates and facts at his fingertips.
There have been a number of questions of this kind which have appeared on the order paper recently, the last one being that put forward by Mr. Basford, No. 2,805; and one can only come to the conclusion that someone in the Department of Justice-perhaps the parliamentary secretary-has made a search of the correspondence files and other records for the purpose of planting these questions with government backbenchers in order to embarrass other members of parliament.
There is no reason whatsoever why correspondence of any hon. member of parliament should not be the subject matter of motions, orders for the production of papers or questions, but I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are being victimized very forcefully as individual members of parliament if we must not only face questions and criticism of the government but also of other members of parliament working in co-operation with them for the purpose of eliciting and developing this kind of information. I think we are at the stage where we are likely to move into an extremely bad practice.
I should also like you to look at questions 2,720 to 2,724 inclusive, with regard to which the only explanation I can see is that they have been placed on the order paper by way of harassment of the hon. member for Yukon because of his actions in the past. So far as I am concerned, obviously those questions have been planted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard for this purpose with the encouragement of someone in the department itself.
I think all members of parliament, whether government or opposition, only ask for a fair chance. After consultation with your officials, Mr. Speaker, who deal with the order paper and questions of procedure, I now put before you for your advice the question whether there is a clear cut case here of collusion of the kind that would attack the traditional parliamentary rights of members of parliament.
If you do not want to take this matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and make a report to us, then I am in the position where I feel I have to make a motion. I feel that common

Question of Privilege
courtesy to the house is involved in asking you to take this matter under advisement because the whole matter of questions is handled by you and by your officials working for us. For that reason I would ask you to take the matter under advisement and report back to us what are your observations and what is your view with respect to these questions I have raised. Otherwise I should like the opportunity to make a formal motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think I need any advice in this matter. The question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur involves a fundamentally important principle, and I certainly accept his suggestion. I will be very glad to look into the matter and make a thorough study of the questions to which he has referred. Obviously I have not seen all the questions, and I think it is only fair to the Chair and to everyone else that I have the fullest opportunity to make a thorough investigation and consult with my own officials.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, may I say I think it is unfair to ask the Speaker of the House of Commons to undertake this task. The Speaker of the House of Commons and his officials are responsible for the placing on the order paper of questions and motions for the production of papers. The officials give advice to members as to the wording of questions on some occasions so that we do not fall into the error of putting something on the order paper which is contrary to the rules or is badly phrased.
But the problem raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur is much wider than that. Surely it is no function of the Speaker to ascertain whether or not access to files has been made available to private members of the house. I do not know what sort of investigation Mr. Speaker could carry on in that regard. If I understood the accusation of the hon. member for Port Arthur, it was based more on that ground rather than simply the technical arrangement of questions on the order paper.
Consequently I certainly regret that the hon. member for Port Arthur did not move a motion to refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections, where the members themselves can deal with a subject that is of great importance to each member of the house. Under the circumstances I would un-

dertake to move such a motion, that the subject matter of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that Your Honour would like to have the time and opportunity to review the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur before you decide whether there is what we would call a prima facie case of privilege. However, with regard to the problem involved in Your Honour having to judge whether there would appear to be some kind of collusion between an hon. member and officials within the Department of Justice, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that if Your Honour is called upon to make such a judgment it will put you in a very awkward position.
Citation 114 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, in the section dealing with questions of privilege, reads as follows:
Cases may arise of communications, beyond the walls of parliament, between one member and another, or between a member and a minister, so closely related to some matter pending in, or expected to be brought before, the house, that though they do not take place in the chamber or in a committee room, they form part of the business of the house, as, for example, where a member sends to a minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down or shows it to another member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down, or as to the manner in which it should be framed.
I am not going to quote the whole citation, but it very clearly states that if a question of privilege arises out of this kind of situation -and obviously that is what is before the house this afternoon-the house and only the house should deal with a matter of this kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with what the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said. The suggestion made places you in a very unenviable position. Our purpose as members of the house must be at all times to maintain your integrity in the high position you occupy and not to place you in the position of judging whether certain questions that have got on the order paper should not have been placed there on the basis of the rules. Over the years I have had questions turned down that were less informative and knowledgeable in the manner in which they were drafted than those to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Indeed, when I think of the question of ethics I would point out that no one feels that members of parliament should in any way be above the law. Under the privileges of parliament no one wants to protect wrongdoing; but certainly if the information that has been given to me is correct, directives have been sent out by a minister within the past several weeks to a number of departments, including Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, asking for information concerning any correspondence or files relating to the hon. member for Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to have this matter fully examined, because the Prime Minister himself took a most highminded position in the letter that he wrote to his ministers on December 22 last. I am not going into the full particulars thereof, but in part it reads as follows:
I am therefore writing this letter to ask you, as well as every other minister, to have a meeting at once with your ministerial staff in order to impress on them the vital importance of their conduct. I am following this course in my own office.
In the course of this wise admonition, which apparently has not been too carefully followed since, he went on to say:
I think you should also emphasize the responsibilities that staff members have with regard to official information, whether it is formally classified or not.
I emphasize those words, "whether formally classified or not."
They must not, directly or indirectly, use such information for their own advantage or for that of any friend or associate.
They must also observe rigorously their obligation to maintain the confidentiality of classified information or of information about members of the public that comes to them in the discharge of their official duties.
Now, all these questions that have been referred to by the hon. member in a most impressive presentation, if I may say so, make very clear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is so impressive the government is disturbed-make very clear that these three hon. members had information that they could not have picked out of the air. They could have secured it only by an examination of the files, and they had no right to have their noses in those files.
A member of parliament is not entitled to be protected against wrongdoing. However, the business of this country cannot be carried on if members like the hon. member for 20220-7574
Question of Privilege
Carleton and others are able to snoop with the assistance of those who allow themselves to be snooped upon, and endeavour thereby to undermine members because they happen to be sitting on the other side of the house.
I think the motion should be proceeded with.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I assume the right hon. gentleman would wish to table the letter from which he quoted.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the right hon. gentleman accommodate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not asking him how he got it, but I hope he will table it because that would be in accordance with the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of order. The rules provide that when one reads from a document it should be produced, but I did not read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be the last to suggest that the right hon. gentleman got this document by snooping.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister sent it, did he not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He may even have secured it by having one of his members go to a minister's office, as is often done and quite rightly done, and ask the minister for information, including information which is in the files. This is done regularly on this side and the other side.
The hon. member for Port Arthur has made a suggestion which would involve you taking under advisement very important matters. You have accepted that proposal, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is proper that you should have, because one of your responsibilities, if I may say so with respect, is to enforce the rules regarding the admissibility of questions to the order paper. I think, Mr. Speaker, these rules should indeed be examined, not only in the light of the specific cases referred to by my hon. friend-and I do not complain about them-but in the light of the practice that has grown up in recent years. I think it would be a very useful thing indeed if in the exercise of the responsibilities which you have for deciding on the admissibility of questions under our rules, you did indeed take this matter under advisement and give it the objective study which it deserves. I believe, therefore, the suggestion made is a proper one and we are very glad indeed to support your decision and accept it.

Question of Privilege [Translation]


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is surely of great importance.
I think that at the present time, in the eyes of the public, the House of Commons is making an exhibition of itself. Everybody is suspected and, apparently, anybody can put a question concerning anybody else to try and dig into government files or files which were in the custody of the previous government, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has just said-and the hon. member for Port Arthur is of the same opinion- this matter comes under your authority; when you decide the way in which hon. members have to put their questions, then, I think, we will have to accept your decision.
We sincerely believe that you yourself can determine the way in which hon. members have to put their questions and decide what is to be done to change and improve the performance given by the House of Commons at the present time.
I indeed support the hon. member for Port Arthur when he suggests that you should decide upon this matter. The Prime Minister is also of this opinion. On the other hand, we shall take the stand that, under the circumstances, we shall await your decision.


Mr. Eric Nielsen (Yukon):: I will be very brief, but since there has been a reference to me in connection with this matter I feel I should say something. As you know, sir, I did speak with you concerning question No. 2,805. I did not speak to you concerning questions 2,720 to 2,724 because I was not worried in the slightest about any answers that would be given to those questions regardless of where the hon. member for Vancouver-Bur-rard obtained his information in order to put them on the order paper.
However, question 2,805 involved, as you will recall, a matter before the courts in the Yukon. Notwithstanding that fact, it was replied to by the Minister of Justice. The question also concerned a matter about which we had discussions in the minister's office on one occasion, upon which occasion-the minister puts up three fingers. I say to the minister I saw him once in his office, and then we were alone.


Guy Favreau: What about your note in the
house?


Erik Nielsen: We were alone. Clearly the minister has been speaking to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in order for that information to have reached him. I am not going to say anything to him about the discussion that took place between the minister and myself, for reasons that I have already expressed to Your Honour. I feel it is sub judice before the courts of the Yukon. The government itself has said on many occasions the matter is sub judice before the Dorion inquiry and may come up there again, although I do not think that will happen. If similar questions were put on the order paper-and one member could do it on behalf of all the Liberal members on that side of the house-simply asking what representations the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard or any other member opposite had made with respect to cases in criminal proceedings since this government took office, we would have a terrible shambles. This is what has happened by placing these questions on the order paper.
So far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard or any other member on the other side can put questions on the order paper until they are blue in the face and they will not find anything. The Minister of Justice knows that as well as any other minister of the crown who has access to any letters I have written to any minister of the crown or public official. Nothing will be found at all; but I do say, sir, that while I am not concerned with this political vindictiveness- and I can only use that term-I simply feel it is because I raised something that has turned out to be extremely embarrassing to the government. They can move heaven and earth and look through every file in Tunney's pasture and elsewhere to get something on the hon. member for Yukon, but it is not going to produce anything whatsoever.
However, sir, there is a question here that is important enough to be placed before the committee on privileges and elections; therefore I will urge you to consider the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in the most favourable light.
I will not mention anything further concerning questions that could be put to the ministry, but if the matter is not considered by the privileges and elections committee, and if it is going to be permissible to put this kind of question on the order paper, then certainly I can engage in placing a good number of questions on the order paper that will produce results, and results very unfavourable to the government.
IMr. Pearson.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Port Arthur made a suggestion. I have here a draft of a motion which has been moved by Mr. Churchill, seconded by Mr. Starr. Obviously the principle involved is extremely important. The question of the drafting of questions has concerned me for several months. I have certain suggestions to make to our committee on procedure but so far the committee has not had the opportunity of considering those suggestions. Therefore, in all the circumstances I think due time should be granted the Chair for the proper consideration of this extremely important matter of principle.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of order, I stated the case. I formally put a motion in front of you, duly seconded by the hon. member for Ontario, and I think it should be put to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: As I tried to explain a few minutes ago, the Chair wishes time to study the matter thoroughly before making up its mind whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the question of privilege raised a while ago by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I must say that I do not want to leave on the record the fact that, in contempt of a court, I would have tabled in the house information contrary to the sub judice principle.
The information tabled is available to all members and to the public, and what does it concern: It indicates (a) whether a complaint or some complaints were lodged, (b) the court before which such complaints would have been lodged, (c) the territorial jurisdiction, (d) the state of the file. Those are straight and simple facts contained in the record that have nothing to do with the merit of the case.
As the hon. member for Yukon must know, the sub judice concerns exclusively and directly the facts concerning the merit of a case.
Also, I was asked whether someone had made representations. I answered yes, at least twice, and I must point out that this is not sub judice because in the case and in the file there is no reference to the hon. member for Yukon as such.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports by standing and special committees.
House of Commons


Erik Nielsen: I might just suggest briefly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am doing my best to be fair to the hon. member for Yukon. Even though he did mention he was in my office discussing this matter and we immediately called the legal adviser down and had the benefit of his advice, at this time I do not think we need go further into that question. It may arise later, but I suggest that now we get on with the business of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, a motion has been moved and seconded. Your Honour has suggested-and I think appropriately, if I may say so with the greatest deference-that the first matter for determination by you shall be as to whether there is a question of privilege. Personally I do not see any difficulty in that, but that is a matter for Your Honour to decide. Having so decided, however, I would want to make it perfectly clear at this time that the motion stands; and if Your Honour does as you suggest, namely put this over so you may look into the matter, the motion should stand to be proceeded with later should the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre so wish following your determination of the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion acceptable to all members of the house.



Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron), on a question of privilege which will be found at page 11925 of Hansard, requested information concerning delay in the preparation of the French version of the proceedings of the special joint committee dealing with the Canada pension plan bill.
The facts are as follows. The day to day English proceedings and evidence are forwarded to the bureau for printing. In so far as the printing of the French minutes of proceedings and evidence is concerned, they must first be translated and revised, and as soon as they are ready and received from the translators they are forwarded to the printing bureau.
To date only one number has been translated and printed. This translation was forwarded to the bureau on February 3, 1965 and received and distributed on February 15.

House of Commons
Of the remaining 23 numbers, seven have been translated and are now being revised and will be delivered shortly to the printing bureau. Another 13 are in the process of translation, and three have still to be allocated for translation.
There are no delays between the reception of the translation and the transmittal of the French copy to the printing bureau. The delay for this committee is the same as for every other committee; it is attributable only to the translation. Such delays cannot be avoided because of the shortage of translators and the considerable volume of translations other than minutes and proceedings of evidence which the translators have to do. There is a shortage of competent translators.
I have been in touch with the translation branch and am informed that they are doing their utmost to expedite the translation; and I, of course, know that the printing bureau will do their very best to print it as soon as it is received. The hon. member is not correct in his statement that the French version of the report has not yet been received. When I tabled my report on February 16 the report was in both English and French. It is printed in full in the French version of Votes and Proceedings of that date, commencing at page 1037.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Beauce was a member of the select committee of the House of Commons and the Senate dealing with the Canada pension plan bill, and up to the moment he raised his question of privilege in the house he had made no complaint whatsoever to hie about the failure to receive the report in French.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker,
since the question of privilege I raised yesterday is brought up again, and that as a justification it is claimed that the translators were overworked, I would like to point out that the committee sat chiefly during the recess when the translators of the House of Commons could have been assigned to this committee, in order to produce rapidly an urgently needed French translation of the proceedings of the committee.
Such an excuse cannot be accepted by those who wish to obtain the French version of the deliberations of that committee which held 51 meetings before the resumption of the session on February 16 last. Therefore, translators could have been available to translate the discussions which were held

in English in that committee. We can definitely not accept that excuse that easily.
When I claim that we do not have all the necessary documents and tools, that is, the French version of the proceedings of that committee-and after all, there are 13 members who belong to the Ralliement Creditiste and I was their only representative on that committee-I believe that I am right and that many more like myself would have liked to have a translation of those proceedings on this bill, which will be passed even before we receive that version.
Therefore, the so-called excuse profferred today to justify the delay in this French translation is definitely not acceptable.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: I should like to make a short statement on motions for the purpose of bringing to the attention of members of the house a matter which I believe is of major interest to them. In an effort to finish the business of this session quickly, it may be necessary to ask for an extension of the hours of sitting, and I propose to call a meeting of the house leaders to discuss this matter before any formal motion is placed before the house.
I should like to indicate the business which, as I see it, requires to be finished this session, although I am not necessarily suggesting that every item must be finished. These items are as follows:
Gov't Order Number
76. Third reading of Bill C-123 to amend certain acts administered in the Department of Insurance.
80 and 95. Completion of the Canada pension plan legislation.
89. Legislation respecting operations of certain established federal-provincial programs.
51. C.N.R. financing bill.
92. Bill containing certain Companies Act amendments-this bill is now in committee.
40. Senate retirement legislation.
94. Second reading of a bill to amend agreements to certain tax conventions.
56. Canada Shipping Act amendments bill.
In addition there is the report of the committee on procedure and organization which is now standing on the order paper.


Michael Starr: Why not wait until June and extend the hours then?


George James McIlraith: What I fear is that if we do not grapple with the problem now we shall be sitting during the Easter holidays

1196S
and during July and August, and I am sure the hon. gentleman shares my dislike for sitting through the Easter holidays and during July and August. I thought I would draw this matter to the attention of hon. members so they could pass on their views to the respective house leaders.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Monday, I now wish to table in the house, first, a copy of the letter I sent last Friday evening to the hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Frederic Dorion, when I issued a statement as to whether or not the Prime Minister had advised his parliamentary secretary that he was going to be questioned by the R.C.M.P.
At the same time I should like to table a copy of the letter on the same subject, dated March 1, 1965, and received from Judge Dorion.

Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to revert to motions, I shall table, as I promised yesterday, a copy of the statement made in the Quebec legislature yesterday afternoon by the attorney general of the province.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: This is not a provocative question, Mr. Speaker. This is for the purpose of securing information regarding the manner in which people across Canada may be able to secure red ensign flags which have been gathered together and stored by the government pending a decision as to disposition, prices, etc.
I would ask the Minister of Public Works whether he would advise the house in this regard, because I have a letter here to the effect that instructions have been received that all red ensign flags must be returned to Ottawa. The letter goes on to say:
However, you may ask your member of parliament or address your request to the minister,
Inquiries of the Ministry Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Ontario, who is the only person authorized to settle this matter.
I therefore ask the minister how and in what manner people may acquire these flags. There are many veterans organizations, units of the non-permanent force and the like, desirous of acquiring these flags-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a matter of first rate importance to them. They have endeavoured since February 17 to find out what the situation is, and I would ask the minister to give us his views.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: I am not at all sure from what letter the right hon. gentleman was reading. As far as the policy of the department is concerned, we have asked that all red ensigns be packaged and labelled, indicating from which building they come. These red ensigns would then, on request, be relegated to museums and churches. There has been no policy regarding requests to send them to individual persons.


