1965-02-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of parliament and therefore the rights of every member of parliament. Parliament is the highest court of the land; parliament is a court. Every member of parliament within this jurisdiction is a judge of this court.
My question of privilege arises out of a statement made by the Minister of Justice while addressing the S.G.W.U. students. The statement was reported in the Montreal Gazette dated February 23, and the comment of the minister is in quotation marks. He was referring to the Dorion commission requested by parliament, requested by the members of parliament and therefore requested by this court and the judges of this court. After much argument the government agreed to set up the Dorion commission by order in council P.C. 1964-1819 and amended order in council P.C. 1964-1820. The words of the minister that I say brought parliament into ridicule and contempt and which are prejudicial to the Dorion commission and prejudge the facts and the evidence are as follows;
When all is said and done most of the insinuations made against the government will be proven to be unfounded.
Further he went on to say, in his own case:
My conscience was clear when the inquiry began and it will remain clear when it ends.
I submit that these words amount to contempt because they create an undue interference with the administration of justice in Canada, which department the minister heads. Any undue interference in reference to the evidence, in reference to the witnesses themselves, and particularly any undue interference with reference to the officers of a tribunal which may exercise undue influence amounts to contempt.
I wish to quote from volume 8, third edition, of Halsbury's Laws of England. Paragraph 16 bears the heading "Obstructing officers of the court" and is as follows:
Contempt by obstructing an officer of the court is punished, not for the purpose of vindicating the dignity of the court or the person of the officer, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.
I ask the question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister exercise, by words now published in the Gazette, undue interference with the administration of justice as far as the Dorion inquiry is concerned? I now refer to the terms and conditions of the amended order in council dated November 27, 1964, P.C. 1964-1820, and I quote in part:
To inquire fully into allegations about any improper inducements having been offered to or improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith-
And this is important.
-including the manner in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and any officer thereof and the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice dealt with the allegations when they were brought to their attention.
I now wish to refer to a decision of Mr. Justice Owens of the Quebec Queen's bench division, the case of Sommer v. The Queen, 40 Criminal Reports, page 426:
To speak generally, contempt of court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant of their witnesses during the litigation.
Oswald, at page 5, cites from the case of Miller v. Knox (1838) 4 Bing (N.C.) 574, also found in 132 English reports, 910, the following:
"It is defined or described to be a disobedience to the court, an opposing or a despising the authority, justice, or dignity thereof. It commonly consists in a party's doing otherwise than he is enjoined to do, or not doing what he is commanded or required by the process, order, or decree of the court."
There is the often cited statement of Lord Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor, in the St. James' Evening Post case (1742), 2 Atk. 471, also reported in English reports, 683:
"There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is scandalizing the court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this court, in abusing parties who are concerned in

Question of Privilege
causes here. There may be also a contempt of this court, in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard."
That is important because these statements of which I complain were made by the minister at this meeting before the matter was heard and before a judgment was rendered.
Again at page 91 Oswald states the matter as follows:
"Ail publications which offend against the dignity of the court, or are calculated to prejudice the course of justice, will constitute contempts. Offences of this nature are of three kinds-namely, those which scandalize the court; or abuse the parties concerned in causes there; or prejudice mankind against persons before the cause is heard. Under the first head fall libels on the integrity of the court, its judges, officers, or proceedings; under the second and third heads anything which tends to excite prejudice against the parties, or their litigation, while it is pending."
Other descriptions and definitions of contempt of court are set out in the notes of my colleague Mr. Justice Rivard which I will not repeat.
Then reference is made to several authorities, including McLeod v. Aubyn, (1899) appeal cases, 549. The justice of the court then refers to many authorities.
From these authorities it would appear that a criminal contempt of court has two basic aspects, one consisting of acts or publications which bring the court or judge into contempt, and the other of acts or publications which interfere with or obstruct the course of justice.
The terms of reference in the inquiry approved by parliament directed Mr. Justice Dorion to inquire fully into not only the alleged bribery case but into the manner in which the officials of the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice dealt with those allegations and other allegations in question. I want to repeat that; that under the terms of reference the commissioner was directed to inquire into the manner in which the officials of the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice dealt with those allegations, and these matters are under review before that inquiry now. This statement was made before the evidence was complete, before the minister gave evidence-if he is going to give evidence-and before the judgment was made.
As I see it in brief, the administration of justice in this regard, the Minister of Justice in this regard, and therefore the government, were being tried on an issue to determine whether they had accepted their responsibility and were administering the law of the land impartially and without prejudice. Therefore when the minister made his remarks he unduly interfered with the administration of justice, or at least endeavoured to interfere unduly with the administration of
[Mr. Woolliams.j
justice because he, the minister, caused to be published by his words an article in the newspaper which could unduly interfere with the administration of justice.
He used words in his speech which (1) attempted to prejudge and prejudice the decision, and attempted to prejudge the judicial inquiry; (2) prejudiced himself as a witness, for his opinions now reported in the newspaper which show that the minister might have preconceived political ideas and motives and, even giving him the best benefit of the doubt, may tend to colour, shape and trim his evidence on the facts of which he has personal knowledge. In his position as minister he has exercised influence over public opinion so that the public have now prejudged themselves the evidence of the inquiry prior to judgment being rendered by that said inquiry.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, he has talked; he has intervened when he should have remained silent and aloof as Minister of Justice in this matter. Justice must not only be done but it must seem and appear to be done, and I say by his words in his speech before those students he prejudiced and interfered with the administration of justice so far as that inquiry is concerned.
We shall be interested in the next 24 hours in the attitude of the Prime Minister in this regard. If by his silence or by his words he approves the minister's conduct, then he himself is placed in a similar position, and one must deduce that the code of ethics laid down by the Prime Minister for his ministers is mere words, and that his edicts and memos as to political morality are meaningless.
Will the Prime Minister act now in reference to the statements made on that occasion before that student body, interfering with the administration of justice, and attempting to prejudice the tribunal, the Dorion commission?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think all lawyers here, except probably the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), and for obvious reasons, will agree that if somebody is placing himself in contempt of a tribunal's hearings it is the hon. member for Bow River-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Churchill:: Withdraw.


Guy Favreau: -who has just delivered-


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the Minister of Justice should not include me in that broad general category of "all lawyers here" who would agree with him; far from it.


Guy Favreau: That is a relatively poor point of order. The hon. member for Bow River, maybe with the best of intentions, has just dealt with something which may be of interest to the Dorion commission itself. Whether or not I have placed myself in contempt is not a matter for the hon. member for Bow River; it is a matter for Chief Justice Dorion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: What the hon. member has just done is precisely to tell the public and the court that I should be declared in contempt on a process before that court, and that is precisely what is wrong in the circumstances. Anyway-

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the intervention of the hon. member for Bow River results, as it unfortunately often happens, from the failure of a member of the house to get fully acquainted with the facts, as he should, before making innuendoes or charges against someone.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the minister would answer a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the hon. gentleman deny the remarks which were made in the paper?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue with my explanation, I shall say this. During what you might call an informal press conference and discussion, I was asked for my opinion on what went on before the Dorion commission. My first reply-which I am proud to repeat because I am proud of it-was as follows: "Having practised law for 23 years and in my capacity as Minister of Justice, it will be realized that I could not accept to discuss any facts whatever now being examined at the Dorion inquiry."
It is true that I have not discussed any fact, any allegation brought before the Dorion commission. Naturally, in the course of my remarks I did say with regard to the insinuations-and we have heard quite a few here- to the innuendoes being spread all around,
Question of Privilege
that when all is said and done, those would prove groundless for the most part. I added this-and I admit repeating it to my wife and children-for the information of the hon. member for Bow River, that I had a clear conscience, that I always had and would always have.
Mr. Speaker, if one is to be held in contempt of court for stating he is sure of having a clear conscience, well, I shall always be found in contempt of court.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Medicine Hat rising on a motion?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The question before the house is whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no motion before the house. Had the hon. member for Bow River followed up his statement with a motion the house might have been seized with it, but there has been a statement on one side and a reply on the other. I therefore propose to continue with the business of the house.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: want to ask the Minister of Justice a question with reference to the statement contained in his speech of Monday last in Montreal, to which allusion has already been made. The minister is quoted as having said:
When all Is said and done, most of the insinuations made against the government will be proven unfounded.
In view of the fact that the minister and his department are both the subjects of investigation, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether in this statement he was seeking to anticipate the report by Chief Justice Dorion on the matters which were referred to him. If not, to what was the minister referring when he made that statement?