John George Diefenbaker: Does this mean that applications for these flags should be made to the minister and that he will determine whether an application will receive favourable consideration?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As I said a moment ago, I am not sure what the right hon. gentleman was reading from. I have not given instructions that all requests be made to me. The Department of National Defence also has flags, and I would imagine those flags would be issued by the Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman asked me what I was reading from. I was reading from a document headed Department of Public Works, 1631 Delorimier avenue, Montreal. It states:
With reference to your letter...we are sorry to advise that the government regulations prevent our giving or selling any government property. In this specific case, instructions were already received that all red ensign flags must be returned to Ottawa.
However, you may ask your member of parliament or address your request to the minister, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Ontario, who is the only person authorized to settle this matter.
Yours truly,
G. K. Aubut,
District Manager,
Property and building management


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As far as the flags which belong to the Department of Public Works are concerned, requests would be made either to a

Inquiries of the Ministry member of parliament or directly to the department, and if they come from museums or churches etc., it is the policy of the government to fulfil them as far as possible. As far as issuing flags to individuals is concerned, the policy has not as yet been decided.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works in connection with his reply to the question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on the matter of flags. If these flags are to be disposed of to the public, will the minister concerned take appropriate steps to see that they do not fall into improper hands, and that they are not put to any use which is not in keeping with their historic traditions?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that is why there is a difference between our policy in respect of flags that go into museums and churches and those which are released through individuals.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might ask a supplementary question arising out of that question asked by the hon. gentleman. With further reference to the earlier quotation I read, I should like to point out to the minister that an official of his department said the following in a letter dated February 17:
This department has no authority to sell any government property. The only organization invested with this authority is the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether many of these flags have been turned over, or have any arrangements been made in this connection?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: No, Mr. Speaker, no flags have been turned over. I can repeat the assurance given by the Minister of Public Works that when such sales are contemplated to the general public, those sales will be accompanied by adequate precautions.


John George Diefenbaker: When is it expected that this very difficult question regarding the sale or disposal of these flags will be determined?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has described this as a very difficult task. Let me say that we are addressing ourselves to it in an efficient way.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works. Will the requests of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations in Canada in respect of the distribution of these red ensigns be given full consideration?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course we will give consideration to those requests.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the widespread apprehension with regard to the recent increase in the price of steel I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider setting up a public investigation into wages, profits and prices in the steel industry, with a view to ascertaining whether the recent increases were economically justified.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be advisable at this time to set up a public inquiry into this matter. We have been making inquiries ourselves of the companies concerned, and I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly on this matter, the importance of which I appreciate. That statement will, among other things, deal with the denial of the validity of certain figures which I used the other day and which my hon. friend himself questioned. I think I will be able to prove to his satisfaction that what I said was accurate. I also believe I will be able to go beyond what I said the other day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the other steel companies have followed the example of the Steel Company of Canada and have now increased their prices, does the government propose having any investigation to see whether there is evidence of collusion and a price fixing arrangement among the steel companies concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have been looking into this aspect of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and there is no evidence which would justify the charge of collusion. But we are looking into it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor the Minister of National Defence is in the house, I would direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In just something less than ten days it will be one year since the Canadian peace keeping contingent left for Cyprus. How long does the government expect that this peace keeping operation will continue? What commitment has been made for our Canadian forces to remain there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question of the extension of the mandate of the United Nations force, as my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the other day, is now being considered. I cannot go beyond what he said then. He hopes to be able to make a statement shortly on that extension.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I will address to the Prime Minister, though I had intended to address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I know it involves a matter about which the Prime Minister is greatly concerned. Has the government made or does it intend to make any representations to the government of the United States in respect of the bombing attacks launched on Tuesday by 160 United States and South Viet Nam planes without direct provocation, and the apparent adoption of a policy of continuous bombing in Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing the dangerous situation in Viet Nam not only with the United States government but with other governments that are concerned. We are in the middle of these discussions, and we hope that whatever influence we have will be in the direction of bringing about a negotiated and peaceful settlement under proper conditions. At the moment I cannot go beyond that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The recent bombing has been described as evidencing a radical shift by the
Inquiries of the Ministry government of the United States to the policy advocated by Senator Goldwater in the last election. Does the government assess the change of policy in this way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into that question before I comment on it. As my hon. friend knows, the situation is very delicate as well as dangerous. I assure him we are using whatever influence we have in whatever way we can to bring about the kind of settlement I have talked about, and we would deplore any development which would make it more difficult.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Prime Minister if the government of Canada has drawn to the attention of the government of the United States that in their opinion these continued bombings are in direct violation of the Geneva agreement of 1954.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the United States authorities do not admit, of course, that this is a violation of the agreement. The position they take is that the bombing is either retaliatory against attacks on Viet Nam and they are acting in that respect, or that they are trying to destroy the bases from which aggression from the north into Viet Nam takes place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does Canada share that interpretation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have said before and so has the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the main aggression comes from the north.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One further supplementary question. Is it not true that the report of the truce commission of June, 1962, which the Canadian representative signed, said that not only was there provocation from North Viet Nam but also violation of the 1954 accord by South Viet Nam because of the presence of American military personnel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that to make sure. It could be given that interpretation, but I should like to point out that if some of the earlier reports of the truce commission and especially the position taken by Canada on that commission had been adopted by both governments in Viet Nam we would not be in this position today.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell the house whether the white paper respecting
-the amendment of the constitution of Canadawas submitted, before being tabled, to the provincial premiers?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: I should like to put a supplementary question. Has the white paper been approved by all provincial governments?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the provincial governments agreed that the reports of the conferences, of the attorneys general as well as of the premiers, which are part of the white paper, are true to facts.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Justice intend to table in the house, for the information of hon. members, the correspondence between the federal government and the provincial premiers in that connection?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, part of that correspondence has already been tabled and there is no objection to tabling the rest. The necessary steps will be taken to that end.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. It seems that he has made a distinction between both parts of the white paper, namely that part which deals with the texts of provincial conferences and the second part, which is the brief. Can he tell us whether all premiers approved the white paper as a whole?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the most accurate answer I can give is that the correspondence which will be tabled, read in the light of the one that has already been tabled in this house, will answer exactly the question the hon. member has just asked. [Text]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday in the Quebec legislature Premier Lesage stated that the repatriation formula for the constitution does not close the door to a special status for the province of Quebec. My question is, have these views of the premier of Quebec been conveyed to the government of Canada, and does the government recognize a special constitutional position for the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the premier of Quebec to which my hon. friend referred, which I have not read, does, I believe, deal with the establishment of a special status for the province of Quebec, which can of course be done by constitutional amendment or in some appropriate way, if it is desired. I think I should add that the machinery set up in the proposed agreement for the delegation of powers does not in itself provide for a special status.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the Minister of Justice said.


Guy Favreau: It is exactly that.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the second part of my question was simply this. Does the government of the day recognize a special constitutional status for the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec has its present constitutional status inside our federal system, and the government recognizes that.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he given any instructions with regard to the slowness to prosecute Jimmy Levesque, chief organizer for the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) in the federal election of April 1963 on a charge of possession of bogus $20 bills?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the only instructions given in this case as in others were to deal with it according to the law and the procedure recognized by the courts.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a further question.

Can the Minister of Justice explain the *delay of proceedings before the appeal court of the province of Quebec, which proceedings are intended to impose an adequate sentence with respect to the offence committed by this electoral organizer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that this question is completely out of order.


Guy Favreau: Concerning the question asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I wish to say that I just received a letter informing me that the appeal has been heard by the appeal court and at present is under consideration.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Is it not true that the court of appeal sentenced Mr. Levesque this week to six months' imprisonment, while the attorney of the Department of Justice was only asking for a two month sentence?


Guy Favreau: The case is under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: No, the
judgment has been delivered. How come the minister is late in getting the news?



LUCIEN RIVARD-REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO RECAPTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the government has determined an appropriate amount for a reward to be offered for information leading to the rearrest of Lucien Rivard?


Guy Favreau: No,
Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question of the hon. member for Royal I should like to ask a supplementary question. Considering how easily newspapermen succeeded in finding Hal Banks where the F.B.I. and the R.C.M.P. had failed miserably, could the minister not ask them to help in the search for Rivard since they seem to have very reliable sources of information?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the support of the press is always welcome.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Minister of Justice could inform us as to whether he received a message of farewell from Mr. Rivard following the liberty he has taken.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, has any consideration been given in respect of such a reward? May I have an answer to my question? Has the government given any consideration to offering a reward?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which I have had under consideration, and which involves government policy. Any decision made in this respect will be announced in due course.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house what further precautions have been taken to protect Mr. Pierre Lamontagne from any repercussions of the Rivard situation, in view of certain threats associated with the underworld?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question, but I will be pleased to ask the Minister of Justice to inquire of the R.C.M.P. as to what, if anything, can be done in addition to what is being done in this regard.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF TRUSTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nearly three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Minister of Justice to ask him if he was going to make public the report of the trustee to the superintendent in bankruptcy. I haven't had a reply from the minister, although I believe the matter has been raised in the house several times. I wonder if the minister has reached a decision on that question.


Guy Favreau: am very sorry, but I thought the hon. member would have deemed the question to have been answered when I answered the question from the member for Yukon. However, I still have some complementary information to receive, and I hope to be in a position to make a decision either tonight or tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



STEPS TO CORRECT BALANCE BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the concern of British officials over the imbalance of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom, now almost 2 to 1 in Canada's favour, can the minister tell the house what steps will be taken to correct or bring this trade into closer balance, so that Canadian manufacturers will not lose their tariff preferences in the British market?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will be aware that this is a very large and difficult question in so far as it concerns the United Kingdom. It is one that concerns a number of federal government departments, and this particular topic is currently under discussion in the government as a matter of some concern.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder whether the minister has a report concerning the question I asked some two or three weeks ago, with respect to moving or transferring citizenship courts in the Brantford-Guelph area.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under active study. When I have anything to report I will advise my hon. friend and other members of the house.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred T. Armstrong (Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister advise the house what action, if any, has been taken by the government following representations made by a delegation from Nova Scotia regarding the subsidy paid on wooden fishing vessels of 100 gross tons and over?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
[Mr. Favreau.l

knows, for some years the construction of fishing vessels of over 100 gross tons has been assisted through the ship construction assistance program administered by the Canadian maritime commission under the Department of Transport. Construction of smaller fishing vessels has been assisted through a program administered by the Department of Fisheries.
In a move to co-ordinate these two programs after April 1, assistance in the construction of wooden fishing vessels over 100 tons will be handled by the Department of Fisheries. In addition, the rate of assistance will be increased from 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the approved cost. In the case of steel trawlers over 100 gross tons the assistance will continue to be administered by the Canadian maritime commission. However, in respect of such steel trawlers the present rate of 50 per cent of approved cost now applicable to trawlers operating out of Atlantic ports will be extended to this type of fishing vessel operating out of any Canadian port. This represents an increase in the assistance from 35 per cent to 50 per cent for steel trawlers operating out of Pacific and inland ports.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. I placed a question on the order paper under date of December 18 as follows:
Is any consideration being given to raising the percentage rate of subsidy paid on trawlers constructed of wood, to bring it more in line with the subsidy payment on trawlers constructed of steel?
Would the minister enlarge further on the answer he just gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, and incorporate an answer to my question which has been on the order paper since December 18?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I felt the answer I have just given was elaborate, clear and precise and should be welcomed by the industry.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the lengthy statement just made by the minister should have been made on motions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


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

the Minister of Labour, asking him if he can indicate whether there is any likelihood of a crisis such as a strike or a withdrawal of services by the C.N.R. police in respect of the Canadian National Railways as a result of the postponement of a definite decision by the Canada labour relations board, as announced recently?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no information regarding any pending crisis of this kind, but I will be pleased to investigate the matter and inform my hon. friend as to the results.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry a question regarding the moving of the Department of Forestry laboratories from Maple and Richmond Hill to Sault Ste. Marie. At the present time the departmental laboratories are located as well in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia and I am wondering whether the policy is now being changed in respect of the province of Ontario.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Foreslry):: Mr. Speaker, this question requires a very detailed answer, and I am ready to give that answer at ten o'clock tonight if the hon. member wishes to raise his question at that time.


John Hollings Addison: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to do so.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works relating to the planned arts centre in Ottawa, which reports indicate will cost in the neighbourhood of $18 million. The Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, February 23 reported that the Secretary of State said the government has dropped all the lengthy works department routine of handling new building contracts to meet the 1967 deadline, and I should like to know whether that means that the normal procedure including the calling of tenders for the construction of this building will not be followed?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisier of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, there is the problem of a deadline with regard to this very complicated structure. The Department of Public Works and other interested people have had talks with the Canadian Construction Association to try to find a method whereby it would be possible to have some form of tendering which would not be the normal tendering practice. A decision has not yet been made as to how to go about trying to get tenders, and contractors who would be in a position to have the performing arts centre ready by the summer of 1967.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us if he asked Air Canada to suspend the application of the recommendations contained in the Dixon-Speas report, or will he encourage Air Canada to implement those recommendations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, If I understood the hon. gentleman's question correctly the answer is no, but perhaps I had better read it first and consider very carefully what I should say tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the Thompson commission seems to have gone beyond its mandate and since the province of Quebec has taken a firm stand in this regard, does the minister intend to dissolve that commission or ask that it stick to its mandate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monfmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Has the hon. lady followed up the representations made by a radio commentator in Edmonton, Alberta, concerning the use of a substance known as laetrile?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about any recommendations or radio reports.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Has he received a communication from a radio commentator of Edmonton, Alberta, about the story of individuals who use this stuff, laetrile, and whose case is in abeyance before the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this matter. I will be glad to look into it, but I would hate to introduce "vitriol" into the house.



DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING DAM CONSTRUCTION IN ALASKA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether there are any discussions going on between Canadian officials and United States officials or whether the Canadian government is giving consideration to referring to the international joint commission the proposed construction of the Rampart dam in Alaska.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any discussions that are going on currently. I am aware that certain sections of the United States administration have expressed themselves as being opposed to the construction of the Rampart dam. I think that the action taken by the United States government to date is not threatening to the position of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister answer the second part of my question concerning whether consideration is being given to referring the whole matter to the international joint commission?


Arthur Laing: That is not yet contemplated, but we are making a very thorough study of the Rampart proposal.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker,. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It arises out of the handling or mishandling of some 1,500 men laid off as the result of a fire in a gold mine up north and the storm of protest this has raised locally. I may say this has gone to the extreme of keeping 1,500 men standing for four hours in 30 below weather to register for the payment of $1. Would the minister review the situation in Timmins with a view to ensuring fair play to the miners involved and restoring the good reputation formerly enjoyed by the unemployment insurance commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make-inquiries of the unemployment insurance commission and see whether any steps can be taken to remedy the situation.



CORRECTION IN QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct a question on the orders of the day, namely question No. 2,834 which reads as follows:
With reference to the Dalton board of inquiry-
But which should read: The Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
That is the correction I wished to make.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Since the minister was in the past an eager promoter of the Richelieu river seaway and since the province of Quebec has the largest number of unemployed-39 per

cent of the unemployed in Canada-does the minister intend to recommend that the Richelieu seaway project be undertaken in the near future?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that I have always been in favour of the Richelieu river seaway and that I do not change opinion as easily as he suggests. Moreover, my hon. friend is aware that this matter is being considered by the international boundary waters commission, and it is hoped that the report will be ready next June or July.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of the concern among employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway over reports of certain transfers from the Canadian Pacific pension fund to Canadian Pacific investments? Has he had this matter looked into by any branch of his department?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am not aware of it, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. When the minister reports on that, will he tell us what progress his department is making on the legislation regarding private pension plans which he forecast in the house on December 18?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if she consulted with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz) prior to making a statement in Toronto on Friday last wherein she is reported in the Winnipeg Tribune as saying the Canadian government would not have chosen Winnipeg as the site for the Pan-Am games. I should like her to assure us now, since this decision has been made, that the
Inquiries of the Ministry government is fully behind the Pan-Am games in Winnipeg.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think my hon. friend knows that in this case the Winnipeg Tribune is completely in error. It copied part of a story, which was one of the most surprising I have ever seen, in the Toronto Telegram, in which many of the quotes ascribed to me contained things I did not even know about until I read them in the newspaper. I have told one of the Winnipeg newspapers which has given prominence to my statement, that I denied ever saying I did not want the games in Winnipeg.
Indeed, as I pointed out and as my hon. friend knows, I did send officials out there. We have been working with the people in Winnipeg for some time. I went out myself expressly for that purpose on the way back from the Churchill funeral, to discuss and assist the city of Winnipeg in the proposal which it has followed for some six years. My hon. friend knows also, as I said before in the house, that we more than doubled the offer of the previous government in a very generous arrangement. It has been our hope that Winnipeg will have the games.
I admit quite frankly that I did state in a spirit of joshing to Mayor Juba, and subsequently I am sure to anyone else who listened, that Canada was going to have the Pan-Am games even if I had to have them built in Niagara Falls. However, I expect they are going to be in Winnipeg.