Guy Favreau: think I gave a complete explanation of this matter after the hon. member for Bow River rose on a question of privilege. I do not know whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was present at that moment. I would suggest respectfully that he read the transcript in Hansard tomorrow and if there are additional questions he wishes to put he may ask them.

Question of Privilege


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was in the house; I heard the statement, but I certainly did not hear any answer to the question. Possibly the minister himself will read his statement and if he can find any answer in it he will convey it to the house tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That last
comment is out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. In the same speech the minister is quoted as having said: "I don't believe there needs to be a clean up." I want to ask the minister if this is to be considered as a criticism of the Prime Minister for having disposed of both his parliamentary assistant and the minister without portfolio.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Perhaps I might ask the genial Minister of Justice a question. I have before me the speech made by the hon. gentleman last evening in which he applied the whitewash in anticipation. Has the minister yet given evidence before this commission, and by this statement did he prejudge what the chief justice would find after he had been privileged to listen to the hon. gentleman giving evidence?


Guy Favreau: Knowing the integrity of the chief justice of the province of Quebec, if I happened to say something-which I deny completely-which would have had reference to the proceedings before him, I know that nobody could prejudge him.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. The question was, is the hon. gentleman going to give evidence and does he feel, even in advance of the evidence that he may give and that he has so concealed from the house, that the chief justice will find everything is clean and aboveboard? Is that what he meant?


Guy Favreau: I know the right hon. gentleman has just tried to testify himself.


John George Diefenbaker: What is this childishness on the part of the minister?


Guy Favreau: A childish answer to a childish question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: I beg leave to table a list of recommendations of the royal commission on 
government organization approved by the government on February 9, 1965. This list supplements the list tabled in the House of Commons on November 5, 1963.



INDUSTRY


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking I gave the house last week I would like to make a statement regarding heavy water production in Canada.
Hon. members will recall that in December, 1963 I advised the house of the government's acceptance of the proposal submitted by Deuterium of Canada Limited to construct and operate a plant to produce heavy water in Canada. The government undertook to underwrite the sale by Deuterium of Canada Limited of 1,000 tons of heavy water, to be produced at a rate of not less than 200 tons per year. Construction of this plant is proceeding on schedule.
Since that decision was taken it has become apparent that the production capacity of the Deuterium of Canada Limited plant would be quite insufficient to meet the domestic demand for heavy water by itself. Accordingly the government decided to encourage the construction of further plant facilities by inviting further proposals.
The government has decided to accept a proposal submitted by Western Deuterium Company Limited, which offers a sale price for heavy water at $14.65 per pound. This is significantly lower than the prices submitted by other bidders. Western Deuterium Company Limited, a wholly Canadian owned British Columbia company, will locate the new plant at Estevan, Saskatchewan.
The plant is to have a capacity to produce 300 tons of heavy water per annum, and the government of Canada will underwrite the sale of the first five years of production at this rate. The company will utilize the maximum possible quantities of Canada materials and equipment, will employ a Canadian owned and directed engineering firm in the construction of the plant, and will employ Canadian citizens in the operation of the plant.
The significantly lower sale price of heavy water to which I have referred is made possible by reason of the intention of Western Deuterium Company Limited to employ a new production process rather than the here-

tofore conventional hydrogen sulphide process. The government has instructed Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to satisfy itself that the employment of this process will guarantee an output of heavy water sufficient to meet the requirements of the invitation, and the acceptance of Western Deuterium Company Limited's proposal is necessarily subject to A.E.C.L.'s endorsement.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Is it the intention of the minister to table a report on the activities of the 12 coordinators of the Department of Industry regarding their efforts to establish Canadian and foreign industries across Canada since the department has been established? If so, when does he intend to do so?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I must take that question as notice.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house yesterday when the Prime Minister tabled his statement in reference to the matter of constitutional amendments. I therefore would like to ask him this question. Will there be, on the part of parliament, the opportunity given for a detailed examination, clause by clause, in committee of the whole house, of the proposed amendments? I would appreciate having the Prime Minister's views in that connection so the house will know what opportunity it is going to have to deal with a matter as important as the question not only of the repatriation of the constitution but more particularly the amendments thereto.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity for a detailed examination into this very important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: So there will be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the various sections in which changes are to be made may be fully discussed, considered and voted on in the house, clause by clause and section by section?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that would be covered by my phrase "detailed examination", Mr. Speaker. I appreciate how important this matter is, and the house will be given every opportunity to discuss it in all its detail.


John George Diefenbaker: And will the house be allowed to vote on it?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure this house that in addition to detailed discussions hon. members may, through the establishment of a committee, hear the views of constitutional experts in respect of the results of the constitutional formula? This of course would involve going slightly further than just holding discussions on the subject in the committee of the whole house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is also under consideration, and the decision in that regard will be affected at least to some extent by the type of consideration that is being given to the question by provincial legislatures, as well as by the hearings they may hold.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have
another supplementary question. Will there be an opportunity for such eminent authorities on the constitution as the former Liberal premier of Manitoba and minister of justice Mr. Garson, who has specifically asked that the fullest discussions possible take place on this matter, to express his points of view on some of these dangerous agreed amendments as they now stand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that the question on the setting up of a committee to hear evidence on the matter is under consideration.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO PRELIMINARY REPORT BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Prime Minister as to the possible whereabouts of one, two or more stray copies of the bicul-turalism and bilingualism commission's interim report. He was kind enough to give me some information in this regard the following day, but I am now wondering whether he has been able to ascertain from the commission whether it has been satisfied as to the whereabouts of all copies at all times?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did make inquiries, and have discovered that all mimeographed copies of the interim report sent to the government were accounted for. All were returned after my hon. friend asked his question in order to make sure there had been no leakage. I have asked for a report from the commission's secretary in respect of the disposition of the copies they had. I have not as yet received that report, though I have received an interim report to the effect that the commission has no knowledge of any leakage from their office but that further examinations will be made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question. Perhaps the Prime Minister would specifically ask the commission whether one, two or more copies have gone astray.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Ba-got):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event that some copies have gone astray, will the Prime Minister investigate and find out who obtained possession of them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have asked the commission to account for its copies, Mr. Speaker, and that is as far as I can go.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the announced plan of the bilingual and bicultural commission to renew its public hearings across the country, and in view of the numerous expressed fears about the adverse and negative results of a policy such as this, fears such as those expressed by the president of the Canadian Bar Association over the week end, will the minister inform the house whether the decision to renew these hearings was taken on the advice or with the approval of the government?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I would remind the hon. member that royal commissions report directly to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Knowles:: Since when? The Governor General, is it not?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the announcement by the Steel Company of Canada that it is increasing its price by some 4 per cent, which will result in an increase in the price of steel ranging from $5 to $7 per ton, bringing the price of steel up to somewhere between $145 and $157 per ton. In view of the effect this will have on industry in general and on the automobile and construction industries in particular, I should like to ask the minister, first, whether any study has been made by his department as to the economic necessity of taking such a step, and second, whether his department was consulted prior to this increase.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows the laws of this country better than I. I did see that report in the newspaper this morning, and I am discussing it with my officials in an attempt to ascertain what will be the effects of the increase.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is his intention to hold discussions with the steel industry in Canada in the event that he discovers there is no sound economic ground for this considerable increase.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are now venturing into rather hypothetical areas. I would prefer to conclude my discussions with my officials before stating what I may do under various circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can I take it from the minister's answer that he knew nothing about this increase prior to this announcement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, that is a fair inference.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that the national capital commission has just expropriated property overlooking the Lebreton flats area on which the new Department of National Defence headquarters building will be constructed, will the minis-