John Hollings Addison: May I ask
a supplementary question. How much money has the federal government now pledged to the city of Winnipeg as its contribution to the Pan-Am games?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As was stated before, we have offered the sum of $1 million, more than twice the originally pledged $460,000. In addition, as the authorities understand, there will have to be assistance from the federal government, very likely through the Department of National Defence, with respect to housing many of the officials. We have offered the assistance of the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to get preparation for the games started as quickly as possible, and in order that Canada will be proud of the contribution which will be made by Winnipeg in holding these games.

Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



REPORT ON POLICE ACTIVITIES DURING ROYAL VISIT TO QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. For some three months now, the minister has been promising to make a decision as to whether he would table the R.C.M.P. report regarding alleged police brutality in Quebec city at the time of the royal visit. Has the minister reached a decision as to whether he is going to make that report available to members?


Guy Favreau: I was going to answer this question last week, Mr. Speaker, but it was on Wednesday and since the answer covers at least two pages I thought I should not take too much of the 30 minutes allowed members on that day. I did not, therefore, give my answer earlier.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister want to put this on Hansard.'!


Guy Favreau: Yes, I would be pleased to have it properly typed and put on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have consent to put this answer on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The text of the answer referred to above is as follows:]


Guy Favreau: The member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked whether I had now received an R.C.M.P. report regarding certain allegations of excessive brutality by the police during disturbances in Quebec city at the time of the royal visit and whether I would make its contents available to members of the house.
The hon. member for Lapointe asked whether the R.C.M.P. was in charge of all police forces that day and had urged certain measures on the Quebec city police.
I am afraid that a little misunderstanding has crept into the question of such a report by the R.C.M.P. and in order to clear it up and reply to the questions, I must refer back to October 22, 1964, when the hon. member for Lapointe asked whether I had asked for a report on the events which took place on the day in question and, more specifically, on the behaviour of members of the local police forces. I replied to the effect that I would make a statement the next day.
On the next day, October 23, 1964, I did make a fairly detailed statement based upon

facts reported to me by the R.C.M.P., and I would refer hon. members to that statement.
I said that "the prime responsibility of the R.C.M.P. was for the safety of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness and that a second responsibility was to furnish assistance to municipal and provincial police in the event that, in the maintenance of law and order, those forces required assistance. And I elaborated further the events of the day.
Then on November 13, 1964, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me again whether I had received a report from the R.C.M.P. regarding the activities of the police in general in Quebec city, on the occasion of the royal visit. I replied I had not yet received such a report, and, when it was received, a decision would be made on whether to make it public.
In the meantime I have had oral discussions with the R.C.M.P. in which they have explained to me further the part they played in connection with the royal visit, but they have not made me a further written report. I consider that the part played by the R.C.M.P. was quite fully covered in the statement which I made on October 23, 1964, on the basis of the report made to me at that time, and there is nothing I could usefully add to this statement, with the exception of the following.
In reply to the question of the hon. member for Lapointe I can say that the security measures taken by the R.C.M.P. concerned directly the personal security of Her Majesty and Prince Philip. However, the maintenance of good order and peace in the city of Quebec were the responsibility of the municipal police, with the assistance of the Quebec provincial police, and the R.C.M.P. were not in charge of those police forces in the execution of their duties and did not, of course, give them orders as to how their duties were to be performed.
The R.C.M.P. ought to be commended foi the way in which it carried on its duties on the occasion of the royal visit both in Quebec city and elsewhere in Canada, and I would wish that all parties would join in acknowledging that, on that occasion, that great Canadian force has once more conducted itself in accordance with the sacred principles of its proud tradition.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Min-

Canada Pension Plan PENSIONS
ister of Forestry because we are receiving unofficial and official reports to the effect that federal and provincial experts responsible for ARDA are concerned about the success of that program in the lower St. Lawrence region as some of the people in the area are opposed to it.
Could the minister confirm or deny opposition on the part of the population, following the statement made by Mr. Louis Savard, an economist in the eastern Quebec bureau, and an article published in L'Amenagement? According to his remarks he foresees the exodus of whole parishes where families will have to move to Riviere-du-Loup, to Montreal. The reaction is such as to cause concern over the success of ARDA in that area.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to interpret properly the article which appeared in L'Amenagement, a newspaper published by the eastern Quebec development bureau, to understand the explanations given by Mr. Savard concerning the letters received by the bureau following that conference. I have the text in my office and I shall be only too glad to send a copy to the hon. member.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Will he ask Mr. Millard, one of the maritime trustees, if it would be acceptable to him to have his minority report tabled before the industrial relations committee meets, so that the members of that committee may have an opportunity to study this report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I will be glad to communicate with Mr. Millard on this point.



FINANCE


George James McIlraith: the third reading of Bill No. C-123, to amend certain acts administered in the Department of Insurance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.



PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRIBUTORY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 2, 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. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, March 2, clause 112 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 112-Definitions.


Mr. Chatterton:: During the proceedings before the joint committee the question was asked whether a school board would qualify as an agency of the crown in the right of a province but the answer given was no. However, in the case of British Columbia the indebtedness of the school boards is guaranteed by the provincial government and this is where we get this contingent liability. That is why we are a debt free province. In a case of that nature, where school board liabilities are guaranteed by the province could the school board be considered an agency of the crown in right of the province?


Mr. Benson:: I am informed by my legal advisers that it is not an agent.


George Louis Chatterton: Even though its liabilities are guaranteed by the provincial government?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


George Louis Chatterton: I thought the evidence was that since there could be an agency set up to lend to municipalities and school boards, provided the liabilities of an agency were guaranteed, this could be done.


Edgar John Benson: This could happen if an agency
were set up which was an agent of the province, which in turn would be able to borrow money from the Canada pension fund, guaranteed by the province, and then make loans to school boards.


Michael Starr: Because this is my first venture into this area of the Canada pension plan I rise only for the purpose of asking a few questions that might clarify my thinking. Possibly these questions have been asked and, if so, the minister could refer me to the answers in Hansard. Can the minister tell me who collects for the Quebec pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Quebec.

Canada Pension Plan


Michael Starr: In other words, from people residing in Quebec the province of Quebec collects all the contributions?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Michael Starr: And I understand that if a person moves from Quebec to Ontario he is then covered by the Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: Right.


Michael Starr: What about his previous contributions that the province of Quebec has collected? Are they turned over to the Canada pension plan?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. May I suggest to the hon. member that the committee has already spent many hours on the point he is now raising. I feel the minister can answer this point but I do not think the committee should embark again on a discussion which took place on another clause.


Edgar John Benson: I simply wanted to state that this question had been answered much earlier.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Maybe the hon. member for Ontario would like to ask some of these questions now so that he will not get too far behind in his reading of the debate reports. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer him for the next 25 minutes, which are all that are left this afternoon.


Michael Starr: Just tell me the page in Hansard and I will forgo your invitation.


Mr. Monteith:: Would the Minister of National Revenue give a brief description of subclauses (6), (7) and (8) regarding how the securities are going to be handled.


Edgar John Benson: 
Jay Waldo Monteith: Are they frozen in this situation?


Edgar John Benson: Yes they are.
IMiss LaMarsh.]


Jay Waldo Monteith: In other words, a province has to take them at the end of any one month or it does not get them at all?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct. With reference to subclause (7) this allows consolidation of ragged amounts of provincial securities within any period of 12 months in order to come to an amount which is lent to a particular province.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does this mean if there is any odd amount left over at the end of any one month?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not quite follow the minister's explanation.


Edgar John Benson: What the province could do is consolidate the issues in any 12 months into a single new issue which could be purchased under this clause by the Minister of Finance.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I want to object immediately to the procedure suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare respecting the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), when she invited him to meet her after the five o'clock adjournment to answer his questions. If that is a new procedure or a practice to be established, I object immediately, because I believe that when a question is asked in committee it should be answered in committee.

Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 113-Issue and conditions of obligations.


George Louis Chatterton: This provides for conditions under which the securities of the provinces may be purchased. In the first place securities up to 20 years maturity only can be purchased, and then it states that on six months' notice these securities become redeemable. It seems almost certain that there will not be the necessity to redeem them for the next 10 years and I ask, would it not be better to allow for six months' notice after the expiration of the first 10 years?


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that the particular conditions referred to by my hon. friend were agreed to by the provinces in discussions with them at the official level. They are quite happy with this particular provision which does, after all, provide an

ultimate amount of security for the position of the Minister of Finance administering the investment policy of the pension fund.


George Louis Chatterton: I wish to make a comment on the lending of this money to the provinces. So far as nine provinces are concerned the fund may build up to $8 billion in 1985, and including Quebec the total could add up to something like $11 billion during the next 20 years. It seems to me that if the decision were made to have a partially funded plan, at least a plan building up a fund of this magnitude, then here was an excellent opportunity to use this fund to solve some of the national problems. As it is, there are no strings attached to the manner in which the provinces may use this money. They can use it in any way they wish. It is true certain provinces may have particular problems which they would like to solve. But the government has repeatedly said this is a national plan; so we had an opportunity, if it had been devised in a different way, to have built up a large fund to be used for national purposes. We could have said: We have a large sum of money available to the provinces but we recognize that such and such is a national problem. It could be the renovation of metropolitan areas, for example, or it could have been the preservation of our water resources.
I think the government has missed an opportunity of using this very large fund to solve some of our national problems, and though some of them might have concerned areas within the responsibility of the provinces, yet by the inducement of offering lower interest rates with respect to certain favoured projects a good deal might have been accomplished. It would have been necessary, of course, to have devised the plan in a different way. To sum up, I believe the government has missed an excellent opportunity to use this large fund to solve some of our national problems in Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I asked this question in the committee-I am not sure whether it arises under this clause or not-but I do not recall whether any satisfactory answer was given to me. We may face a situation which requires the retirement of funds which have been lent to the provinces. What is the method by which these provincial securities held in the investment fund may be cashed?


Edgar John Benson: The securities will ordinarily carry a maturity period. If circumstances should arise in which the Minister of Finance were to need money and the maturity date
Canada Pension Plan
had not been reached, he could take advantage of a provision that he might give six months' notice of his intention to call certain of these securities, in order to obtain funds for the Canada pension plan.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would these funds be called from the provinces on a pro rata basis?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, and in order of issue.


George Louis Chatterton: Perhaps I might make a comment at this point. After money is lent to governments, whether provincial or municipal, those governments spend it. So a situation might arise some time in the future, should the fund have been depleted rapidly, when there was need for a sudden call on the provinces to fulfil these obligations. What would happen if there were a serious recession in a particular province; the province has spent the money lent to it, and suddenly the federal government calls upon it to repay the funds. In such a case political pressure would be brought to bear on the federal government to defer the call for repayment.


Edgar John Benson: The security which the federal government has in making these loans is, of course, limited to the financial credit of the province concerned. It is usually considered a pretty good investment. When funds are advanced to a province the province concerned is fully aware that there is a maturity date and that it must be in a position to return the funds in the same way as if it had gone to the market and borrowed money. Thus, when the date arrives for the funds to be paid back to the plan-and as I mentioned, this is anticipated at the end of a 20 year period. If at that time this parliament and the provinces in their wisdom decide that the fund is to be kept at a certain level, they would also have to face the prospect of effecting an increase in contributions to the plan.


George Louis Chatterton: I might point out that there is a big difference between provinces borrowing on the open market and borrowing from the federal government. In the latter case the question of political pressure always arises on certain occasions.


Edgar John Benson: Under the Canada pension plan, no political pressure could be exercised by any individual province with regard to loans. They have an entitlement based upon a ten year moving average of contributions and that is all they are entitled to. I might point out that from figures I have seen the size of the loan available to any province even on the basis of the most optimistic view would be

Canada Pension Plan
nowhere close to the amount provinces are currently borrowing each year.


George Louis Chatterton: I agree there would be no political pressure as to the amount oi money a province could borrow. But there could be political pressure with regard to the notice for return of funds.


Edgar John Benson: I might answer that point by reminding the hon. member that they must be redeemed on a pro rata basis.


George Louis Chatterton: And only for a particular purpose. I realize that.


Mr. Sienson:: What percentage will be retained by the federal government? Is all the money to be available to the provinces if they take it up?


Edgar John Benson: I dealt with this matter earlier. The provision in the bill is that an amount estimated to be required for three months subsequent payments under the plan, plus administration costs in that period, would be retained by the federal government. The balance would be available to the provinces for loans.


Gérard Perron: The minister has not answered the exact question put by the hon. member a moment ago regarding what would happen in the event of a prolonged recession leading to a state of emergency or of incapacity within the provincial administrations, as was the case in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, when certain provinces were unable to meet their normal obligations and had to hand over certain responsibilities-in the field of unemployment for instance-to the federal government? What would happen if one of the provinces could no longer meet its obligations?


Edgar John Benson: The position is the same as though a province had borrowed from a private lending institution. The security the federal government has is no better than the credit of the province.


Mr. Lambert:: We all realize the great responsibility which is imposed on trustees in connection with any private pension plan. Funds built up under such plans are almost the most sacrosanct of investment funds. This is because the moneys belong to private individuals and have been laid aside for their future. It has been suggested in a number of circles that this is one area in which the Canada pension plan is not as strong as it might be, inasmuch as the provinces, being
[Mr. Benson.1
able to borrow this money on the strength of their credit reputation, would have no greater responsibility with regard to these funds than they would have with regard to any other type of obligation.
I know the provinces do regard their credit responsibilities seriously, but we have known it to happen that there have been defaults. There have been difficulties. One can foresee the possibility, say 15 or 20 years hence, of a province being in economic difficulty, and unable to honour its commitments and bonded obligations toward the Canada pension plan. What safeguard is there; because provincial governments are administered by men, subject to human frailties.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There are the pension
trustees.


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but we have reinforced these by certain much more stringent regulations as to the type of investments they can make, so that the fund is in a liquid position. We know that the provinces may borrow this money for expenditure in fields of their own choice. They may be self-liquidating; they may be for general purposes. Yet there is the temptation at the provincial level to perhaps enter into a form of expenditure which may be politically, publicly or popularly expedient and which would be really an unwise investment from the province's point of view, bearing in mind the source of its money, because it must be refunded.
It is not like, say, provincial revenues which are obtained on current account, and if they are spent not as wisely as they might be, well that is a mistake. But moneys do not have to be found to be refunded. Yet with regard to the pension fund moneys, they must be available at all times; any expenditures of these moneys by the provinces must be repaid to the Canada pension plan. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering what particular safeguards there are, other than the normal honesty and judgment of provincial government officials. What safeguards is the federal government going to rely on for its Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the security behind loans to provinces-I refer to federal government loans to the provinces-is of course the credit of the province and the ability of the province to repay these debts through taxation of its people. This is exactly the same security that is behind any of the securities issued by a province. My hon. friend spoke of trustees. Generally, provincial gov-

ernment securities are trustee investments; trustees of pension funds can invest in provincial government securities. The federal government, in spreading this out on the basis of contribution across the nine provinces in Canada which will be in this plan, presumably, is spreading the risk right across the whole country. I would say that from the point of view of the trustees, if one was a trustee of a pension fund this would be a good diversification of a risk in investing in government bonds. As my hon. friend pointed out, we have to rely on the liquidity and ability of the province to repay these funds through taxation, which ultimately they must do; because just as they go out and borrow in the open market now, they must consider whether or not they will be able to repay in the long run out of the amounts they can raise in taxation within the province, which of course includes the equalization of federal taxes, which is money coming into the provincial coffers as well.
I think this is pretty good security. In addition to this, under the Canada pension plan the federal government is required to get an actuarial report every five years in order to bring up to date the actuarial estimates of the department of insurance in connection with the operation of the pension plan over the next number of years. This might in itself, perhaps five years hence, provide a warning signal as to what is going to happen to the funds. I think the federal government will make full use of this in forecasting its investment policy beyond the five-year period. If one found the funds were not going to build up so fast, or the Minister of Finance really needed more than a three months pay-out in his hands, this matter could be put up to the provinces. But the security behind these investments is the credit rating of all the provinces in Canada, just the same as securities issued by the government of Canada are backed by the credit rating of the government of Canada, which ultimately depends on its ability to tax. Therefore I believe the security is really quite good, and I think it would be acceptable to any trustee in the pension plan.


Norman Platt Lambert: There are no provisions
whatsoever for sinking fund requirements.


Edgar John Benson: There could be an agreement with the provinces with regard to sinking fund requirements, but there is no requirement in the issue of securities that a sinking fund provision be put into it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, I hope you get one put into it.
Canada Pension Plan


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, from the information the minister has now, I wonder whether he can answer this question. Looking into the future, the minister said that every five years there would be an actuarial search. From what the minister knows now with regard to the moneys that will be coming into the plan, the membership in the provinces, and all the rest of it-and there will be moneys paid out to the provinces, more or less on loan-and from the actuarial search to date, does the minister envisage this as a revolving loan? In other words, when there is payment off, the provinces will already have more money up to a 20-year basis; or how does the minister look at it?


Edgar John Benson: The actuarial report, as I recall it, anticipates the building of a fund over the first 20-year period. There is no diminution of the fund over a 20-year period; it is built up to an amount of $7 billion or so over a 20-year period.