ter inform the house why the national capital commission withheld expropriation until the construction of an apartment building on that site had been started, and after expensive architectural plans had been completed and $350,000 spent in purchasing the property, all of which will necessitate an unnecessary reimbursement from taxpayers' money?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as plans for the reconstruction of Lebreton flats became known it became evident to the national capital commission that the property recently expropriated should form part of the Lebreton complex. As my hon. friend has stated, the headquarters of the national defence department will be located there, forming only a portion of the complete government complex to be located in this area. In view of the fact that a considerable amount of money had to be expended in that area it was felt that it would be wiser on the part of the government to expropriate the piece of land to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I might state that the new zoning bylaw would permit the construction of a building some 150 feet high on this promontory. Had that occurred the whole architectural plan involving the rest of Lebreton flats would have been compromised. For that reason it was felt to be in the public interest to expropriate this property at this time.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the department not aware of these facts three months or six months ago, when it was decided to construct the headquarters building at the proposed location?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Some time ago a decision was reached to construct the Department of National Defence headquarters building in the Lebreton flats area. At that time it was also decided that other government buildings should be located in the same area, forming a government complex of office buildings in the area from parliament hill west to Lebreton flats.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it a fact that the government has given some assurance to the Chinese
Inquiries of the Ministry national mission in Ottawa that it will not under any circumstances recognize the Peking regime, as was asserted by a representative of that government who is visiting at this time?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the hon. member is referring to the statement alleged to have been made yesterday in Toronto by the foreign minister of nationalist China. I have not seen that statement, but I expect to meet with Mr. Shen tomorrow when he visits Ottawa. At this time I can only say that I anticipate there will be no change in our policy regarding either Taipei or Peking as a result of this visit.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister inform the house whether any recent talks or conversations have taken place between the minister and representatives of the government of the Chinese nationalists?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did speak with the foreign minister the other day at the United Nations, but this subject was not discussed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the growing concern in Canada over the early expiry of the period in which persons can be charged with war offences in West Germany, would the minister tell the house the policy of the government in the matter, and whether the policy of the government has been communicated to the Bonn government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the decision in this matter, of course, is one that rests with the federal republic of West Germany. However, the Canadian government has been advised by the Bonn government that under present German law these trials will not cease after May, 1965. Persons guilty of war crimes may be prosecuted for years after that date if their names are before the courts by May 8 of this year.
The German authorities have assured us they are satisfied that legal action has already been taken or begun against the vast majority of German war criminals. However, I should

Inquiries of the Ministry say to my hon. friend that the government shares his concern and that of others with regard to the effect of the statute of limitations, and conversations between Canada and other wartime allies and the German government are under way.



THE MONARCHY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In order to meet the growing speculation which has appeared in the press, and which has been encouraged by members of the official opposition, will the Prime Minister restate to this house and to the people of Canada at this time the policy and feelings of the government and of the Liberal party in respect of the monarchy and Canada's membership in the commonwealth?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there should be no cause for speculation on this matter either inside the house or outside the house, because the policy of the government is perfectly clear. It is to maintain the monarchy as a cherished, strong and important part of our constitution which has earned and will receive our loyalty and our respect.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say why it took him over two weeks to make this statement, and then only in response to the prompting of a question in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been making that kind of statement every two weeks for years, and there should be no cause for any doubt about our position.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make any observation on that except to say that the question as worded was entirely out of order and the statement by the Prime Minister will not reassure any Canadians whatsoever.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime

Minister this question. The other day there was some discussion regarding our flag, its desecration by burning and the making of such conduct a criminal offence. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to whether having Canada's flag on a cap which he accepted with such alacrity and happiness was not something in the nature of gross indignity to our flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my right hon. friend has been able to follow the news lately, and I am also glad that he refers to the burning of our flag as desecration.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In so far as the hat is concerned, I am aware of my right hon. friend's anxiety about desecration in this matter. It was a straw hat with a red maple leaf on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. I have a photograph here. I rise on a question of privilege. It was simply the present flag of Canada that the Prime Minister accepted and treated with such contemptuous disregard for its sacred character.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking about firing, did the Minister of National Defence give instructions to the various militia units the other day to burn the red ensigns assigned to each one of those units? Were those instructions given?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, seeing that the right hon. gentleman has commented on my headgear I think the only way to settle this matter would be to table the hat in question.


An hon. Member:: Table the head with it.


John George Diefenbaker: As long as the right hon. gentleman's head is not in it that might be all right.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government of British Columbia or the B.C. hydro authority made

application for licences under the International River Improvements Act for the construction of dams on the Peace and Columbia rivers? If so, when were they granted, and were reservations made to protect navigation and fishing rights on those rivers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will take up the question on the late show tonight.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising is to endeavour to eliminate the late night show which at the present time involves the hon. member for Kootenay West and myself.
Yesterday the hon. member inquired of the Minister of Public Works in respect of applications by the government of the province of British Columbia or its agency in respect of the Peace river and the Columbia river. If I may be permitted to answer him now, I would say that the Peace river is not an international river and therefore there is no application under the International River Improvements Act respecting that particular river. In respect of the Columbia, it is a fact that the B.C. hydro and power authority has made a certain application under the International River Improvements Act, which application is at present before the government and will be acted upon very quickly.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Aihabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister advise the house on the proposed protest march of the Indians in northern Alberta? This is of immediate concern and is related as well to the Cree band at Fort Chipewyan, who are faced with a severe economic problem due to the increase in population and the decrease in their sources of self employed income, and who are requesting reserve facilities at present denied to them.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. It is not a proposed march; it was an actual trek that took place yesterday. Some 110 or 111 Indians are in
Inquiries of the Ministry Edmonton today and will probably be there tomorrow.
In order to deal with the matter effectively I might refer briefly to this particular band of Indians. Hay Lakes is located in the northwestern part of Alberta. It is readily accessible only by air and is a typical isolated bush community whose eventual development will depend on the provision of road access to resources and markets. At the moment some 40-odd members of the band are provided with jobs cutting pulpwood but 85 per cent of the band are still suffering economic difficulties because of the nature of soil, topography and other conditions that exist.
I should like to assure the hon. member and other members interested that the report in last night's paper that there is real hardship with a threat of starvation is extreme and untrue. I should also like to assure the house that the 110 or so Indians involved are behaving in a very orderly manner and are discussing their claims with the government of Alberta and with senior representatives of my department with dignity and great restraint. Discussions with regional officers of the department are and will be continuing today and tomorrow. We have asked the chief of our economic development branch to proceed west tonight, and he will be participating tomorrow in the discussions with the Alberta government, the Indians themselves and the regional officers of the department.
With regard to the other reserve referred to by my hon. friend, that at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, I might say that the Cree band who occupy that reserve has a land entitlement under treaty No. 8 which has never been met. The circumstances there are rather special. I might also say that the chief of the band, Chief Cowie, wrote my predecessor and made a request or inquired as to the possibilities of securing some land in the Wood Buffalo national park. Negotiations are going on between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Alberta government regarding this park, and I have asked for a report on them. If I have anything further of interest to report I will make a statement at a later date.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether it is true that the band at Hay Lakes had on previous occasions asked the department to help develop an economic program, and that the only response it received from the department was an offer of more welfare which they really did not want.

Inquiries of the Ministry Second, I should like to ask whether the premier of Alberta has wired the government asking for assistance and, if so, what response the government has made.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to deny the suggestion that the department has done nothing. The department has been in close contact with the Indians themselves as well as with the government of Alberta. Discussions have advanced to the stage that they have set up an Indian friendship centre in Calgary for the province of Alberta, and these economic questions have been or are being referred to this friendship centre for study. The Indians are represented as well as both senior levels of government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether it is correct, as reported in the press, that the premier of Alberta has wired the Prime Minister asking for action; and if that is correct does it not raise some question with regard to the minister's assurance that the province of Alberta is apparently satisfied with the action his department is taking?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in answering that question, with the approval of the Prime Minister, I believe I can say that a wire was received. The Prime Minister has sent a wire to Premier Manning informing him that the specific problem raised is an economic problem of the nature I have just discussed. He has discussed it with me, and Mr. Valentine, who is chief of the economic development branch of the department of Indian affairs, is going west today to participate in these discussions which are taking place today and tomorrow.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very severe winter which has occurred in northern Alberta, can the minister assure the house that if immediate relief is required for these Indians, any necessary assistance will be provided?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in giving such assurance. I was in touch with our regional officers in Alberta yesterday through my deputy minister and am assured that the situation is well under control and that immediate help will be given if necessary.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the urgent necessity for sugar beet farmers to plan their operations for the coming crop year, when will the government announce its policy for this crop?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we will be announcing this policy tomorrow.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO PROJECTS UNDER ARDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. What special action can be expected from the minister under ARDA in Nova Scotia, in view of the year end reports on agriculture indicating a disastrous year for the industry?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the initiative in ARDA projects rests with the provinces.


Robert Carman Coates: I think the minister is also aware that a degree of leadership must be shown by his department in Nova Scotia. That has not been indicated to date, and I wonder what he is going to do about it.


Maurice Sauvé: I shall send my hon. friend copies of all my recent speeches on ARDA.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry.
Has the minister given instructions to the farm loan division of the province of Quebec for the reduction of loans in order to comply with the wishes of the agriculture minister of that province, since there are 18,000 farmers too many in that province who should definitely leave their farms?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the agricultural minister of the province of Quebec has jurisdiction over farm loans granted in that province.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction or an explanatory state-

ment in regard to the question I have put to the Minister of Forestry.
I think the minister seemed to think a moment ago that I was referring to the Quebec farm loan board, but I was talking about the federal Farm Credit Corporation.


Maurice Sauvé: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have no authority over the Farm Credit Corporation.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED PAYMENTS FOR ANIMALS DESTROYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture that tomorrow will be a day of policy announcements, would he say whether he is going to comply with the requests of the counties of Grey and Ontario in the resolution they submitted to him to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide for increases in amounts payable for losses of cattle?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the submission as yet.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member for Skeena that the Prince Rupert elevator is going ahead on schedule.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister to accept the thanks of the people of Prince Rupert for this long awaited, much belated announcement which we read about some months ago.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Ontario, and not related to the answer which the minister gave to a question which was not asked by the hon. member for Skeena. I must remind him that the presentation from the county of Grey was placed before him some weeks ago, with reference to the amounts paid for animals destroyed under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, a presentation which was supported by at least one member of the house. If the minister has not got it before him I think he should examine his correspondence and see if such a request was made, so that the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario can also be answered tomorrow. This is an important matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harry William Hays: I will be pleased to do that, but in case the hon. member still has it in his office perhaps he would send it over to me.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You will have the same one in yours.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that 39 men of the Canadian commercial fishing fleet lost their lives at sea during 1964, has the present government given any thought to establishing a royal commission of inquiry into search and rescue operations off the Atlantic coast, giving special attention to the inadequacy of the present Canadian coastguard and also to improving deep sea weather forecasting?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that no consideration has been given to the establishment of a royal commission, but I think the hon. gentleman does know that our whole policy with respect to search and rescue is under active review. Certain changes have already been made and we hope to make additional improvements in the course of the next few months.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house, if this is not going beyond his cabinet responsibility, whether in his considerations he is taking into account the suggestion which was made that the Canadian coastguard use some of the Royal Canadian Navy minesweepers which have been mothballed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The feasibility of that suggestion is under consideration at the present moment.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the figures just released by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which show that housing starts for January were down 17.9 per cent, apartment starts were down 21.4 per cent and

Inquiries of the Ministry single detached housing starts were down 14.6 per cent, and that applications for C.M.H.C. loans for the month of January were down 30.8 per cent, would he not give immediate and serious consideration to withdrawing the 11 per cent sales tax on building supplies?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend should give too much weight to the figures for one month. I can assure him that the housing industry has never been more flourishing.


Mr. Graffley:: We have never had it so good.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It seems to me I have heard this question before, and the answer is the same.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that the 30.8 per cent decrease in applications represents applications for future building? Therefore it is a serious matter and detrimental to our building industry in the months which he ahead.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the implications.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When speaking yesterday Mr. William Davis called for increased federal aid to universities, saying this matter was a national problem. He also indicated that tax cuts at this stage, as the minister has indicated might be the case, would not be desirable in view of the present situation regarding education. Can the minister comment on this statement, and has he any plans to increase aid to universities?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have no comment to make, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: As a supplementary question, in view of the strong submissions made by the provincial minister of education, can the minister assure the house that the government will be substantially increasing its contributions to universities so they can carry out their functions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Any announcement of the government's intentions in this matter will be made at the appropriate time. tMr. Hales.]
MUNICIPAL, DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND-NEW BRUNSWICK ALLOCATION	-
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance of which I have given him notice. Has New Brunswick used up its allocation under the municipal development loan fund?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether he can assure the house that plans for Expo '67 are proceeding on schedule and that it will in fact be ready by 1967. My question comes to mind following the statement made in Winnipeg on Friday by Mr. Riley, president of the Winnipeg pan-American games association, who said that he did not think it would open till 1968.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give this assurance. Plans for Expo '67 are on schedule and it will open in 1967, our centennial year.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could say whether he agrees with the views expressed by the Minister of Justice, as reported today, in the matter of the abolition of capital punishment. The Minister of Justice's views are, apparently, that serious consideration must be given to retaining the death penalty for persons convicted of murdering policemen or prison guards. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister shares that view.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. The question of the abolition of capital punishment will, of course, be decided by the house in a free vote, and all expressions of opinion by hon. members should, I believe, be both free and unpolitical.

11S29



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGES IN PAROLE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Justice arising out of his speech last night in which he said, among other things, that a great deal of improvement was needed in our parole system, that many improvements were still to be made. In view of the widespread interest and speculation that this statement has already created can he inform the house whether it is his intention to make a statement this session with regard to the proposals of the government for changes and amendments affecting the parole system?


Guy Favreau: This being a matter of government policy, any announcement must clearly be made in due course. I did make a general statement, but the hon. member will agree that there is no report of anything specific being said, so I did not infringe the privileges of the house by not letting hon. members know first.


Reid Scott: I was not suggesting any infringement of the privileges of the house. Would the minister at least try to make such a statement before the house votes on the issue of capital punishment?


Guy Favreau: I can answer yes to that question, because to the extent that a statement is possible I will make a point of making one.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Some months ago the minister announced that he expected to appoint a committee of people outside the membership of the House of Commons to study certain aspects of penology and the like. This was to happen in due course. I wonder whether "due course" has now arrived and he is able to make a further announcement on this subject.


Guy Favreau: I may say that the terms of reference are now prepared for submission to my colleagues. In addition I have taken steps to discuss with certain persons of high standing the feasibility of one or more of them becoming members of that committee.



WHEREABOUTS OF FORMER MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a question for the Minister of Justice; it has just come to my attention. A charge was laid against the former minister without portinquiries of the Ministry folio requiring his appearance in court with reference to a $10,000 kickback. He did not appear in court and a summons was issued in that regard. Has the minister any evidence that the former minister is absent from the jurisdiction?


An hon. Member:: In Mexico; that is where he is.