David Vaughan Pugh: But in the building up the government will be making payments to the provinces; in other words, they will have their own portion of this fund prorated out to them. On the basis of repayment, as the minister has just been explaining, does he see, under this plan, not the provinces paying everything off, but more or less taking moneys from the fund itself on a revolving basis?


Edgar John Benson: What would happen over the first 20-year period, as is estimated in the actuarial report, is that in addition to all the funds required to pay out benefits under the plan there will be an increasing amount in the total loaned to the provinces over the 20-year period. There is no requirement that funds come back to the plan, in the present actuarial estimates, for the 20-year period. There is provision in the legislation to take care of the situation where this might not prove to be the case, because then the Minister of Finance can start calling the earliest securities and the province might have to start putting money back into the fund, if the actuarial report should prove to be out by a certain amount.


David Vaughan Pugh: I take it this is only a safeguard?


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


David Vaughan Pugh: Because you would not be lending any moneys to the provinces if you thought there was going to be the necessity of withdrawing it back to the central fund?

Private Bills


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member is quite correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 114-Effect of regulation made under subsection (2) of section 3.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question or two on clause 114. I am certainly not going to hold it up for long. Could we call it five o'clock?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could deal with it in a minute or so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.


Norman Platt Lambert: The committee cannot give that permission.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the rule is with regard to this matter. Do we, sir, have to go into the house in order to get permission to sit, or do you just not see the clock for a minute?


Lucien Lamoureux: If it is just a question of a minute or two and it is the wish of the committee to sit a little longer-


Mr. MacNaughi:: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you do not see the clock for a minute.


Jay Waldo Monteith: With regard to clause 114-


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest to hon. members that we should follow the regular practice and go into the house.
It being five o'clock, we will proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-45, to incorporate Canadian institute of actuaries-Mr. Wahn.
Bill No. S-46, to incorporate Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation-Mr. Enns.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill S-44, to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada-Mr. Bechard (for Mr. Leduc)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words on Bill No. S-44.

In view of the fact that bills concerning professional organizations have already been dealt with in this house, and that some members objected to the adoption of those bills because to a certain extent they did not affect the province of Quebec, I must say that since this bill was introduced in the Senate, I have received no representations whatsoever against the passing of this bill. Furthermore, one of the provisional directors is Dr. Remi Langlois, a dentist from Quebec city, who apparently seems to endorse the creation of this new royal college of dentists of Canada.
I was a little concerned because I wondered if this college of dentists intended to license those professionals to practise dental surgery in the different provinces. After glancing through this bill, I find that such is not the case. Consequently, I believe that the jurisdiction of the provinces is not at stake and that such jurisdiction was not overstepped. I do not see why we would object to this bill, because its purpose is to recognize the qualifications of dentists who became specialists after obtaining their diploma and the right to practise in various provinces. Therefore, I do not believe that we should object to it since there already exists for the medical profession a royal college which grants special titles and qualifications to those who have pursued special studies and are particularly qualified, and since those new titles are recognized by the province of Quebec. I do not see why we should object to the granting of the same privileges to the college of dentists.
However, I wish to point out that the college of physicians in the province of Quebec, has set some specialization standards of its own and it grants certificates to its members who have attended the necessary classes and who have been in practice for the required number of years. In the province of Quebec, therefore, there are specialists certified by the college of doctors as well as the Royal College of Canada.
That is all I wanted to say. I fail to see why this profession related to the medical profession should be deprived of the right to form an association since this does not prevent in any way the other provinces to set their own qualifications.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, could this clause be held in abeyance for a moment or two until copies of this bill have been made

available to us? I have a copy in my office but apparently copies have not been placed on our desks.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Miss Jewett for the second reading of Bill No. S-36, to incorporate association of universities and colleges of Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (for Mr. Wahn) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-42, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company was originally incorporated by the parliament of Canada in the year 1949. The purpose of this bill is to subdivide each of the 40 million authorized shares of the par value of $5 each of the capital stock of the company into five shares of the par value of $1 each. This is a public company and this stock split is sought to encourage purchase of the company stock by small Canadian investors and also to enable the company's employees to become shareholders more easily.
Although par value of a common share is at present $5, the current market value is somewhere around $93.50. This high price for one share greatly discourages purchases of shares by small investors. The company finds that on the market its shares are for the most part bought and sold by investment funds and syndicates which buy and sell in large blocks. This causes somewhat inordinate fluctuations in the company's stock from day to day on the market. There may be changes of $3, $4 or $5 a day as a result of these big purchases and sales.
There are at present between 12,000 and 13,000 shareholders in the company and from the share register of the company it would appear that currently about 88 per cent of the outstanding stock is held by Canadians and
Private Bills
Canadian corporations. You will appreciate that the stock split that the company seeks will have the effect of greatly increasing the number of shareholders, particularly among small Canadian investors. The individual at the present time, for about $1,000, would only be able to acquire 10 shares whereas after the proposed stock split he would be able to acquire approximately 50 shares for $1,000. Those who have had any dealings in the stock market will realize that it is often easier to get a sale for 50 shares than it is for 10 shares without having to take a discount.
I have no personal interest in this company whatsoever. In fact, I am acting on behalf of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) in this matter this afternoon and he has assured me he also has no personal interest in the company whatsoever. This company has been very successful and has been phenomenally successful in reducing by 42 per cent the cost of moving oil by pipe line. It does not buy or sell oil at all. It simply provides a service through western Canada, the northern states of the United States, around the south end of lake Huron and into Ontario at Sarnia for the movement of oil and allied products from our western fields.
During the company's existence its tariffs have come down steadily. It always was much cheaper to move oil by pipe line than by rail, but this company has demonstrated that it can move oil far more economically than was originally anticipated. The company is at present subject to regulation by the national energy board. It must ship for owners at published tariff rates which are filed with the board, and the board makes a constant study of the company's rates. The directors and officials of the corporation are all Canadian citizens.
I would ask that this bill be given second reading and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as is customary with pipe line bills, which are considered quite analogous to railway bills.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the hon. member one question. How many of the shares have been issued out of the treasury?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: About one eighth of the shares. About $25 million worth of stock has been issued and about $175 million is unissued. There are 40 million shares at a par value of $5 and if you divide the par value figure

Private Bills
into $25 million that will give the number of shares.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to ask a question. Am I to understand that the par value of the stock at this date is $5 a share?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: The par value, yes; but the market value is approximately $93.50, just under 19 times the par value.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not wish to accuse the member who is proposing second reading of the bill of having cribbed the speech he has just made, but I must say that the speech I listened to, in which he outlined the reasons for the proposal to split the shares of this company, almost completely resembled a speech I heard on another occasion in this house. The speech of which I was reminded was made before the hon. member was a member of the house, I believe, and had to do with a bill to split the shares of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company with which this house was asked to deal a number of years ago.
I do not know that I am prepared to oppose second reading of the bill and having it referred to the standing committee, but I must say that the arguments and reasons he advanced for the proposal to split these shares, and his great solicitude that small investors should have an opportunity to acquire stock in the company do not sound any more convincing to me than the similar arguments I heard advanced in respect of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company years ago. I think most members realize that in relatively recent years there has been a great development in the construction of pipe lines for the purpose of the transmission of oil and gas from various places to various places throughout the country. This development has probably been a very valuable and worth while one so far as our economy is concerned. I am just saying, however, that there are some members in this house who are and have been a bit concerned about the arrangements under which these pipe line companies have been enabled to operate in a way that has made this business one that is lucrative almost without parallel in the economic development of our country.
We are concerned that this has resulted in a higher price for gas, oil and other petroleum products to the consumers of Canada. I think this question is tied in with the fact that shares which were issued at a par value of $5 are now, according to the explanatory note, quoted at approximately $85 or $85.50

each. Apparently in the interval since the bill was introduced in the Senate, the shares have risen to something over $90, if I heard the member correctly. I must say that this argument, that the splitting of shares will make shares more easily available to small investors, has not been very well borne out by the facts, so far as I know, in cases where the shares have been split. I think that in many cases over the years it has been proven that the real motivation behind this desire to split shares is to enable some of these companies to conceal successfully the rate of profit they are making upon the investment and upon the operation of their undertaking.
Some of us might be a little happier if some of those concerned who come forward with bills and advance this innocuous proposal in respect of their desire to split shares, would be quite blunt and frank about telling us why they want to split the shares. These are some of the questions that flashed through my mind immediately on hearing the hon. member who introduced this bill. He made a speech which, as I suggested, was virtually identical to the speech which was made from that side of the house by the hon. member who introduced the bill concerning the share splitting proposal of Trans Mountain Pipe Line a number of years ago. Certainly I, for one, hope that this bill goes before a committee where it will receive careful attention and examination from the point of view of determining why this proposal to split the shares is placed before this house. I hope the representatives of this concern, who I presume will be asked to appear before the committee, will be prepared to give some detailed information and be ready to offer explanations in considerable detail and depth about the operations of this company.
I may add, Mr. Speaker, that I hope they may be able to present somewhat more convincing and substantial arguments than the representatives of Trans Mountain Pipe Line were able to do when they appeared in a somewhat similar role a number of years ago.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We in this party realize what is being asked for in this bill is not something unique. It has been done before in this parliament in respect of companies that required a federal charter, and it has been done quite often for companies who are operating under provincial charter as well. We are not certain that there is a need to split the stock of this company. However, it seems to me that it is not our responsibility

to oppose this request, if it happens to be the wish of the majority of the shareholders in a corporation as expressed through the board of directors.
One point I do want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I would not like the hon. member who has made a speech outlining some of the reasons for requesting this split to think we are so naive that we would accept some of the arguments he has advanced on behalf of small investors. He said that the market value of the shares is now $93.50. Someone who had $935 to invest at the present time could only buy ten shares. If this bill passes, the company will be granted permission to make a five to one split, and then the small investor in Canada would be able to buy 50 shares for $935.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member who made that suggestion to show us one case in which a company has made a stock split when that has been the case. The minute a company gives an indication that a stock split is imminent, there is a rush in the market which forces up the price of such shares. What is more, following the split, there is never, so far as I know, a re-evaluation of the shares on the market that reflects the proportion of the stock split. So, Mr. Speaker, I would not like the hon. member to think we are so naive that we accept this kind of argument.
The second point is this: I should like to know, some time before this bill gets through all its stages, how much of the authorized 40 million shares have been issued? The hon. member said that it would be about 25 million.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: If the hon. member will permit me, I can give him the figures. I have them here.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure it would be proper for the sponsor to intercede in this debate again. I would not mind, but I believe there are some other members who want to speak as well.
In any event, I should like to know how many of these shares have been issued. I should like to know also if they were all sold for $5 per share, that is if all those that have been issued out of the treasury have been sold for $5. If they have not, then the mathematics that have been put before us have no basis. They do not stand up. We do know that Imperial Oil Company of Canada is the major shareholder. I should like to know how many shares they hold. I have no objection to a Canadian company, even though it is a sub-20220-758
Private Bills
sidiary of another company, getting into the shares of a company that is actually in a position to benefit Canada. I should like to know, because there is no doubt in my mind that if this split becomes a fact, all the existing shareholders are going to realize a tremendous increment in the value of the shares they now hold. This may not be something to be resisted completely but, for example, if one shareholder holds something like 30 per cent of the shares then I am fairly sure a real bonanza will be realized on the market from this split.
If the company requires further financing and wishes to secure it on the basis of issuing more shares out of the treasury it has certainly sufficient room within the existing provisions of the charter to do so, and might perhaps sell them for something like $90. I do not accept the argument that this will be particularly good for the small investors. It will be good for investors of all magnitude. We do not oppose the bill being sent to committee but these are some of the questions which we shall be asking.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house long but, like my colleague from Comox-Alberni, I was struck by the similarity of this measure to the one we dealt with some years ago. Until the speech of the hon. member who has just finished, I was not aware that this particular company is in precisely the same position with the Imperial Oil Company as was the other one.
On that previous occasion I tried to seek information from officers of the company, and I may say they advanced the same arguments which the hon. member advanced. I tried to get answers to two questions that had to be answered before one could judge the desirability of the move. My first question was whether the company was proposing to release shares now held in the company treasury to employees who wished to buy shares in the company that employs them? My second question was, failing that were the directors prepared to put some of their own shares on the market, or did they know of any shareholders who were prepared to do that?
In both cases the answer I got was no, which to me seemed conclusive evidence that the expressed purpose of the bill at that time was not the real reason for it, because it was perfectly obvious that unless they were prepared to release shares held in the treasury, or unless the directors were prepared to sell

Private Bills
some of their holdings, there were not going to be any of these split shares available for purchase by the small investor. I would like to be assured of that before this bill passes third reading.
I am interested in this bill because there is special mention made of an employees' savings fund, and that they are to have an option of investing their planned savings in the stock of the company at current market prices. What I want to know is, are the directors of this company making sure there will be shares available to be purchased by the employees when the shares are split five to one as proposed by the bill?
I hope the sponsor of the bill will instruct the witnesses who are to appear before the committee on the necessity of answering these questions fully and completely if they want to satisfy the members of the house that this is a desirable piece of legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (for Mr. Weichel) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-48, respecting the Economical Mutual Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee rose on February 18, following discussion of clause 1 of the bill, an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Timiskaming and an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe were being considered. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is the committee ready for the question? All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please rise.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, during the last discussion on the subamendment moved by

the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), it seemed to me that he agreed-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gérard Laprise: -to withdraw his subamendment. I do not know whether he has done so publicly, but it seemed to me that he had withdrawn it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair has no motion or request for the withdrawal of this subamendment and has put the question. All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please rise.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 10; nays, 21.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 25.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brown moved: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Watson MacNaught: I understand there is no desire to go on with public bills and perhaps we could resume government business. Would the house agree to take the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all items under public bills be allowed to stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I ask whether the various house leaders were advised that this would happen?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think anyone foresaw the situation. Perhaps I could say a word of explanation and see what the house feels about it. This bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act went through the committee. We heard all the witnesses who wanted to

be heard and the bill was accepted. There is one amendment which deals with the mandatory provision affecting the flying of the red ensign; we do not think it should be mandatory any longer. If the house were agreeable to going into committee and finishing the committee stage I would not ask for third reading; I would leave it so that if there is any member who feels he wishes to say something on this subject he can do so on third reading.


Norman Platt Lambert: I appreciate what the minister has in mind, but with the greatest respect I was wondering whether third reading of Bill C-123 might be called. There is great urgency about that bill.


John Watson MacNaught: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought it was done earlier today. That is why, I understand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been brought to the attention of the Chair that there is a technical difficulty inasmuch as the house was already in committee of the whole and had not reported progress. So could we return to the committee of the whole, report progress and then go back again to the committee of the whole on the bill referred to by the Minister of Transport?
We shall now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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 La-Marsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Progress reported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-7, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would you tell us, Mr. Chairman, what the number of the bill is, again?
20220-758J
Canada Shipping Act


Lucien Lamoureux: Bill No. S-7 to amend the Canada Shipping Act. It is order No. 56 on the order paper.
Clauses 1 to 37 inclusive agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: It should be pointed out that all these clauses are renumbered by the amendments already adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe, now, there was an agreement among the house leaders that there would be no objection to going ahead with third reading. I did not know that earlier. Could we proceed with third reading now, by leave?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if there would be any disposition to make a little progress, in the few minutes that are left, with the C.N.R. financing guarantee, because this is a really urgent matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-137, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1964, to the 30th day of June, 1965, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could take No. 94 on the order paper. This is the second reading of a bill regarding a convention between Canada and Japan, and Canada and Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. I think it is the usual kind of bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Canada Pension Plan INCOME TAX



IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENTS TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION

John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-146, to implement a convention between Canada and Japan for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and to amend the existing agreement and conventions between Canada and Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, with respect to income tax.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the house for their co-operation in this matter.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. Lamoureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 115 carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I believe
when we rose at six o'clock we were considering clause 114.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry. I was under the impression that clause 114 had been passed. Shall clause 114 carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a number of questions I should like to ask in respect of this clause, Mr. Chairman.
This clause deals with the opting out provisions of provinces subsequent to the adoption of this bill. As I understand the situation, if a province does decide at some future stage to opt out of this plan the securities which the investment fund holds on behalf of that province at that time will be delivered to the province along with any balance which is due to that province, probably in the form

of Dominion of Canada securities, is that correct?


Edgar John Benson: Any balance will be returned in that form, or in cash.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Any balance or securities held by the investment fund will be returned to the province, and I assume that the winding up of the financial aspect will be done on an actuarial basis so that everything owed to an opting out province will be paid to that province; is that an accurate statement?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct, but the province opting out will in turn take over any liabilities incurred under the plan so as to protect the residents of that province.


Jay Waldo Monteith: An opting out province following its cessation of participation will have no opportunity of again participating in this plan, is that correct?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct. An amendment will be required to cover the operating conditions involved as a result of a province coming back under this act. Parliament would have to amend this act in order to take care of the situation which would develop at such a time as an opted out province requested permission to come back into participation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: An amendment would be required in order to make it possible for an opted out province to again take part in this plan, is that right? I am looking into the future, Mr. Chairman, and should like to have some information in this regard. In the event that three years from now a province decided to develop its own plan and opted out of this legislation, operated its own plan for a period of ten years and then found that the circumstances were such that reparticipation in this plan was advantageous, an amendment would have to be made to the proposed act in order to allow that province to do so, is that accurate?