Guy Favreau: will take that question as notice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report of a coroner's jury inquiring into the death of an infant child at the Smiths Falls childrens' hospital, to the effect that there was gross overcrowding and lack of care of the children at this hospital, and in view of the fact that federal funds go into that area by way of grants from the federal government to the province of Ontario, I wonder whether the minister is contemplating an inquiry into the conduct of affairs at the Smiths Falls hospital?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



ACTION TO MEET SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Inasmuch as the second report of the Hall commission is now filed, does the government contemplate taking immediate action relating to an imminent shortage of doctors with which the nation is faced?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, if by "immediate" my hon. friend means today, I am rather busy with legislation before the house.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question would the minister care to give the house her definition of "immediate" and satisfy the questions of many people in Canada relating to this serious problem we are faced with, namely an imminent crisis relating to a shortage of doctors? Further, does the government

Inquiries of the Ministry contemplate taking action in the near future, or some time in the future, relating to this most serious problem?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I obviously am well aware of the shortage of doctors. This is a matter of considerable concern to the government, but I cannot agree that it is within my responsibility as Minister of National Health and Welfare to give my hon. friend the definition he seeks.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. My question is occasioned by the announcement which emanated from the Prime Minister's office a short while ago that parliament will be asked to authorize a contribution of some $30 million to a highway building program in the Atlantic provinces. In view of this I ask the minister whether he is going to take any steps to revive the proposed federal-provincial conference on highways that was discontinued by his predecessor about a year ago.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall take this question as notice and advise the hon. member that it may be possible to have a statement on this matter shortly.

REQUEST FOR INCREASED GRANT FOR PANAMERICAN GAMES On the orders of the day:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government is giving consideration to increasing its grant for the Pan-Am games to be held in Winnipeg in 1967.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend no doubt knows, the announcement he made a week or so before the 1963 election with respect to the amount the federal government would give for the Pan-Am games no longer holds good, because the amount he mentioned has been more than doubled by this government. The sum of $1 million was offered on the formula which has been supported by Winnipeg and by the province of Manitoba for about six [Mr. Grafftey.)
years, namely one third, one third and one third shared responsibility.
I am also sure my hon. friend knows I went to Winnipeg to discuss this with Mr. Baizley of the Manitoba government and with the mayor of Winnipeg, and that at that time the city of Winnipeg proper doubled its offer. Now Mr. Reilly, who is head of the citizens group, is making strenuous efforts to get from those who will benefit most, that is the people in Winnipeg and vicinity, a pledge for about $1 million for the Olympic swimming pool. In addition there has been an offer from the provincial government of Manitoba that it would meet any dollar value raised by greater Winnipeg, and if that were done then $1 million, $1 million and $1 million on a one third sharing formula will be made available and Winnipeg will be host for the Pan-American games.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: As a
supplementary question may I ask the minister to compare this contribution with that made to the world fair. The minister has said that the amount has been doubled since 1963 over the undertaking then given by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but I believe the grant to Montreal for the world fair has more than tripled in that same interval.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I say that any amount paid by the federal government to the world fair, which of course is for all of Canada as indeed are the Pan-Am games, does not come from the annual vote for fitness and amateur sport, which next year will be only $4 million. In other words, 25 per cent of the amount available for the whole year for fitness and amateur sport in this country has been offered to the city of Winnipeg for the Pan-Am games.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise on a question of privilege based on the fact that last week I questioned the Minister of Labour on four different occasions with regard to government policy on unemployment, and I think it was as late as yesterday that the Secretary of State for External Affairs promised me the Minister of Labour would make such a statement. My question of privilege is, has the Secretary of State for

External Affairs been able to fulfil that promise?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I undertook to reply to a number of questions raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, in which he referred to approximately half a million persons as being unemployed in Canada at the present time. In the circumstances a factual comment is essential.
In January of this year the employment total was higher than a year earlier by some
211.000	or 3.5 per cent. Unemployment in January, at 408,000, was 58,000 lower than a year before; the figure is 408,000, not 500,000.
All five major economic regions shared in the improved employment situation in the past year. The largest percentage increases occurred in British Columbia and the Atlantic region, the gains being 5.5 per cent and
4.0	per cent respectively. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to a low of
4.0	per cent in December, 1964 which was the lowest rate for any month since the early part of 1957. By comparison, the annual unemployment rate in 1963 was 5.6 per cent. In 1962 it was 6 per cent and in 1961 it was 7.2 per cent.
On an annual basis the unemployment rate in 1964 for the Atlantic region and Ontario was the lowest since 1956. In the other regions the rate was lowest since 1957. The January 1965 rate of 6 per cent unemployed is to be compared to 7 per cent for January 1964 and 8.3 per cent in January 1963. The government proposes to continue and develop policies necessary to a continuing improvement in the employment situation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Another question, Mr. Speaker. That, of course, is the type of answer we would expect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -but it by no means fulfils government promises to endeavour to do away with this problem altogether, which make utter nonsense. It is regrettable that at this stage only dominion bureau of statistics figures are available to us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the lateness of the hour may we have the question?


Reid Scott: In view of the fact that other countries such as Britain are operating on the basis of unemployment figures of 1.6 per cent and the like, does the minister not think, in the light of the disclosures of the economic council, that instead of making a fatuous statement such as the
Inquiries of the Ministry one to which we have just been subjected he ought to be considering a far more reasonable program designed to attack unemployment?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the minister think this is the type of answer that should be given when 408,000 people are unemployed in this country?

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask whether in those figures he gave me a few minutes ago he has included the several thousand people in Canada, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, who have become fed up with going to the national employment office when they cannot receive employment. My question refers to workers in the east in particular. When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to cast any reflection on the officers of the national employment service, because I know they cannot find employment for these men.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not included any statistics to support the unfounded allegations of my hon. friend, because in the Atlantic provinces in the past year the total employment has increased by
22,000	or 4 per cent-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I can provide the minister with evidence.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and even in his island, my island, employment in the past years has also increased substantially.


Robert Muir: You are wrong there.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour with regard to his reference to "our island". Will he now give the information that I have requested in several questions and with regard to which he said he would be making a statement at an appropriate time? Would he now report to the house any progress in connection with the alternative work program undertaken at the time of the lay-offs at Point Edward naval base? The former associate minister of national defence referred to this program as having had considerable success.
Would the minister now indicate just what success they have attained with this program, and possibly because of the close association

Inquiries of the Ministry he has with the island would he indicate just how many jobs have been provided for those men who have been laid off?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make a statement on an occasion when I have sufficient time to deal with the variety of projects that have been instituted on Cape Breton island to meet the employment problem posed by the closing of the Point Edward naval base.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. The minister will realize that I have put a direct question to him in reference to the alternative work program. He now says he will answer the question at the appropriate time when he has the information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper. We have discussed this matter for the past four days.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this particular problem can be discussed for not only four days but for five days in every week of the year, and if we do not get the answers from the Minister of Labour I will continue to ask them. Is he not aware of the situation in Cape Breton, as I and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria are aware of it, and the fact that there has been no successful solution under this alternative work program to replace the 400 or 500 men laid off at the Point Edward naval base?


Robert Muir: This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not see any reason why you should allow the type of conduct that is exemplified by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) and which he engages in continually.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but if he has a charge to make against the Chair will he please make it in the proper way.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am not making a charge against the Chair; I am making a request that the Chair see that the business of this house is conducted as it should be; and if the member for Renfrew South continues to interfere from his seat, the Chair should have enough courage to stop it. It is time that this sort of interference was stopped. If the Chair does not have the authority to do it the

member will continue with this type of obstruction which he carries on here all the time.


Robert Muir: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and say that I think the unemployment situation is a very important question. If Your Honour requires proof-and you were in the house in those days-the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) used to speak about-


Mr. Byrne:: Question.