Edgar John Benson: That is right. Assets and liabilities at the time of the re-entry would have to be assessed, and some agreement would have to be reached at the time of such re-entry, because it would be very difficult to include a section in this legislation which would cover all the conditions and circumstances which might prevail both at the time a province opted out of this plan and when it applied for re-entry. Certainly the conditions would not be the same when a province decided to move out of this plan as they would be at a time of re-entry.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I appreciate that situation, but I am trying to find out whether it is accurate to suggest that once a province opts out of this plan an amendment would be required in order to permit that province, or any province which opted out, to again participate in this plan. I understand there is no provision in the plan as it is now drafted which would permit a province to opt out and then, at some future time, participate again?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Fred Frise Stenson: Mr. Chairman, the member for Perth has just suggested that a province could opt out of the Canada pension plan and adopt a similar plan of its own, though a plan which did not coincide in every respect with the Canada pension plan, is that correct?


Edgar John Benson: Yes. It is the right of provincial governments, under the British North America Act, to follow that procedure. It is my belief that any province which decides at this time to create its own pension plan would create a plan which would be very much in line with the plan now proposed and which we are now considering.
Perhaps I should explain why we cannot make provisions within this act to cover the situation in which a province opts out and then applies for re-entry. No one can forecast with any accuracy what the circumstances will be at the time an application is made by an opted out province for re-entry. In any event, the parliament of Canada at such a time would have to decide, after consultation with the provincial authorities, the conditions under which the provinces could again participate in this plan.


Fred Frise Stenson: Do I understand correctly then that this is not a universal plan which is binding upon the various provinces, and that following the adoption of this plan there might well be varying pension benefits in different provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if a province decided to move out of the Canada pension plan, a series of agreements between the federal and provincial governments would be required in order that the plans could be integrated, putting the benefits on a comparable basis. The plans would have to be designed along similar lines.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister's explanations perfectly, but
Canada Pension Plan
what I want to know is this: If at any time a province should decide-as Quebec has done now-not to take part in the federal pension plan and if, after the plan is approved in Ottawa, one or more provinces should decide to withdraw from the plan, what will the federal authorities have to say then concerning the administration of the provincial plans, even if the minister tells us that the provinces will submit to the legal requirements of the federal government?
I do not believe that, in those circumstances, the province of Quebec, for instance, would willingly submit to the requirements of the federal government, because that province has explained quite clearly that it will have its own plan, and other provinces are already saying the same thing.
Then, why are we discussing clause 114 to the effect that, in the event a province should withdraw from the pension plan, the federal government will respect its wish, but will require the province to submit to the general requirements of the federal pension plan?
I do not think that at this time the federal government has the power necessary to tell any province to comply with the requirements of the federal government. Of what use would the pension plan be then? That is what I would like the minister to explain now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, section 114, as my colleague has explained, gives the particulars of what will happen if a province which is in the Canada pension plan subsequently decides to go out. These are the financial arrangements which will have to be made. However, section 3 which was passed last week contains the provisions under which any province may decide not to become a part of the Canada pension plan, as Quebec alone has indicated at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, can the
minister assure us that the province of Quebec is the only one that had any objection or made representations to the federal government in order to set up a provincial pension plan of its own? Have other provinces made similar representations to the minister in order to secure the fullest degree of autonomy in the administration of a national pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under section 3 any province of Canada has the right to wait until 30 days after this act is declared to be operative

Canada Pension Plan
to indicate its intention to operate its own plan, but to this date no province other than Quebec has so declared its intention.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, this brings up a question which has puzzled me for some time. I have read with some care the transcript of the proceedings of the committee. Unfortunately I was not one of those privileged to serve on the committee during the recess but I did take the time to read the reports. What concerns me is this. Obviously section 114 applies in a situation where a province has, under section 3, introduced a plan which is to all intents and purposes comparable with the national pension plan.
I think we must envisage a situation where some province may at some time wish to introduce a different plan. As you know, sometimes political parties seeking power think it is advantageous for them to make suggestions as to introducing pension plans of one kind or another. This sometimes yields political benefits. We may find an opposition party saying in the course of a provincial election campaign that they have a far better plan providing for smaller contributions by employers or employees and possibly, with careful management and manipulation, also providing for larger benefits. They may undertake to put such a plan into effect in two years and they may be elected.
Assuming they implement their election promise and introduce a plan which is not comparable and which, instead of a 1.8 contribution, provides for a smaller contribution and larger benefits, if that might be mathematically possible at some time in the future, then would this not be a situation where the plan of the province would not be comparable to the national pension plan? Under those conditions section 94A of the British North America Act comes into force and, as the minister understands, it provides that no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law, present or future, of a provincial legislature.
It is my submission that if a plan such as I have mentioned, not comparable to the national plan, was enacted by a provincial legislature, that plan is bound to be affected by the federal plan because it will provide for contributions and benefits on a different scale and therefore, within the meaning of section 94A, it must affect the provincial plan. The national plan affects the provincial plan. What then is the situation?

I know that the minister may well say that this is hypothetical, that the plan we now have before us is such a good plan that no province is likely to attempt to alter or vary it. But we cannot take action today on that basis. This is a very distinct possibility in the course of time and perhaps in the not too distant future. What then will be the situation vis-a-vis securities? What will be the situation with regard to employers, employees and recipients? What will be their rights in the case of a province which takes such action?
This is a matter which has puzzled me. I read with some care the very useful evidence given by the person who drafted the bill. He attempted to deal with this point. I think he suggested you would first have to have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide if the two schemes were comparable. I am suggesting that the schemes could not be comparable, that if there was a difference in contributions or a difference in benefits the federal plan would cease to affect the people of that province. This is a situation which might well come about, having regard to the state of this country. What would be the situation with regard to the recipients, the contributors and the funds?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting possibility raised by my friend, but I think it is a pretty remote one. I ask the committee to consider what the situation would be, for instance, 10 years from now. The people of Canada will have a considerable investment in their own pension plan. The plan will be in operation and will be a well accepted and well liked part of the social fabric of the country. It may well be that my hon. friend knows something about the similar plan in the United States and how thoroughly it is woven into the fabric of that nation.
It is true there is no way in which the federal government could prohibit any provincial government from introducing a totally dissimilar plan and perhaps might not be able to persuade it not to do so. However, my friend is a well experienced and skilful lawyer who has looked at the phraseology of the amendment to the British North America Act and may know that there is some conflict of opinion as to which of the jurisdictions has priority. May I suggest to him that if there is a scheme in operation 10 or 20 years from now which has a contribution rate of 3.6 per cent and another jurisdiction decides to impose a new and dissimilar scheme, despite the confusion that will be engendered,

this to be added on top, it might not be very well received by the individuals of that province. All other things apart, it might be a considerable political problem for the province concerned. It might very well be that there would have to be litigation; I do not know. In any event, there would certainly be consultation and there would be great difficulty in bringing in a very dissimilar plan when this plan has been in operation for some years.
It was for this reason, I think, that all provinces took such a tremendous interest in this legislation and so many dominion-provincial meetings were held with such deep and detailed discussion. While what the hon. member has suggested remains a possibility- considering the nature of the legislation and the nature of politics and indeed the fact that people have a comfortable feeling when they know what their future holds so far as social legislation is concerned-considering all these factors I suggest it is highly unlikely that anything will be done and it is not something for which this committee can make adequate preparation now.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think the minister has given the best answer she can. I do not think anything else can be said. However, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not bring this matter to the attention of the house and indicate that this probability does exist. I emphasize that last June the same thought occurred to me so I asked the Prime Minister a question on orders of the day. I asked him if he did not think it would be far more satisfactory to have attempted to secure, in view of this co-operation that existed between the provinces and the federal government, a consequential amendment to section 94A which would have settled this matter beyond any doubt and placed in the hands of the federal government the primary responsibility which I think is probably necessary to effectively discharge the duty of any government which attempts to implement a national pension plan.
Now, let me just make one more statement here. There was one problem I mentioned which I believe the minister failed to understand as I heard her answer. If a province introduced a plan that was not comparable, the political consequences to any government of that province may be disastrous because the people would be faced with the cumulative effect of the two plans. If you carefully read, and take a logical interpretation of section 94A, that is not the case, especially when you read these words:
Canada Pension Plan
-but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
The only meaning you can derive from that is that once a province does legislate a plan which is not comparable, automatically the federal legislation has no effect in that province. The primary responsibility then falls upon the province. This would be the effect of section 94A in a situation of that kind. The federal legislation would not apply at all because it would then be a case where the federal legislation was affecting the operation of a provincial scheme, and therefore the provincial scheme only would be in effect, not the federal scheme. Under those conditions, what happens to the pensions of the Canadian contributors, what happens to the funds?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The constitutional argument is a perfectly respectable one as put forward by my friend. He made the suggestion that perhaps this matter might have been clarified in order to give jurisdiction to one authority. I must say that this idea occurred to a lot of people at the time, but the 11 governments were not unanimous on this question. The interpretation that he has placed upon the section is very well recognized and one made by very many constitutional lawyers.
However, there are opposite opinions quite violently disagreeing with this interpretation. There are constitutional lawyers who are of the opinion that the federal government, once in the field, has, in effect, occupied it. It is not my role, at this juncture in my life, to choose between those opinions. This second opinion was given by no less an august personage than Mr. Bora Laskin, of the University of Toronto, who was my professor of constitutional law. He holds very strongly to the view that, if federal legislation were there, it would take priority over provincial legislation.
Be that as it may, I hope, and fully expect, we will never find out which particular view is correct. One thing would have to be borne in mind should such a tragedy come to pass, and that is that those individuals of Canada who were a part of the plan, who had made their contributions, and indeed probably made other private financial arrangements to fit in with the anticipated benefits for their retirement years, would have to be guaranteed by the federal government, preferably in cooperation with the province or even without that co-operation, that the benefits which they had already accumulated would not be lost.

Canada Pension Plan
This is a pension plan which, it can be appreciated, becomes a pledge of the country to the people that their accumulation of pension contributions will never be lost. I would not want to think any member of the public might be alarmed into believing that at some future time all this might come to pass and their money would have gone for nothing. As I said to my hon. friend, it is a valid objection, it is a valid argument. However, I feel that in view of all the considerations, it is highly unlikely, and not a matter for anyone to feel disquieted about.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain, with all the eloquence she can muster, that one or more provinces can join the plan and other provinces can opt out. According to her every province in Canada, except Quebec, naturally, are satisfied with the federal government's pension plan.
I have just returned from a trip to western Canada where I had the opportunity of meeting people in Winnipeg, Edmonton and in every western province, and these people are doing their utmost to deride the government's pension plan.
The authorities in British Columbia, where the old age pension is the same as in Quebec and the other provinces, decided to add $30 to the pension of $75 a month. As a matter of fact, such action was proposed to the British Columbia legislature in Victoria. Old people will therefore get a pension of $105 a month, without a means test at 70 and with a means test at 65.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder on what ground the Minister of National Health and Welfare stands when she says that the provinces as a whole are pleased with the pension plan. In fact, in one province legislation is enacted, in another province another piece of legislation is enacted, and here we have a bill so thick that even the most thick-headed will be unable to understand the first word of it. Why should we keep on discussing, when the provinces can manage their own business alone without any interference whatsoever from the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
If British Columbia can enact legislation without the help of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if Quebec can opt out of the Canada pension plan and if the premier of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin, has indicated that he would rather not join the Canada pension
[Miss LaMarsh.l
plan, why should we keep up our consideration and discussion about a pension plan that the provinces do not seem prepared to join? That is what I would like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to explain clearly at this time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it is most unfortunate that after the house unanimously passed a resolution that it was in favour of the principle, we now find we have a member who is not in favour of it. If indeed the province of British Columbia is about to enact legislation to give $30 more to old age pensioners I would say "Hurrah" and I would tell every one of my old age pension constituents who write to me saying they would like more, where they can find their bonanza. But seriously, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disturbed by inaccuracies in my hon. friend's peroration. It is not true that any other province has indicated its intention to set up its own comparable pension plan. Only one province has so indicated, and indeed Quebec passed a unanimous resolution in its legislature as long ago as August, 1963. No other province has so indicated despite a number of conferences and a great deal of correspondence.


Raymond Langlois: May I correct the minister. I was listening to the hon. member speaking in French and also listening to the translation. I think there was an error in translation. The reference was to the possibility of Manitoba wishing to do so.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then I apologize for misinterpretation.


George Louis Chatterton: The problem raised by the hon. member for Peace River indicates the real difficulty we might find ourselves in by virtue of the fact that in the last election the Liberal party promised it would establish a national pension plan, when in fact it knew it had no constitutional right to do so. The only way it can do so is by pretending that there is a national plan, and it must be pointed out that a province has the constitutional right to opt out of it.
The minister implied that there was a general consensus among the provinces that this is a good plan. I suggest she refresh her memory by reading the Ontario brief. It indicates very clearly that Ontario is most dissatisfied with the provisions of the proposed Canada pension plan. Certainly the premier of Ontario indicated in his speech to the provincial legislature on January 21 that

in order to try to promote national unity Ontario would join the Canada pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member
permit a question. I wonder if he watched national television two weeks ago and saw the chairman of the Ontario pension committee and the premier of Ontario speak in glowing terms about the Canada pension plan, and indeed taking credit for the important part they have played in its development?


George Louis Chatterton: No, I did not see that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring to the attention of the minister and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that they appear to be discussing the principle of the bill, which was adopted some weeks ago. I invite the hon. member to direct his comments to clause 114.


George Louis Chatterton: I submit that the comments I have been making are relevant to clause 114. I could delay them until we discuss clause 115, but in reply to the Minister of National Revenue may I say he seems like a very happy child having listened to television.


Edgar John Benson: I was listening to the premier of Ontario.


George Louis Chatterton: I refer to the written brief submitted by the government of Ontario which to my knowledge, unless you can tell me otherwise, has not been refuted by the government of Ontario. The Minister of National Health and Welfare seems to say that this is Utopia we have arrived at, and that we are going to have a national plan. I am saying the government is trying to fool the people of Canada by claiming that this is a national pension plan, though there is no assurance that it will be.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member seems to be entirely disregarding the admonition of the Chair. I asked him to co-operate with the Chair by relating his remarks to the clause being considered.


George Louis Chatterton: I was merely following on the general approach of the minister.


Raymond Langlois: How will the funds collected by the federal government for the national scheme be returned to the provinces? Will they be returned at all, or will they be returned, less the interest and expenses of collection?


Edgar John Benson: I think I dealt with that question about 15 or 20 minutes ago and indicated that under this clause the funds are returned
Canada Pension Plan
to the provinces. The investments which they have in the Canada pension plan are returned to them and they are required to assume the obligations specified by clause 114.


Raymond Langlois: Will this be returned to the provinces without any obligations on them so that they will not have to follow a plan similar to this one?


Edgar John Benson: Once a province decides, 30 days following royal assent to this bill, to enter this plan the only way it can get out is by setting up a comparable plan, and if it sets up a plan which, in the opinion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is comparable, then it can move out. At that point it would get the investments which it has in the Canada pension plan.


Raymond Langlois: That means the provinces have to choose a plan that will be approved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What if a provincial plan is better than the one we have got? There can be more than two ideas in one head, in fact more than two ideas in many heads. The provincial plan might be more advantageous to some people who have contributed to the Canada pension plan, but if the provincial plan is not similar to this one the province will not be allowed to operate it. I do not see why the minister should regulate on that. I believe it should be left entirely to the decision of the province.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I or anyone holding my position would not make that decision on his or her own. It would be a matter for the government of the day; but as I explained to the hon. member for Peace River ten or 15 minutes ago one could not have people paying contributions unless they were assured that for all time it was safe to make those contributions and that they would get due returns. That is why a province must at least give comparable benefits and must assume the obligations of individual contributors to ensure that they do not lose on their plan.


Raymond Langlois: According to the minister, if she gives consent and agrees that a comparable plan has been offered and that the people in the province will not lose by it, then any province which desires to do so can apply its own plan. Is that the general sense of what the minister is saying? Or does the plan have to be strictly similar to her own?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It has to be a comparable plan.

Canada Pension Plan


Fred Frise Stenson: How soon can a province opt out of the Canada pension plan? How early can a province set up its own plan?


Edgar John Benson: A province has to decide initially within 30 days of royal assent being given to this bill if it wishes to withdraw. Thereafter it must give at least two years' notice.


Fred Frise Stenson: A province can withdraw, then, within 30 days.


Edgar John Benson: Within the first 30 days. But if a province does not take this course and enters the plan it must give two years' notice of withdrawal.


Fred Frise Stenson: If it withdraws within 30 days and has not got a similar plan-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Canada pension plan will be enforced in that province unless within 30 days of royal assent being given to this bill the province indicates it will set up its own comparable legislation.


Fred Frise Stenson: If they agree to set up a plan similar to this one, could they, say, within a year's time, set up another plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman. Under the provisions of this bill, once in the federal plan they would not be able to do so until two years had elapsed. This is provided in clause 3 which was passed last week.


George Louis Chatterton: I understood the question to be this: Can a province at any time after giving notice, set up a different plan. I understood the minister to say it could not. Could the minister check that reply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In order to dislodge the Canada pension plan it would have to act in accordance with the provisions of clause 3, in other words it would have to give two years' notice and produce a comparable plan and undertake the obligations which go with the assumption of responsibility for pension benefits.


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, but I think the minister omitted to say-and this was placed before us in evidence-that provincial governments which opt out can in fact change their own plans in any way they see fit in accordance with their constitutional rights.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Once they are out.


David Vaughan Pugh: Suppose a province decides to make a change and gives two years' notice. Would the Canada pension plan be in full

effect until the change-over in the province came into force?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, it would. It should be appreciated that if a province were to opt out there would be, under the provisions of this bill, a great many agreements to be made between the province and the federal government. These would have to cover such things as the pensions of civil servants within the province, and so on. These might continue well beyond the period mentioned, depending upon the agreements negotiated.


David Vaughan Pugh: In any event they would receive all the moneys accruing under the previous Canada plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And the obligations as well.


Mr. Stefanson:: These agreements would not require a province opting out to maintain a similar scheme. They would be effective only if the province opting out maintained a comparable plan. The province of Quebec, for example, has indicated that it might change the plan considerably in the interests of the people of Quebec. In this case these agreements would merely apply if the plan adopted by the opting out province remained the same as the Canada pension plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Once a province opts out and decides to go on its own course the agreements would terminate, no doubt. It is obvious the federal government cannot tell a province how to legislate. Once they go out, if they go out on the basis of having a comparable plan, taking with them the benefits and obligations, there is no way at all, either under this plan or under the plan which the former government proposed in the throne speech early in 1963, of preventing them. It is completely within the jurisdiction of a province to decide what to do under its own legislation.


Eric Stefanson: At last the minister is being frank. If the government had been frank all along instead of trying to make the people believe that this is in all circumstances a national pension plan, we would have been better served. That is not necessarily the case.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Wait and see.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the minister or her colleague what their interpretation of "similar" or "comparable" may be. Perhaps I may put a specific question. If a province were to set up a plan with almost the same level of contributions and almost the same

ratio of contributions to benefits, though those contributions were not necessarily tied to the so-called earnings related formula as closely as is the federal plan, would this be considered to be a similar or a comparable plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is difficult to say. We
would have to look at it on its merits. Surely the principle in deciding whether or not something is comparable is: Are the benefits as good, or better, the nature of this plan being a guarantee to an individual contributor that he will get back the money paid into the plan. If the contribution rate were somewhat lower, if it were a pay as you go plan without reserves of any kind, but the benefits were about the same, it might well be comparable. This would have to be considered when the legislation was drafted. As must be readily apparent, such schemes are not drafted overnight and I have no doubt that if another plan were being arranged provincially we should be consulted many times by the officials of that province. Having had a couple of years experience in these matters, now, I might also say there are not really an endless number of factors which can be taken and mixed up so as to produce a different end result. These things are interrelated. Once one factor is moved, others have to be moved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The minister has told us that a plan, to be comparable, must provide benefits similar to those provided under the Canada pension plan. The formula used in this bill represents the calculation of benefits on the basis of earnings, not on the basis of contributions. I can understand the minister saying that benefits have to be comparable. But related to what? Do they have to be related to earnings or can they be related to contributions, as is the case in most of the private pension plans now in existence?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think this would have to depend on the term "related" and just how related it is. I very much doubt that any federal government of the day would find legislation to be comparable if it was going to deprive individuals in a province of any benefits toward which they had made contributions over the years.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I had a question that related to the point raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as to what the minister had in mind when she said it had to be comparable to the federal plan or this national scheme. The question I had in mind was, would it have to be similar in benefits, and the minister answered that. Would it 20220-759i
Canada Pension Plan
have to be similar in structure? I am referring, of course, to the plan in its entire form. I imagine that with some other plans you would not have to proceed in the same manner at all. I am just wondering whether the benefits would be approximately the same, or better, and the amount paid by the individual approximately the same. But if the plan in its entire form was completely different, would this conflict with the ideas which the minister expressed a few minutes ago with regard to this national plan? If the structure was entirely different, what would be the effect?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it would depend on the minister of the day and his or her definition of it. I must refer my hon. friend to the debate which took place back on clause 3, where this was material.


Fred Frise Stenson: Mr. Chairman, we are told that Quebec is not going to enter this plan. I would like to ask the minister whether this house will see the Quebec plan before we are asked to pass this plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman-any more than Quebec saw this legislation before it was presented to this house.


Fred Frise Stenson: Quebec sees this legislation at the present time, but they have not had time to study it. This house will not see the Quebec plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of course not, Mr. Chairman. That is provincial legislation, and the Quebec government has exactly the same obligation to the members of its chamber that the federal government has to the members of this house, namely, to produce legislation there before it waves it around in the air. It would be impossible, I think, and expecting far too much of human beings, to expect Quebec and Canada to bring in their resolutions on the same day and to move through their chambers at the same speed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Indeed, before this bill is dealt with you may well see the Quebec plan enacted.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the statement the minister just made. She said something about this all depending upon the minister of the day. Surely to goodness there must be some definite understanding as to what is a comparable plan. This, to me, is the most ridiculous sort of thing that could be suggested, namely that it depends upon the minister of the day. Actually, Mr. Chair-

Canada Pension Plan
man, I think this is one of the most outrageous things the minister has had the opportunity of saying, and I know she has had the opportunity of saying quite a few, as she probably appreciates at the moment. I recall her mentioning last Tuesday evening that she really believed in the television program "This Hour has Seven Days". I know her anxiety to get the bill through, but I do not think she should suggest for one minute that the minister of the day should be the one to decide whether or not a plan is comparable.
I really rose, Mr. Chairman, with the idea of asking one question, and a very simple question. The minister has indicated, and we all agreed, that after this bill has received royal assent, any province will have the option within 30 days of saying whether or not they are going to develop their own plan. I only want to know when that province must have its plan in operation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: January 1, 1966, as appears in clause 3, passed last week.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, we are precisely considering the eventual withdrawal of a province. Now, Quebec does not participate in the Canada pension plan. Mention was made of a comparable or similar plan, but the minister said she was not acquainted with the proposed Quebec pension plan. Could we ask, therefore, what would happen if Quebec decided to collect contributions on the basis of the place of residence instead of the place of employment, for instance in the case of all Hull residents who now work for the federal government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I need not trouble my hon. friend any longer about this. I have not seen the Quebec legislation; nor, to my knowledge, have my officials. But Quebec produced a second resolution in very considerable detail, which indicates a virtually identical plan. That has been published, and we have seen it; it has been printed for some months.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Let us suppose that Quebec decides to amend its pension plan to include workers residing in the province of Quebec, wherever the employer may reside, would such a Quebec resident whose employer resides outside

Quebec have to contribute twice to the pension plan, that is to both federal and provincial plans?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think we need not be concerned with this question. Quebec indicated, in its resolution, that it intends to follow this type of scheme, and not a residence based scheme.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are precisely considering clause 114 providing for withdrawal from the pension plan. What would happen if the province of Quebec amended its legislation so as to cover with its own plan a number of its citizens who would previously have contributed to the federal scheme under this legislation? The Quebec residents involved having thus been withdrawn from the Canada pension plan, would the federal government hand over to the province the money accumulated in the contributors' account?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend has just come in, but we have been discussing this for some length of time. Clause 114, which we are now considering, does not apply to Quebec; it applies to a province which is in the plan and subsequently decides to go out.


Raymond Langlois: Supposing a province does opt out and decides to get its contributions according to residence and not according to where a person is employed? I know that according to this plan it should be where the person is employed, and not according to his residence. But some premiers would be stubborn enough to hang on to their own end of the string, and I am wondering what would be the position of this plan if that were to happen.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It would not be deemed to be a comparable plan. You would have all sorts of anomalies; some people would be double contributing, and some people would be completely omitted.


Raymond Langlois: This is the trouble with this providing for a comparable plan. Would the federal government consider the possibility of keeping its fingers out of these situations if, for example, a person residing in Ontario decides to move out? I know the premier of Ontario did suggest having his own plan. They are going to be in this plan now, but he might come back to that idea, or another

premier might decide that his province should have their own plan. If that happened, what would be the position in regard to this plan? I think the minister will find that some premiers might possibly be stubborn in this regard, and it might mean that a person who had been contributing would be caught between two fires and would be paying in both places.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Rosthern.


Raymond Langlois: It takes an awfully long time, sometimes, to get an answer. Perhaps my question was not quite clear, and I will put it again. I have patience in putting questions. I think this question is one that should be answered and the position clarified. If the minister has not any solution to the problem at the moment, let clause 114 stand until it is amended to provide a situation which is comparable and acceptable to the provinces, in case they wish to move out of the plan. I believe these problems are better foreseen and dealt with now, rather than trying to correct them later on. We should face up to this question now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Happily, Mr. Chairman, provinces are spoken for by their provincial premiers, and not by the hon. member; and the provincial premiers have not indicated that they are going out of the plan.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare implying that the members of the house do not represent anything, that the electors are represented only by the provincial premiers? If that is what she means, I think that requires an explanation because I feel that we represent the electors of the province of Quebec as much as the premier does.
I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be well advised to explain her statement because she seems to want to deprive members of this house of their rights and privileges.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
I should remind the hon. member who has just spoken that before the vote was taken on the resolution he indicated that because his party was from the province of Quebec they were not interested and would not participate in the debate.
Canada Pension Plan [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: What the Minister of National Health and Welfare just said is correct, and it explains why I did not take part in the debate earlier. On the other hand, we are prepared to discuss the clauses which might affect the province of Quebec in the future, the amendments which will affect the rights and privileges of the whole Quebec population.
I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will agree with me that this clause can affect the rights of Quebec.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was very happy to hear what the hon. member has said, Mr. Chairman, but I must remind him that he is out of order because clause 114 could not possibly apply to the province of Quebec.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be allowed to complete my argument. A few moments ago the minister said in answer to my argument, and in answer to what the hon. member for Lapointe suggested, that this arrangement should be left to the premiers of the provinces. That being the case, what in Sam Hill are we doing discussing a national scheme under which these arrangements fall within provincial jurisdiction? When I vote on this issue I will vote because of reasons other than the fact that I am from the province of Quebec, and I am sure that my vote will have an effect from Halifax to Vancouver, and will be cast in the interests of every citizen of this country. I do not intend to bury my head in the sand like an ostrich and wait until somebody kicks me in the rear end before I seriously consider the circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps in a more gentle way I might ask the minister to answer my question. I would appreciate an answer.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would simply say in answer to the hon. gentleman's question that the proposed plan is based on employment rather than residence. I have given my hon. friend this information on many occasions during our consideration of various clauses. However, if he intends to relate the possible circumstances with hypothetical situations I am afraid that the appropriate answers cannot be given.
The hypothetical situations referred to by the hon. member could not possibly occur in respect of the province of Quebec because that province is going to set up its own plan. However, if another province elected

Canada Pension Plan
to opt out and establish its own pension plan,
I suggest it would have to adopt a plan related to place of employment rather than residence or it would have to face tremendously difficult problems. Any successful plan,
I suggest, must be related to employment rather than to residence.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is attempting to obtain answers to hypothetical questions based on the unforeseeable future when changes may well have been made to this and other provincial pension schemes. One cannot accurately forecast what the circumstances will be, and certainly cannot answer questions based on hypothetical suggestions such as have been alluded to by the hon. member.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, there are two alternatives open to the government in respect of this pension plan. Either it will be based on place of employment or place of residence. I suggest that a great deal less difficulty would be encountered if provincial plans were based on residence. The minister has suggested that this would create difficulty and complications. Perhaps that is true, but I should like the minister to explain why that is true.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if a province decided at some time in the future to opt out of the Canada pension plan and establish a provincial plan, then by the provisions of this bill the obligations to its contributors under the Canada pension plan would have to be assumed by the province. The pension plan adopted by an opting out province might well increase the benefits to the participants, and that is within the power of a province, as are many other changes of this nature. However, let me assure my hon. friend that there will not be many provinces which will move out of participation in the Canada pension plan and establish their own plans on the basis of residence rather than place of employment. Any province which did so I am sure would run into all sorts of problems.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given only one example-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what the hon. gentleman is discussing is portability. I should like the minister to indicate whether portability is one of the necessary requirements in respect of a provincial plan before acceptance by the federal government.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the proposed plan will be portable from coast to coast. Portability is the reason behind the meshing of comparable plans. That is the principle to which every premier has dedicated himself, and to which the federal government has dedicated itself. That is one feature that is necessary so that individuals, following agreements between the federal government and opting out provincial governments, can move from one plan in one place to another plan in another place. It is only when radically different plans are adopted that national portability is destroyed.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, the question I asked was related to portability. I want to know whether the federal government will insist that any acceptable provincial plan must have portability.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Any provincial plan must of necessity be portable at least within provincial boundaries. If a provincial plan is comparable to the Canada pension plan, then it will be possible to make arrangements between federal government authorities and provincial government authorities to ensure that it is portable. However, if a provincial government was to adopt a radically different plan, based on different principles, it would be virtually impossible to have portability. Portability would be limited under those circumstances.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is exactly what hon. members on this side of the house are worried about, because we are wondering whether the federal government will insist that provinces opting out, adopting their own plans, will ensure portability.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the question has no meaning. Any state plan adopted must have portability from province to province. Any worker in one province must be able to move from job A to job B, in province A and province B, and remain within the pension scheme.
Supposing two provinces adopt their own schemes. I suggest for their own purposes they will design those schemes in such a way that portability will be preserved, but it is not within the competence of federal jurisdiction to direct the provinces in this regard. I am sure that the various provinces will realize the advantages of portability, and that the province of Alberta and the province of Quebec, for example, should they both be opted out provinces at some future date, would adopt pension schemes which would

provide for portability between those provinces as well as portability with the Canada pension plan.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, the next obvious question must be: What does the minister mean by "comparable"? Does the federal government consider portability in relation to individual provinces, or between provinces and the federal government, and will portability in this sense be a federal requirement in respect of any opted out provincial plan?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I readily
understand the minister's explanation to the effect that if each province had its own pension scheme, there would have to be an agreement between them with respect to the transfer of pensions. However-and I hope I am being listened to at present-this is what I would like the minister to set out clearly. Let us say that after participating in the Canada pension plan for one, two or three years, a province decides to go on its own. Could we have the assurance that, if such a thing happened, the federal government would hand over to the province concerned full amount of the contributions paid in by the residents of that province?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what this clause provides.


Edward Nasserden: Would the minister answer the question I asked?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has raised a question with regard to portability. I honestly do not think that provinces which come into the Canada pension plan initially are likely to move out, although that is their right and they can do so, but the conditions within the plan require that their plans be portable when they move out. Presumably arrangements would be made between that province and the Canada pension plan just the same as arrangements are going to be made with the province of Quebec so that there will be an exchange of benefits between the two provinces. Let us say that some person has contributed in four provinces that have pension plans. There would presumably be arrangements made so there would be one pension cheque paid to that person when he retired, and there would be financial reimbursement from the other plans in the same way as there will be between the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. So we would work toward portability.
Canada Pension Plan


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I personally believe there is portability. I do not want to put words into the minister's mouth but I understand that it works out this way. Let us say that someone is in the Quebec pension plan at the moment and they move to British Columbia at which time they start paying into the Canada pension plan. Their contributions to the Quebec plan are transferred to the Canada pension plan. Am I right?


Edgar John Benson: No, not quite. They have contributed to the Quebec pension plan-I think we went through this earlier-and they move to British Columbia or Ontario and contribute to the Canada pension plan. This goes on until the time they reach 65.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They will have two cheques?


Edgar John Benson: No, they could have received two cheques, but they will not because we anticipate an arrangement with the province of Quebec whereby one cheque will be paid from the Canada pension plan if they are living in Ontario or from the Quebec pension plan if they are living in Quebec. Payments will be shared in relation to the contributions, and this is the way, pension plans will be portable in Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: My point is there is actually portability no matter to which pension plan you belong, or whether you belong to a pension plan of a province which opts out some time in the future?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: These interprovincial-federal plans, shall I say, will be co-ordinated so there will only be one cheque. No matter where you live you will get your full pension.


Edgar John Benson: That is the point I am trying to make but one cannot guarantee that such will be the case because somebody may say they will not make an agreement with us. But certainly if a province moved out of the Canada pension plan I believe it would be greatly to their benefit to make this kind of arrangement because they do not want to mix up their contributors pensions any more than the government of Canada does under the Canada pension plan.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I think that portability is one of the essentials of the Canada pension plan or any pension plan throughout Canada and therefore I should like to try to bring together the minds of the

Canada Pension Plan
Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The latter said that there can be portability within a province, but when she was asked the direct question with regard to having a plan which guaranteed portability without the province she did not answer and did not intimate in any way that it could be done. The Minister of National Revenue has used words like "presumably" and "we will work toward portability", but it seems to me that in this plan we must have a guarantee of portability. The minister throws up his hands, but within the last five minutes we have had from the two ministers two very different statements with regard to the essence of the plan, the question of portability. A question was put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to this effect: Would portability have to be guaranteed by a province going out on its own?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let me ask a question right there so I can make sure we are talking about the same thing. Will the hon. member explain what he means by portability, if a province is opting out, portability where and when?


David Vaughan Pugh: I would have thought that would have been made abundantly clear by one or two of the other ministers. Let us say I have been living in Alberta or British Columbia and I go to work in Quebec. Then all the benefits I have had previously as a result of paying into a provincial plan or the Canada pension plan will be made available to me. This is the point. The province will then have to have a portable plan. I take it that under the Canada pension plan portability is one of the essentials. It is absolutely essential that portability be guaranteed throughout Canada in order to protect the benefits of workmen throughout Canada. If a province sets up its own plan, then surely you do not say that you are going to work toward portability or presumably you will arrive at portability. Surely in the legislation which is before this parliament it should be cut and dried.