Robert Muir: The hon. gentleman from Kootenay East, who is still sitting on his brains, says "Question". I would ask that Your Honour call him to order. I am rising on a point of order, incidentally. I thought I had spoken loud enough so that hon. members on the other side of the house could hear. I am trying to impress upon you, sir, as the Speaker, how important is the unemployment situation. These questions have been allowed in the past, but why are they not now allowed? Why are we told to sit down every time we speak about unemployment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. A number of questions have been asked in respect of unemployment. These questions have been answered. The hon. member for Cape Breton South asked for a detailed outline of employment projects for Cape Breton island. Under our rules it is left to the minister to determine whether a question of that kind can be answered in the short space of time that is available on orders of the day.
I propose at a later date to make a full statement regarding this employment question in respect of Cape Breton island. However, I reserve the right under our rules to make that statement at an appropriate time rather than on orders of the day, at which time it would be completely improper to enter into that kind of a discussion.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is a question in which a good many Canadians are interested.

My question is based on some remarks made last evening by the minister when he was referring to the criticisms made by the hon. member for Halifax with respect to the proposed reduction of passenger service on the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In order that members of the house will not be required to rely entirely on the prognostications of that esteemed member of the press gallery, Mr. Victor Mackie, would the minister inquire of the president of the C.P.R. what its policy is at present with respect to the reduction of passenger services in Canada, and report to the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since under the rules of the house ministers are only expected to answer for those bodies which are under their jurisdiction, and since the hon. member is a more eminent member of the house than I, I suggest that he make the inquiry of the C.P.R.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux).


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Transport-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am trying to keep some system here. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would ask a separate question right after the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has asked his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of the answer he gave to the hon. member for Kootenay West. In view of the large subsidies which the government is paying to the Canadian Pacific Railway, does the minister not think he has some responsibility to keep in touch with that railway as to what are its policies, and to communicate those policies to the House of Commons?


Eric Alfred Winkler: They don't care.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is, to the best of my knowledge, no subsidy paid to Canadian Pacific Railway in respect of passenger service. There is a vote of this house with respect to the roll-back in freight rates that was started under the previous government, and there was a subsidy of a general nature,
Inquiries of the Ministry also recommended by the previous administration, to carry on until such time as the bill is passed which I introduced at this session and which is now, in its substance though not its form, before the railway committee.
But that is a subsidy that is paid to the railways indifferently and not to the Canadian Pacific Railway as such. The government has no control over the Canadian Pacific Railway, though certain agencies set up by parliament, such as the board of transport commissioners, have some control. I think it would be a very dangerous principle for the government as a government, to take the responsibility of starting to inquire into the affairs of organizations, which are not under its jurisdiction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister this question, Mr. Speaker. Since the railways report to the board of transport commissioners and the board of transport commissioners report to the minister, is he prepared to ask the board of transport commissioners to communicate with the Canadian Pacific Railway in order that he and parliament may eventually ascertain whether or not that railway intends to carry out a passenger service policy that will serve the needs of the Canadian people?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if anyone wishes to pose to me, at any time, any question about any matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners, I will be in the future, as I have been in the past, very happy to pass it on to them.


An hon. Member:: You are evading the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not a quiz program.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I have to speak ahead of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), although about 50 members spoke ahead of me.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport following the announcement concerning the appointment of Mr. Renault St. Laurent to the board of directors of the C.N.R. Could the minister tell the house whether he or the C.N.R. management is responsible for that appointment of a non-

Canada Pension Plan
political figure without any political allegiance to replace the former president of the Quebec Liberal federation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone who knows Mr. St. Laurent will feel that this was a very good nomination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 22, 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 last evening clause 2 was under consideration. At that time the hon. member for Skeena proposed an amendment to clause 2, subclause (1), paragraph "o". The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena is as follows:
That clause 2 be amended by adding in paragraph "o" of subclause (1) at the end thereof the following:
"and includes any person who is engaged in fishing who, for the purposes of this act, shall be referred to as a fisherman."
Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr.   Pailerson@: Mr. Chairman, it is my view that the position occupied by commercial fishermen should be considered under the terms of subsequent clauses. However, in view of the fact that this subject has now been discussed during our consideration of clause 2, in respect of which an amendment has been proposed, I should like to make a few observations.
The cause of the fishermen on the west coast and, as has been indicated, the fishermen in other areas, is one which deserves the full consideration of this house, particularly as it relates to the terms of this Canada pension plan. It was the intention of this plan to bring as many Canadian workers as possible under its provisions, and when one considers fishermen and their peculiar problems he must come to the conclusion that they also deserve consideration.
This matter was dealt with in some detail in the brief presented to the special committee by the united fishermen and allied workers

union, which is an organization representing and speaking for a large part of the fishing industry on the west coast. May I say that this union has done a commendable job in representing the fishermen of that area.
At page 13 of their brief they have called the special committee's attention to some recommended amendments to Bill C-136 which they feel necessary if this plan is to meet the requirements of fishermen and make them eligible for benefits.
Very briefly their recommended amendments are as follows:
(1)	Inclusion of all commercial fishermen in the definition of employment considered to be pensionable employment, notwithstanding that some fishermen may not appear legally to be employees.
(2)	Inclusion as employers of fishermen any fishing company, co-operative or person with whom fishermen enter into contractual or other commercial relationship in respect of their occupations as fishermen.
(3)	All such other matters as are necessary to provide that commercial fishermen are included in the Canada pension plan, with the normal employers share of the contribution being paid by the fish processing companies and co-operatives.
Following these recommendations the brief outlines the reasons why these amendments are not only necessary but desirable and warranted.
This matter has been discussed by a number of members in the house both on the opposition and government sides, and at least the principle has been supported by those hon. members. I should like at this time to indicate my support of the principle that has been enunciated, to the effect that commercial fishermen should have status under the Canada pension plan similar to or the same as that which they occupy under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I recognize the fact that all factors are not parallel, but I believe they are parallel at least to the extent that this suggestion should be taken into consideration. It does seem rather strange that there should be different interpretations in two federal statutes.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard stated that he felt the representations made on behalf of the fishermen should be studied thoroughly with a view to bringing the fishermen within the terms of the Canada pension plan before the governor in council drafts the regulations. As pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena, perhaps that should have been sufficient to meet the situation, but I feel the fishermen would be taking a rather large chance in leaving their requests in that uncertain position. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel the amendment which has

been introduced is worthy of the consideration and support of this committee.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena I should first like to outline briefly the general principles which apply in determining the eligibility for coverage under the Canada pension plan, not only for fishermen but also for individuals in other lines of endeavour.
If a person is employed in Canada, working under a contract of employment or as the holder of an office, he would, subject to the minor limitations outlined in clause 6, be included in pensionable employment. Under such circumstances the contributions are made through the employer with one half, 1.8 per cent, being deducted from the employee's wages, and the other half, 1.8 per cent, being paid by the employer. In both cases the maximum contribution will initially be $79.20.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but I should like to bring hon. members' attention to the fact that there are so many conversations going on in the back of this chamber it is very difficult to follow what the minister is saying.


Edgar John Benson: As I stated, Mr. Chairman, the figures I mentioned relate to the maximum contribution of $79.20 per annum for employer and employee, based on the present top level of $5,000 income. These amounts are remitted monthly, but at the end of the year the employer would add to the information which is at present being included on the T-4 supplementary return for each employee the contributions and the earnings upon which the contributions are based.
If a person is carrying on a business either alone or in partnership with others, or if he is in receipt of earnings from personal services other than under a contract of employment or as the holder of an office he would, if he was a resident of Canada during the year, be required to make a contribution on his self-employed earnings as provided in clause 10.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We still cannot hear the
minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Could we have the cooperation of all members of the committee to give a chance to the minister to make his statement?
Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: The amount of the earnings to be used for this purpose would be the income from his occupation or endeavour as such income is computed under the Income Tax Act. Essentially it is the net income after deducting from his gross income the amounts of his operating expenses and his capital cost allowance. Computations on selfemployed earnings are determined on the basis of an annual return filed by the contributor along with his income tax return.
The only specific reference to fishing in this particular bill is the exclusion from pensionable employment under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subclause 2 of clause 6 for limited amounts of earnings, that is, less than $250 in cash remuneration or working for a period of less than 25 working days. It will therefore be apparent that subject to this limitation all commercial fishermen are covered by the Canada pension plan either as being in pensionable employment or as being in receipt of self-employed earnings.
In addition, clause 7 gives the governor in council the power to make regulations for including persons in pensionable employment or excluding persons therefrom, but these powers are restricted to the specific wording contained in the various paragraphs included thereunder. Specifically, paragraph (d) of subclause 1 and paragraph (e) of subclause 2 give the governor in council the power to make a regulation determining whether or not the terms on which services are performed are analogous to a contract of service or to the earning of income from his business as the case may be. The wording of paragraph (d) of subclause 1 is as follows:
(d) the performance of services for remuneration if it appears to the governor in council that the terms or conditions on which the services are performed and the remuneration is paid are analogous to a contract of service, whether or not they constitute a contract of service.
A regulation under any of these clauses would only be made after an adequate study of the circumstances. The amendment proposed by the hon. member would provide that an employee shall include any person who is engaged in fishing, whether or not he is actually an employee or whether or not the form of the contract is such as could be reasonably regarded as analogous to a contract of service. I presume that the mover of the amendment is aware that all commercial fishermen are covered under the Canada pension plan as it is now worded and therefore the only purpose of the amendment could be

Canada Pension Plan
to shift part of the contribution from a selfemployed person to the buyer of his product.
I am not in favour of this amendment for the following reasons, and I will give several reasons for not being in favour of it. First of all, this amendment would create many problems of administration, the first of which is that effectively it could not be enforced. Marketing methods of commercial fishermen are not necessarily the same across Canada and many instances would arise where the purchasers or processors are not in Canada. In other instances, fish is packed and shipped to a buyer distant from the fishermen and the buyer would have no way of knowing who were the persons who were entitled to share in the proceeds. Also, problems would arise as to who would make an employer's contribution in an instance where one fisherman sells fish to another fisherman for bait purposes.
Second, other difficulties would arise as to the amount of earnings upon which the contributions should be made. The income of a fisherman cannot be determined correctly from the amount received from the sale of his fish, since expenses have to be taken into consideration as well as capital cost allowance and so on. Again, since the methods of fishing differ in various parts of Canada there is no set percentage that could be allowed for expenses that would be suitable.
Third, because of the variety of arrangements in the fishing industry and the number of different people to whom a catch may be sold, there would be extreme difficulties in maintaining the record of earnings for each fisherman provided under the Canada pension plan.
Contributions and earnings would have to be accumulated in the first instance on the basis of information supplied by the purchasers as to the contributions and earnings of each fisherman. At the present time there is no procedure under the Income Tax Act for collecting contributions from purchasers of fish or for obtaining from such persons an annual statement of contributions and earnings of each fisherman from whom the fish purchases might be made.
Also, because of the variety of circumstances under which fish is sold the accuracy of the information received from the suppliers would be in great doubt. Benefits under the Canada pension plan in the normal case are determined from the earnings and contributions as recorded in the record of earnings over the lifetime of the contributor, and we could not rely on the fisherman mak-

ing inquiries as to the amount credited to him in the record of earnings periodically as is provided in the plan. There is an essential difference in this respect between the determination of benefits under this plan and under the Unemployment Insurance Act in respect of which benefits accrue after a comparatively short period and are only calculated where there is a claim because of unemployment.
Fourth, because of the many methods that are in operation regarding the sharing of a catch it is difficult for the fish buyer to ascertain the proportions that should be allocated to each person who is sharing in the catch. There would be insurmountable difficulties in determining what proportion of the basic exemption should be allowed, since a fish purchaser would have no way of knowing over what period the fish purchase was caught, and it would be impossible to determine when the maximum contribution had been reached for a year unless the fishing companies maintained a specific record for this purpose.
It is also understood that in some instances fishermen sell their products to different buyers in the course of a year because of the different kinds of fish that are landed and, in some cases, to several buyers in the course of a week. This would multiply the problems that relate to refunds of contributions.
If this amendment were passed there would be discrimination between fishermen and those in other lines of endeavour. As I have already mentioned, a farmer who is raising hogs or cattle might claim that he should be regarded as an employee and the packing company as his employer. Similar requests might be made from grain farmers who sell to the wheat pool or persons in service industries such as independent taxi drivers, proprietors of gasoline service stations and others. They could all maintain that the person to whom they sell their product or who supplies their product should really be considered as their employer.
There would also be discrimination in the manner in which the earnings of fishermen are calculated, compared with other selfemployed persons. As previously mentioned, if this amendment were passed the earnings of a fisherman would have to be determined arbitrarily as a percentage of his gross receipts. There would, therefore, be a departure from the basic principle that the Canada pension plan is an earnings related plan. For

1163T
all of the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am not in favour of this amendment.


Mr. Chatierton:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that some of the difficulties mentioned by the minister that will be involved in calculating the exemption for a commercial fisherman, establishing his contributions and so on, will apply regardless of whether or not the amendment is accepted. These difficulties are inherent in the business. The question is whether they will be considered as employees or as self-employed. I should like the minister to correct my present impression.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I might just clarify this a little. In the one case, if the commercial fisherman is an employee there is no problem; the Canada pension plan rates of 1.8 per cent for employer and employee are applied on the wages paid and are remitted by the employer. If the fisherman is self-employed, at the end of the year presumably he will have to determine his net income by taking his gross income and deducting his expenses, and he alone will be able to determine the amount which he must contribute as a self-employed person, in the same way as a self-employed person at the present time has to calculate his income tax. So that it would tie right into his income tax return.


George Louis Chatterton: But the record which he would have to keep would be the same whether he was classified as an employee or as someone self-employed. He would require those records in any event so as to establish his exemption or his contributions.
I also understood the minister to say that all commercial fishermen are covered under the Canada pension plan. I hope that some of the members from Newfoundland will bear me out when I say that if a commercial fisherman is classed as an employee whose annual earnings are consistently less than $600 he is not covered; and if he is classified as self-employed and his annual earnings are consistently less than $800, as I am sure is the case in many parts of Newfoundland, he is also not covered by the Canada pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: I agree with the hon. member.
Whether or not a fisherman is included under the Canada pension plan depends on his income. He must have the same minimum income as any other person in Canada before he gets to the point of contributing to the Canada pension plan.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I did listen quite closely to the argument which was ad-20220-7361
Canada Pension Plan
vanced by the minister, despite the difficulty of hearing owing to amplified noise from a particular quarter of the house. As a result I should like to pose two questions in relation to the arguments the minister advanced against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena.
First of all, I understood him to say that he felt the administrative difficulties which were mentioned, and the fact that in some cases there may be no contract arrangements between the fishermen and the industrial operators which may be described as analogous to employment are difficulties which are not met by the provisions which are proposed in clause 7(2)(d). Subclause (2) says;
The governor in council may make regulations for excepting from pensionable employment...
(d) any employment if it appears to the governor in council that the nature of the work performed by persons employed in that employment is similar to the nature of the work performed by persons employed in employment that is not pensionable employment;-
Second, the minister made reference a number of times to what he claimed would be certain discriminations if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena were adopted. But at no time did I hear him mention what to me is an obvious discrimination against employers under the bill as it now stands. Therefore my second question to the minister is, why does he argue that most of the employers in Canada and most of the industrial operators in Canada, under the proposals in this bill, will be required to make a contribution into the funds of the Canada pension plan, whereas by and large, as the bill stands, the employers and industrial operators in the fishing industry will be exempt? In other words, why should they not be required to make the same kind of contributions into the pension fund as the other industrial operators of this country? To me there is a real question as to where discrimination lies in the bill as it now stands.