Edgar John Benson: In answer to my hon. friend's question, I do not think that what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said was at all different. Initially when the Canada pension plan is passed, if Quebec passes a comparable plan as everyone assumes they will, and I honestly believe they will, there will be complete portability between the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension

plan because, as I indicated, it is anticipated that an agreement will be made so that a single cheque will be paid. A person can move from one place to another, accumulate benefits in one place and then in the other, and then on retirement get a single cheque.
If in the future another province decided to move out of the Canada pension plan, which I think is highly unlikely and hypothetical, presumably arrangements would be made at that time in order to ensure portability and a single pension cheque. But how can I say that an arrangement will be made or how can it be said in this legislation? It can be said in the legislation that at the time they move out it must be similar so that at that time there would be portability. But if there was no agreement signed between the province and the federal government that they would move along the same lines or would continue to work together with us, then in a subsequent period there might not be portability as between that province and the provinces in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan.


David Vaughan Pugh: Is the government willing to accept the fact that a province can, using its own plan, come into the Canada pension plan and then vary its own plan and take away that portability which is the essence of the plan as the minister indicated by nodding his head? What I am suggesting is that the government come out and say that they will not allow their plan to be superseded by one that lacks portability.


Edgar John Benson: Under the British North
America Act I do not think any federal government can say this. What we can say is what we are permitted to say under section 94 of the British North America Act and under this legislation, that when a province moves out they must provide a plan which must be portable at that point, but we cannot tell the province what it must do beyond that point.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am not quite satisfied, because when the minister was speaking a few moments ago he said "it is assumed this will happen", "it is anticipated this will happen".
In addition, almost every other word he used was "but". It seems to me that we cannot leave this clause until we know that the Canada pension plan will be portable, and that its portability cannot be harmed by one or two or more provinces going out. The legislation which we are passing today allows each and every province, if it so wishes in

the future, to opt out. At that stage, we would have a hodge-podge.
I am suggesting that if we pass something here we should give a guarantee to those who become a part of this plan that whatever may happen in the future the method of payment and the reasons for payment of benefits will be safeguarded. In other words, if I live in Alberta, British Columbia or Quebec and I move out of the province to another province which does not have the Canada pension plan, then would I be guaranteed by the federal government, not the province, that all those contributions which I had made would be paid to me according to the rules under which I had paid them? Portability is of the essence in this plan. I know the minister agrees with me, but if the legislation is surrounded by words like "presumably", "we hope" and all these other nice things, if it will not stand the test of time then I think we should allow the clause to stand and have another look at it. We should guarantee that portability will be an essential ingredient of the Canada pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: I could refer my hon. friend to subclause (3) of clause 114 with which we are dealing, which requires that if and when a province decides to move out of the Canada pension plan-I assume he will allow me to say "if and when" in this connection-it must assume the obligations which have accrued under the Canada pension plan. If a province in the future decides to move out, it must provide a plan that will pay the benefits to which a person would have been entitled under the Canada pension plan. If it fulfils this condition, then we will turn over the funds to this particular province.
My friend seems worried about the benefits being lost. The benefits will not be lost because we will require the province to fulfil this obligation at that particular time. If the province changes the plan subsequently to provide additional benefits or assume additional obligations, and a person then moves back into a province which is under the Canada pension plan, he would have to get two cheques on his retirement. There would not be complete portability because the benefits would differ under the two plans. What this plan does assure is that people who have built up benefits under this plan will get those benefits because of the requirement that before a province can get out it must provide in its plan for similar benefits.
With regard to portability and a person getting a single cheque, which my hon. friend has indicated is of concern to him, this will
Canada Pension Plan
be the case as between Quebec and the Canada pension plan. Presumably, and I must use the word "presumably", it would also be the case if any other province opted out. However, supposing a different province opted out of the Canada pension plan by giving due notice and by saying that it will accept the obligation to pay benefits that are required under the Canada pension plan, but that it later changed the benefits within that particular province while the benefits under the Canada pension plan remained the same and that no agreement was reached to transfer funds back and forth, then one of its contributors living within a province under the Canada pension plan, on his retirement, might get two cheques.


David Vaughan Pugh: I just want to follow this up because I am not quite satisfied. One of the factors in connection with labour in Canada today is its mobility. Labour can move from one province to another at will. In other words, labour goes from job to job wherever there is work. If we had one Canada pension plan, we would have no trouble because the same plan would be in effect in each and every province. We know today that one province, Quebec, is not going to come into this plan. We do not know what will happen in the future. Alberta might have a plan of its own and British Columbia might have a plan.
The minister mentioned that I was concerned about one cheque being paid to a person. I am not interested in whether or not he gets one cheque or ten cheques, although it may be preferable to get one cheque. The point in which I am interested is this: A man may move to two or more provinces, perhaps as many as five provinces during his working life. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that there might only be portability within a province. I can only assume from that the plan might not be good elsewhere. Does the Canada pension plan pick up the tab for any lack of portability?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Canada pension plan would not pick up the tab for this. Let me make this very clear. This parliament only has certain rights under the British North America Act. We are exercising those rights under this legislation. So long as the Canada pension plan applies in a province, then pensions will be portable across the whole of this country. If there is another province, such as the province of Quebec, which has comparable legislation, which is prepared to enter into an agreement, then it will be portable right across the country. If a province, under

Canada Pension Plan
the provisions of subclause (3), decides subsequently to go out on its own with comparable legislation, then there would be an agreement between that province and the federal government and the plan would be portable across the country because of this agreement with the federal government and the federal government's agreement with Quebec.
If a provincial government decided one day to make a radically different plan it may be that portability could not be achieved. This would be beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government now or at any time in the future. If a province refused to agree or had a plan that was radically different, there would not be portability and there would not be anything that this or any government could do about it. The only thing this government can do is to guarantee the people now under the pension plan, or who come in, that they cannot lose the rights they build up by their contributions. Now, if such a provincial government took such a step and made a very different plan which destroyed portability I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and all hon. members, that they would do so at their political peril.


David Vaughan Pugh: Now, the minister is coming around to giving a reasonably direct answer with political overtones. She started out by mentioning the British North America Act and provincial rights. I agree with her 100 per cent, that you cannot tell the provinces how to legislate. However, this is a Canada pension plan. This plan provides a guarantee to the citizens of Canada, not the citizens of a province. If we have a Canada pension plan, one of the major elements of it must be portability. Surely, the legislation which we put through here must be intended to guarantee the citizens of Canada that they will in time receive all the rights and benefits that accrue to them under this plan.
If they change from province to province, at no time will they be cut off if they go into a province where the benefits or portability have been cut off by that province. I say that in essence portability must be a part of this plan.
The Minister of National Revenue is looking a trifle bored as though he has heard this argument many times, but he himself has said portability is essential in this plan. He has also said that a province could in the future get away from portability. I say that this destroys the Canada pension plan and we must look into this a little more fully so that

the federal government will pick up the tab. It may well be something that will have to be done, probably on a premium basis. But once you say portability is an essential ingredient of this plan, then how can we accept anything else?


Edgar John Benson: When we are talking about portability we are really talking about a vesting of rights. My hon. friend has indicated that he does not care whether they get one cheque or 15 cheques, and I think that is correct. Under the Canada pension plan there is a vesting of rights. People make contributions, and if they contribute for one or five years they have a right to a certain amount of pension vested in them.
At the point when a province chooses to move out of the Canada pension plan the federal government would insist that it be a comparable pension plan, and that the province take over the liabilities built up under the Canada pension plan, that is, that the rights of these people be vested for everything contributed under the Canada pension plan. I would think that once a province did this it could never change it and take the vested rights away from them. However, there is no way the federal government could guarantee forever that the provincial pension plan would not take these rights away from the individual.
For example, a province might move out. The federal government would insist that it take the obligations to that point under the Canada pension plan, and these would be the right of the individual. Then that pension plan might go on for a number of years with comparable benefits, so that if a person worked for 30 years he would be entitled to a pension calculated on a similar basis to the federal plan. However, there is nothing the federal government could do at a future time to prevent taking those rights away from the individual, because the pension plan would then be in the hands of the provincial government.
I and my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, have said it would be politically impossible for a provincial government to do that, and I honestly believe so; but the federal government cannot control the actions of the provincial government beyond the time that it moved out of the Canada pension plan. This is the point that my colleague and I were trying to make.


David Vaughan Pugh: What the government is saying is that it cannot write this into the bill in any shape or form.


Edward Nasserden: The reason I raise this is because I believe this is a contributory pension plan. Individual people contribute to the pension plan, and everyone knows that great changes are presently taking place in the industrial life of the country and that we can anticipate greater changes in the years ahead. When I raised the question of portability, what I have in my mind is that the contributions which an individual made would follow him from one plan to another.
If what I gather from the remarks of both ministers is correct, this will not happen, but the money will remain vested in a province for the portion of time that you are under a provincial plan, and that you would go on and build up another equity in the Canada pension plan in another province.


Edgar John Benson: According to the arrangement that is contemplated with the province of Quebec in this regard, in calculating the pension you would merge the two together and calculate the pension based on total contributions, as if they had been paid in one place.


Edward Nasserden: Does the minister not think that if the contributions followed the employee to whichever plan he happened to be in, it would be better and provide a greater degree of equity in plans that might be devised by provincial governments which in future decide to go outside the Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: What is happening here is that if someone is in the Canada pension plan in a particular province, and that province moved out of the Canada pension plan, the rights would automatically move with the individual to the provincial plan and he would be guaranteed no loss of benefits because it must be a comparable plan. If a similar arrangement was made, as that which is contemplated with the province of Quebec, when another province moved out the individual's contributions would go into that plan for a number of years.
This is on the assumption that there might be three plans in Canada. People move from province to province and they could accumulate rights under the three provinces. Now, if the same kind of arrangement were made with the other province as is being made with Quebec, when it comes to calculating such a person's benefits these would all be combined, one pension calculated, a single pension paid and a financial reimbursement made as between the province or provinces and the federal government.
Canada Pension Plan
I think it would work out as being perfectly portable, and better than making a transfer of the money and trying to calculate what someone's benefits would be at the time he moved out of Quebec into Ontario. We would wait until the person retires. There is a reason for doing this because one must remember that the earnings one has in a particular year are adjusted at the date of retirement according to the earnings index at that time in calculating the pension.
For example, if someone moved out of Quebec in 1974 into Ontario one could not reasonably calculate what the benefits would be in 1986 when that person retired, and how much the province of Quebec should pay to the Canada pension plan. Thus, it is left until the person is retired to determine the amount of the pension. The arrangement allows for a single pension payment and there is a transfer of funds between provinces and the federal government as the pension is paid.


Raymond Langlois: I would like to get some clarification. I thought I heard the minister say a province could have its plan, which would not necessarily have to be comparable to the national plan; but if the contributions vested in the federal plan were not transferable to a provincial plan this might be political suicide for the province. I agree with the minister to a certain extent; and he said there was no objection to a person receiving one, ten or 15 cheques.


Edgar John Benson: The reason I said that is because my hon. friend on the other side raised a question and said he really did not care whether a person got one or 15 cheques. I would not worry too much about that.


Raymond Langlois: I suppose a person would not mind receiving two cheques, but supposing I work in Ontario for four, five or ten years, contributing to the federal government scheme, and all of a sudden I move to another province that does not have a transferable plan. That province guarantees me that should I move out I will receive at the age of 65, for example, a pension in accordance with the investment I have put into the provincial plan. If I move away from this federal scheme into a provincial scheme which cannot transfer the individual's contributions, will I receive a cheque from this scheme as well as one from the federal scheme?


Edgar John Benson: If they were comparable and if there were no agreement between the federal government and the provincial government, it could be that two cheques would be

Canada Pension Plan
sent out. But take the position of Ontario and Quebec. Ontario is in the plan and Quebec is not. There are arrangements in this legislation which will be agreed to by all concerned so that a man who works ten years in Ontario and moves into Quebec where he works, say, for 20 years will get one cheque from Quebec -and the Canada pension plan will transfer funds to Quebec to pay its share.


Raymond Langlois: I understand that. I was wondering about what might happen in the case of a plan which was not comparable to the federal scheme. Would I receive the benefits due to five years contributions to the federal plan if I had been covered by the federal plan for that length of time?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Robert Simpson: We have been speaking of hypothetical cases-for instance, the case of a province which opted out of this scheme and did not offer a comparable scheme to its people. It would be political suicide for any government to change that scheme radically, later on.


Edgar John Benson: I said there were certain rights vested in people on which we would insist if a province were to move out of the Canada pension plan, and that it would be political suicide for any provincial government at some point in the future to take those rights away from the people.


Robert Simpson: That is the idea behind my remarks. I am not criticizing the minister for saying that, because I feel that same way about it. But suppose a province after opting out and offering a comparable plan were to decide to abolish the pension scheme. Are there any provisions in this legislation to enable Canadian citizens in such a province to continue as contributors to the federal plan?


Edgar John Benson: This is, of course, a highly hypothetical situation. But if a province had no plan, if they wiped out the pension plan in the province, then the Canada pension plan would come back in; the province would not be occupying the field.


Robert Simpson: Only by agreement with the province.


Edgar John Benson: No, because then the province would not be occupying the pension field. Therefore the Canada pension plan would come back into effect.


Robert Simpson: If the federal government can legislate a Canada pension plan for these

people without provincial agreement, why can it not force the provincial governments to have portability as a feature of their plans?


Edgar John Benson: I am not sure I understand the hon. member's argument. He is talking, now, about forcing the provinces to have portability. We are enacting a plan which will initially be the same across the whole country. Presumably it will continue this way. But a provincial government has the right to move out in the future. This is its constitutional right. If a province moves out we can insist on certain conditions, and these are written into the bill. After it has moved out we cannot control the actions of the province in the pension field. As I have pointed out, it would be difficult in practice for a provincial government to interfere with pension rights. But if they did decide to change the plan and not to make an agreement with the federal government for reimbursement, or to take vesting rights away from the people involved, the federal government would have no jurisdiction because the province would be occupying the field. But if the province were to abandon its plan entirely, it would no longer be in the pensions field and we could go back in.


Robert Simpson: Suppose a provincial government stayed in the pension field but changed its plan radically. Could the citizens of that province exercise a choice, and decide whether to enter the provincial plan or the federal plan?


Edgar John Benson: No, they must belong to the provincial plan.


Fred Frise Stenson: I understood the minister to say a province could re-enter this scheme. I thought a province could not come back once it had decided to leave.


Edgar John Benson: I did say earlier in the day that there is no provision in this legislation for a province which had left the scheme to re-enter automatically. A province which moved out of the plan and wished to reenter it would, I presume, make application and that application would have to be considered on the basis of the assets, liabilities and conditions of the provincial fund at that point. The government of Canada would then have to bring in the necessary amending legislation to take care of all these circumstances.


Fred Frise Stenson: So there is a possibility that Quebec could come in at some time.


Edgar John Benson: Quebec could come in if it chose to, and if the parliament of Canada made the necessary amendments to the legislation.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, the explanations we have heard for the past half hour are not quite clear. Several times, we were told that the transferability of contributions under the scheme is quite constitutional and the Minister of National Revenue has pointed out quite often that the pension plan will in no way infringe upon the vested rights of the people. Therefore, I wonder whether we, who know nothing of the agreements signed with the province of Quebec which intends to set up a scheme similar to the federal plan, are not in the process of authorizing the federal agency to collect contributions from the citizens of a province and whether it would not have been better to bring in amendments when it was time to accumulate contributions for the purpose of establishing an unemployment insurance scheme.
There again, it is a constitutional vested interest, both for the citizen of a province and for social security. A citizen of any province should not be required to contribute under a federal enactment, without the consent of the provincial authorities concerned and without proceeding to amend the constitution.
Therefore, I ask the minister to make it quite clear whether the federal government is authorized by a constitutional amendment to require Quebec people to contribute to the Canada pension plan. I would like to get a clear and definite answer as to whether the constitution has been amended so as to allow contributions to be collected from Quebec residents under Bill No. C-136.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member was
present in the chamber when the constitutional amendment to 94A was enacted last summer. However, the provision itself was an act of earlier date-about 1950-for the purpose of old age security. That legislation has nothing to do with the question which the hon. member has just asked. The amendment provided that in addition to old age pensions there could be additional survivors' and other benefits. That was why the constitutional amendment was enacted last summer and went to the parliament of the United Kingdom. If now we did not have a rule that certain individuals resident in Quebec who
Canada Pension Plan
are employed in Ontario would be a part of the Canada pension plan and had reciprocal rights with Quebec, my hon. friend would find that when his Canada pension plan contributions were deducted from his parliamentary indemnity and an election came along and he was no longer a member of this chamber-


Raymond Langlois: That is not likely to happen.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -he would have to wait until age 65 to get the small benefits to which his short time in this chamber would have entitled him; and they would not in any way mesh with the contributions which he would thereafter have to make while he was a permanent resident of and working in the province of Quebec.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, this does not answer my question. Reference is made to the pension fund set up exclusively for federal members of parliament. Now, I feel that contributions paid directly by the employee or the employer are not the same as an exclusive or private plan, as one might call the plan set up for members of parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I do not want my hon. friend to think I am talking about the exclusive pension plan established for members of parliament. I am talking about the Canada pension plan, which includes every member of this chamber and every member of the other place below the age of 70. My hon. friend, if he has not heretofore been aware of it, will be a part of the Canada pension plan as of January 1, 1966-if he is still here.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Raymond Langlois: One last question, Mr. Chairman. I will not anticipate clause 115, which deals with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon but there is a mathematical possibility, although it may not be too hypothetical, the way we are going, that in a few years from now all the provinces will move out and will have their own schemes, because they may realize one day that it will be more profitable for them to have their own schemes rather than to be part of this federal plan. I am not anticipating the situation with regard to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, because we will be considering that question later; but if they all move out and just the Yukon and Northwest Territories stay in, will the minister

Canada Pension Plan
have to maintain her plan? If they all move out, there is no reason for this plan, is there?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in this very hypothetical situation, which my hon. friend has admitted it is, the Canada pension plan would simply cover the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the minister that, regardless of what happens, the Yukon and Northwest Territories intend to stick by Canada and the Canada pension plan.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 115-"Included province" defined.
Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to point out that if the committee is showing some impatience over the progress of this bill, it may be because hon. members are apprized of the real complexity of the measure before us. There is real reason to think this way, because we are now dealing with the clause on amendments, namely clause 115. It is apparently quite difficult to get amendments through once a clause is enacted. Am I correct in the following assumption with regard to subclauses (2), (3) and (4), clause 115? Subclause (2) says that any provision to alter either the contributions or the benefits of the plan shall come into effect earlier than the first day of the third year after giving notice; in other words, it takes a three-year period to really effect any change. Giving notice means giving it to all provinces that are participating in the plan. Furthermore, two thirds of the included provinces, representing two thirds of all the people, must have signified consent to the suggested amendments. Keeping in mind provincial elections, change of governments, and all the rest of it, I ask this question: Is this really recognizing the complexity of any alterations that will be made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most difficult clauses that was discussed with the provinces. Its inclusion is one of the reasons why so many of the questions that have been raised this evening have been hypothetical. It provides, as my hon. friend can see, measures for any major change in the act. It means that all provinces will be consulted, will be aware of what is going on and will have something to say about it. There are subsequent provisions providing for reports of the chief actuary, economic reports, and things of that kind, to be given at that time. This is for a reason that I talked about
[Mr. Langlois.l
a year or so ago, and I think a reason with, which all members of the house would agree, and that is to do away with some of the things that happen at election time.
A pension plan of this kind is put together with great care, and every time you change one of the factors in it you very seriously affect the fund and the capability of that fund to pay out pensions. Parliament has a contract with the people; we take their money, hold it for them and return to them a pension. If we enact this legislation we have to make certain that every person in Canada knows it is a charge on the country for always. You cannot lose what you have put into it. For that reason it was considered that the provinces should work together in ensuring that a government, which for one reason or another might find itself short of goodies just before an election day, would not decide that was a good time to raid the pension fund.
It will be appreciated that this has now developed into a pension plan with a fairly substantial reserve. I suppose it is, in a sense, more similar to the Swedish plan than to any other plan of which I am aware, at least. But because the funds here, unlike the Swedish plan, are not held by the central government but are sent out, in effect, in nine parcels across the country, anything which affects the size of that fund must necessarily affect the interests of the provinces. As my colleague has explained, these initial funds will be out for 20 years in the hands of the provinces on provincial securities. Let us say the province of Manitoba decided to invest all its funds in schools. Supposing it decided that in 20 years its growth would be enough that they could pay back this money, but right now they needed it, wanted to invest it and did so, and the federal government gave them the money which arose in the province of Manitoba, on Manitoba's securities. Supposing that is invested and in five years-


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I really think the minister should be given a little more attention by the people sitting behind her.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do find it very difficult to hear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then, the province having had its money, having put it out and built schools, not expecting to have to return it or worry about it for 20 years, in five years might decide that for the purposes of an election, for the purposes of satisfying the electorate, or to satisfy some demand on it, they

would double the benefits and to heck with what happened to the fund. Almost immediately the fund would start to go down, and very shortly it would be a matter of raising the rate of contribution; but the government of the day might decide to let another government worry about that, or let the fund go bust.
This act provides that that money cannot be taken out of the general treasury of this country. Therefore it is a wild hypocrisy to think in these terms. But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it is not such a wild hypocrisy as one might think, because one must recognize that the provinces have a real stake in what happens. The provinces have in effect tacitly, if not specifically, consented. They know what is in this bill, and if they acquiesce in its passage they do so because they are not seriously protesting against it, nor are they demanding something which would result in their residents not being covered.
While I admit the clause now under consideration is stringent, one of the reasons for its inclusion is related to the fact that it will not only cover provincial constituents, but federal constituents or, in short, all the people in Canada no matter where they reside. For that reason the federal government in consultation with the provincial governments agreed to the provisions contained in subclause (4), which will prohibit any participant at governmental level from endangering the benefits proferred hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


Gilles Grégoire: It is ten o'clock.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether, with the unanimous consent of the house, we might not see the clock for a few minutes.


Gilles Grégoire: It is ten o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, we in this party are very pleased to agree that you should not see the clock for a few moments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr Chairman, we are very pleased to adopt the same attitude.


Gilles Grégoire: It is ten o'clock.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, while we are considering this bill in the sense that it will, upon passage, become a federal statute, we must realize that at the time it becomes effective it will no longer be federal because it cannot be changed or amended except with the concurrence of two thirds of the provinces representing that percentage of the population. Can two thirds of the provinces repre-
Canada Pension Plan
senting two thirds of the population initiate amendments to this legislation, or will such amendments have to be initiated at the federal level?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, at first thought my answer would be no. However, at least theoretically provincial governments could initiate and circulate amendments, and bring them to our attention, asking us to negotiate them. After all, this is federal legislation, and this is where amendments will have to be negotiated. I do not intend to mislead the house by saying that it is absolutely impossible for the federal government to ignore these requests, but as my hon. friends must all know, we cannot bind the next parliament, much less the parliament of 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now. There is no question regarding whether the parliament of Canada can constitutionally amend this legislation by tearing out this subclause; but like the relationship between a husband and a wife, very often the vagaries of life become the normal and acceptable thing. This is not the kind of thing that any parliament we have had in the last 97 years including this one, would contemplate. There is no way by which we could adopt something absolutely binding on the provinces.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe it has been well established that we in this party are in general support of the Canada pension plan, but I must say that we do not agree with clause 115. We do agree, however, with the philosophy espoused by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that funds of the Canada pension plan should not be raided by the government in an attempt to find some "goodies" just before an election. But what is involved in this clause is not something that relates just to the Canada pension plan, but rather what is involved is the whole concept of constitutional amendments. We are in effect trying to write into this one bill a formula that brings in the provinces and changes the whole basis of the enacting of legislation by the federal parliament. The minister in her first statement on this matter suggested that the reason for this was to protect the fund so that a government that was anxious to provide goodies at election time could not raid it; but then she admitted in her frank reply to the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa that clause 115 does not do that at

Canada Pension Plan
-all if a government has a majority in parliament and wants to make a change just before an election.
I was interested in the comments made on this clause in the special joint committee by the assistant deputy minister of justice. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed all the way through the sittings of the committee the excellent explanations of the clauses of the bill made by Mr. Thorson and I agreed with him 99 per cent of the time. I think he made the best defence of this clause that is possible but even he did not persuade me that it should be in the bill. He made it clear in the record for December 11, 1964, at page 448, that it would be perfectly possible for any succeeding session of parliament or for any succeeding parliament to pass a statute that would say: Notwithstanding the provisions of such and such a clause, the act is amended.
Are we not doing something silly to put into a statute of parliament something that sounds constitutional but which does not have that effect at all? I know this, that if any private member of the House of Commons brought in a private member's public bill that had a provision like this in it he would be laughed out of the house. He would be told he had never been near a law school, that he did not know the basic facts of the parliamentary process. I suggest that this kind of legislation just does not belong in an annual statute of parliament. After all, that is what we have before us at the present time, not a constitutional enactment.
I agree with the minister that there are certain things that have not been done in the 97 or 98 years of Canada's history, that there are certain things that the governments and parliaments of Canada just would not do, but I think the knowledge that these things will not be done is worth far more than this kind of constitutional provision bootlegged into an ordinary statute. I think we would be far better not to have this kind of provision in this statute at all. I do not mind agreements being made by the federal government with a province as to what that government will do because that government then has to take its responsibility. Maybe it could be done under some sort of federal-provincial agreement that could be brought before parliament. But to write into a statute that it cannot be amended without the consent of two thirds of the provinces representing two thirds of the people is, I suggest, anticipating all of the arguments that we yet have to go into regarding the constitution of this country.
{Mr. Knowles.]
As I say, I was interested in the excellent defence that Mr. Thorson made of this clause on December 11, 1964, as found on page 448 of the committee proceedings, but I was also interested later in the sessions of the committee to get what seems to me to be the reason for this. It was on the 1st of February, 1965, that we had before us a delegation representing the government of Ontario and in addition to the oral representations that were made a number of documents were tabled. One of the documents was a statement made on January 21st in the Ontario legislature by Mr. Robarts. His statement appears in full in our minutes and on page 1786 I find this paragraph by Mr. Robarts:
Of greatest importance to the people of Ontario, we requested safeguards in order to prevent unilateral changes in the provisions of the act, particularly in regard to benefits and contributions.
I have no quarrel with Mr. Robarts or any other provincial premier seeking the kind of understanding from the federal government that would make for that kind of protection, but he then went on to say:
As a result of our request-
In other words, Mr. Robarts takes full credit for clause 115.
-a section was inserted in the act which, in effect, provides for consultation with the provinces before any future changes may be made in the plan. As the plan now stands, no amendment of substance can be made until after a notice period of at least two years has elapsed, and such changes can be effected only if assent is given by two thirds of the participating provinces with two thirds of the population of the participating provinces.
Now, please note this sentence, and these are the words of Mr. Robarts:
In effect this gives the people of Ontario, through their government, a clear right to be consulted in the future and to decide upon the implications and desirability of any change that may be proposed. It provides an effective veto over changes of substance with which we may not agree.
Now, that was Mr. Robarts speaking, telling us that this clause gives him a veto over this parliament. The same position is accorded to any other provincial premier or any other provincial government, provided he can get enough so that there are not two thirds who agree. It seems that we in the parliament of Canada, which has certain rights and certain responsibilities under the British North America Act, are being asked tonight to agree to a clause under which we give to the provinces the right to veto any further amendments that we might wish to make here in the parliament of Canada. I say that this, in

terms of principle, in terms of constitutional theory, in terms of the parliamentary legislative process, is completely wrong, and for that reason it should not be in here.
The minister can say, as she did, that it is not absolute because any session can amend a statute of a previous session. Whom are we kidding, then, by having it in the bill? I think there are better ways for the Canadian people to arrive at an understanding. I think our traditions, our practices can be guaranteed, but let us not mess up our own legislation; let us not anticipate our problems of constitutional amendment by this kind of clause. I think, Mr. Chairman, that clause 115 ought not to be in this bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


David Vaughan Pugh: No, Mr. Chairman.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, before clause 115 is passed, I wish to say that I quite understand the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who seems unwilling to leave to the provinces the right to exercise their veto with regard to the application of this legislation.
When one has studied the policy of the party to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre belongs, one realizes that it is the party which favours most strongly centralization.
In view of the fact that my colleague from Megantic (Mr. Langlois) was telling me a little earlier that he will have several questions to ask about clause 115, may I point out that it is ten o'clock.

Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Hollings Addison: Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter to the attention of the house because on Tuesday morning I was presented with a resolution from the town of Richmond Hill which reads in part as follows:
That the mayor and clerk be requested to write to the Honourable Maurice Sauve, Canada Department of Forestry, Mr. John Addison, M.P. and Mr. A. MacKenzie, M.P.P. requesting an explanation as to why the government policy, concerning
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the location of the department of lands and forest laboratories is being revised in Ontario by Mr. Sauve.
On February 18 a news release was issued by the minister's office which said, in part:
To establish our regional headquarters near the centre of major forestry activity is, I feel, a sound decision, Mr. Sauve said.
He is referring here to establishing the Department of Forestry at Sault Ste. Marie.
All the various factors were carefully weighed and we consulted with all of those involved.
In my question on Tuesday and also today I pointed out that the recommendations of the Glassco commission suggested in volume 4, under the forestry section, beginning on page 243:
The Department of Forestry has been operational only since 1960, when it was formed by transfer of units from other departments. For this reason no valid judgment can be made on the effectiveness of the new research organization, and your commissioners restrict themselves to the following observations:
And on page 244 it goes on to say this:
Many laboratories are not located at research or academic institutions, with the consequence that scientific staffs are isolated.
As recorded in Hansard of Friday, February 1, 1963 at page 4310 the then minister of forestry, Hon. J. R. Nicholson had this to say:
During the relatively short time I have been minister, I have had inquiries seeking information on the department's policy in selecting locations for laboratories. I mention this because the Glassco report commented on the fact that our laboratories were removed from research and from academic institutions and suggested this was undesirable isolation. In principle, I expect that any man of science would agree with that observation. But it must be remembered that the federal Department of Forestry is a unique organization. Responsibility for managing the forests lies with the provinces. When we undertake research, this work has to tie in with the work being done by the departments of lands and forests of the various provinces.
Then he went on to say:
It is of the utmost importance that our research officers work in close harmony and proximity with the forest services of the different provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta recognized this and moved its forestry research centre from the city of Calgary to Edmonton, the capital. Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who share facilities, moved their laboratory from Saskatoon to Winnipeg. This principle was also followed in New Brunswick and British Columbia. My question is, why is this principle not being followed at the present time in Ontario?
12012	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If the purpose as set out in the Glassco commission report is to co-operate with the Ontario department of lands and forests, might I point out that Maple is the headquarters for the research branch of the department of forests in Ontario. It is world renowned. It has a new growth chamber completed only two months ago at a cost in excess of $1 million. The Maple area is close to the University of Toronto forestry faculty, to the Ontario Agricultural College, to Queen's University, McMaster, Western and data computing centres.
The Ontario research council and independent bodies are co-operating in building a new research centre at Sheridan park just outside Toronto and, as a matter of fact, Abi-tibi has moved its whole research department from Sault Ste. Marie to Toronto. International Nickel is doing the same thing, and Falconbridge. I understand the scientists using these facilities spend approximately one third of their time in the forests and two thirds of their time on research in laboratories.
I should like now to deal with the other part of the press release in which the minister said, "we consulted with all those involved." The minister did not consult with me, and I happen to represent the area. I understand that the minister was in the riding just before Christmas, and if I had known that I would have been delighted to treat him to some Christmas cheer.
There are other families involved in this particular plant movement, and it is a concern of mine. I also understand a meeting took place some time in early February, attended by the Minister of Forestry and ministers of the Ontario provincial government, Mr. Kelso Roberts and Mr. Wishart the attorney general of the province, and other officials of the Department of Forestry. By the way, Mr. Wishart represents the Sault Ste. Marie area.
We should like to know-and I realize I am running on-if there was any report requested by the department of lands and forests and presented to the federal authorities concerning the location of this new laboratory. I should also like to know whether the minister received a directive from his department as to where this laboratory should be placed. The minister should certainly understand the concern of the people in this area and I hope he will agree to receive a delegation from the districts concerned. In closing, Mr. Speaker-


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


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his question and for his very real interest in this problem which concerns his area. I hope the reasons which I am at liberty to give in explanation of the decision will commend themselves to him.
The decision to locate the regional forestry headquarters for Ontario at Sault Ste. Marie was based on the following main considerations which include the need to properly integrate forest research activities with appropriate staff in one location under one authority and in a region of extensive forest limits. I would point out that 87 per cent of the productive forests in Ontario are located in this general area and provide 93 per cent of the wood cut in the province. In addition, 18 of the 27 pulp and paper mills in Ontario are located north of lake Superior and lake Huron.
Present capital investment in land and buildings by the Department of Forestry is already extensive in the Sault Ste. Marie area. Total federal investment since 1950 amounted to $1,200,000. In addition the federal department occupies and has the use of the provincial forest insect laboratory with a capitalization of $950,000. The total staff displacement was kept to a minimum by integrating this facility at Sault Ste. Marie. This plan received favourable agreement from the Ontario department of lands and forests.
In summary, all interested parties concerned with the amalgamation of research units and the location of an integrated establishment were seen and heard, and those who could help in reaching a decision were duly consulted.
Although clearly less desirable than the Maple area in terms of proximity to the university and the lands and forests headquarters, the Sault Ste. Marie area was preferred for its proximity to the forests and the forest industries, for the already invested capital, and for the minimum displacement of personnel to be incurred.
Accommodation presently occupied by our forestry pathology unit at Maple could undoubtedly be used by research elements of the Ontario departments of lands and forests, fisheries, wildlife or forestry. Therefore our abandonment of these premises would not pose any serious problem to the Ontario authorities.
In view of the department's regional development program, it must finally be kept in mind that the problem of acquisition of land

should be easily solved in Sault Ste. Marie and that the constitution of a fully integrated forest research unit will be favoured by concentration in that community.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The parliamentary secretary's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.


Friday, March 5, 1965