Edgar John Benson: If I may deal with the first question first, clause 7(2)(d) gives permission to the governor in council to take people out of what is defined in the bill as employment. The second point was in connection with employers in the fishing industry having to pay the employers' share of contributions to the Canada pension plan. They do this if they are employers. If the relationship between the fishermen and the person who is employing them is an employer-employee relationship, then the employer must pay the 1.8 per cent.

Canada Pension Plan
The discrimination to which I was referring was the situation where they are not employees. Supposing, for example, the wheat pool is buying wheat from the wheat farmers. One cannot say that the wheat farmers are their employees merely because the wheat pool are buying their wheat. If there were a contract of employment it would be a different matter. If there were a contract of employment between the fish buyers and the fishermen, then the fish buyer is the employer of the fishermen and he would have to make the contributions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in reply to what the minister has argued, I would suggest to him that the Canadian wheat board is not in the business, under any kind of hire-purchase arrangement, of providing farms to farmers; at least not as far as I know. It is hardly a parallel situation, and I suggest that his attempt to create a parallel in this case between the farming industry and the fishing industry is not in accordance with the real facts of the situation. It is a completely different relationship. Might I say that it was one which was certainly recognized in the considerations advanced by a former Liberal administration in respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Perhaps I might say that possibly the reason the present Minister of National Revenue is so hesitant to accept the proposal advanced by the hon. member for Skeena is because of the rather abortive proposal brought forward by the previous Liberal administration in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, which has served rather to discredit the whole idea on which it was originally based. However, I realize that we cannot enter into detailed argument on that point at the moment. Nevertheless I would suggest that if we had a proper unemployment insurance plan for the fishermen, one designed to work in a proper insurance way, perhaps his attitude on this particular question with relation to the Canada pension plan might be a little different from what it is at the moment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the house ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: yeas, 20; nays, 69.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question as to whether or not those in the fifth row voting against the amendment should be deducted from the total vote, in view of the fact that they entered the chamber after the question was put.
IMr. Benson.]


Frank Howard: Further on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it was not confined to the fifth row. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, for one, came in after the voting started, and also one of the parliamentary secretaries. I think you should discount their votes or void the whole thing.


Mr. Benidickson:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since my name was raised I wish to point out I was in the chamber, as a member of the committee although on a back bench with friends listening to the debate. Yesterday I checked the rules anew and my information is that in committee a member does not necessarily have to vote from his own seat. However, I did advance from the back row to the front row in order to vote now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to your attention that a frightful example was set by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, who certainly violated a code of ethics by coming in when the vote was half over.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to point out I was in the government lobby talking over some business with a government member and I was not given the opportunity to return. I ran back but I was not given the opportunity to resume my seat.


Lucien Lamoureux: The point raised is certainly well taken and I would like to direct the attention of all hon. members to standing order 12(2) which says:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
Once the question is put no member outside the chamber should enter to be counted, but in connection with the specific reference to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys I might point out the Chair noticed the minister within the confines of the chamber and he could easily have voted from behind his seat; but I believe he was entitled to move to his seat in order to vote from there.
I would request the assistance of all hon. members in heeding standing order 12(2), and urge them whenever a vote is called not to enter the chamber until the vote is completed.


William Moore Benidickson: I was in the chamber, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, through you may I tender my apologies to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but in the great phalanx of Liberals who came in at that

Canada Pension Plan
time I particularly noticed his movement. I made an error and I apologize. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you would consider making some comment about those who formerly espoused my point of view and absented themselves when the vote was taken.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member is now reflecting on a vote, and I am sure he is not seriously urging that a comment should be made by the Chair on this point.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: In connection with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, do I understand the confines of the chamber include the space behind the curtains and inside the doors, or where would you set the confines of the chamber?


Lucien Lamoureux: I would think that hon. members who, at the moment the vote is called are behind the curtain, should be allowed to move to this side of the curtain, which is just about one step. This is rather obiter dictum and I would not like this to be considered as the rule, as the point deserves further consideration. However, I think it is only fair to hon. members that when a vote is taken those who are in the chamber behind the curtain should be permitted to move a step to this side of the curtain so that they may vote.


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I was behind the curtain and when I did move forward to the front everybody on that side was pointing at me.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue the discussion on clause 2. I am impressed with the seriousness with which the committee is considering this very significant bill, because I am aware that when it becomes law very serious measures will have been launched which, in all practicability, will be irreversible. For this reason I feel the joint committee which examined the bill should be lauded for the very judicious work it undertook during the recess.
Certainly the fact that they devoted the initial series of their meetings to studying the complex clauses of the bill points out that it is a measure of utmost complexity and few of us-I am one-really completely understand it fully. In fact I believe it is too complex for all hon. members to understand the complexities of all clauses in the bill. For this reason I say we must proceed with caution because our undertaking is a very serious one. It certainly affects all Canadians, even those who are not themselves beneficiaries under the plan.
Having said that, I must point out that the short title, the "Canada pension plan", is rather misleading because the full title refers to "old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors." We must underline the fact that the plan is not for all Canadians but for contributors only. This is sometimes where the error in public understanding creeps in, because we were expecting a measure, according to the white paper issued by the minister in August, to establish a contributory pension plan insuring that as soon as possible and in a fair and practical way all Canadians would be able to look forward to retiring in security with dignity.
It is now quite apparent that not all Canadians are included in this measure. Those significant groups which are omitted were named by hon. members yesterday, and it has been pointed out to the committee that this is a problem which cannot very well be fitted into the proposed measure. However, I am confident the committee will consider a definite series of amendments proposed to improve the bill as presently drafted.
The general endorsement of the plan that our party gave it on second reading, and which I still feel inclined to give it, spoke of coverages that are really quite generous. These are going to be possible only because of the vast cumulative amounts of money that will have to be collected from contributors, and because of this vast amount of money involved-we have heard estimates of $6 billion being in the fund at the end of 10 years-I repeat my plea for a consideration of priorities, priorities in the general field of public welfare and health and education.
I am speaking of these things by way of general comment, but I feel justified in making reference to priorities because the federal system under which we operate permits taxation in the same areas in both the federal and provincial fields. I give the example of income tax. Both the provincial and federal governments can impose a tax on personal income, and the same is true with respect to corporation income. Then there are other tax areas in which there are separate divisions, for example provincial sales taxes, and customs and excise taxes, the first being restricted to the realms of the provinces and the latter to that of the federal government. It has been pointed out by persons more knowledgeable than myself that these combined sources of taxation now take in something like 35 per cent of the

Canada Pension Plan
gross national product. There is a vast sum of money involved, and common sense demands from us that we get the best value for our dollars spent. I should like to emphasize that we need to be cautious. Perhaps I may quote from the brief which was presented to the committee by the Canadian welfare council. I read from page 3 of the submission:
No intelligent assessment of a proposed social security program can be made unless the assessment takes into account the rapidly changing social order. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is noted that Canada like most other nations in the world today is having to examine values and concepts which, while serving admirably in the past, no longer hold as central a position as they once did. Indeed, the whole development of social security as we now know it and accept it is. from this point of view, a continual adaptation to changing social values and situations.
The long term implications of the Canada pension plan and the basic role envisaged for it in Canada's pattern of social security make it essential to assess the plan in the light of probable future social and economic circumstances.
The welfare council makes some valid comments on the social implications of the plan and these, too, are worthy of consideration. When I think of expenditures I think at once of expenditures in the field of education, because this is where the greatest returns will eventually be found. However, if I were to continue on this subject I am afraid I would be straying beyond the confines of clause 2. I merely wish to point out that we may sometimes be placing too much emphasis on the needs of the wrong segment of the population. What we are really doing by this measure is taxing young Canadians so as to provide benefits for older citizens.
Considerable benefits will certainly accrue as a result of this scheme. At the same time there are significant difficulties and some of these difficulties have already been brought to the attention of the committee. One feature which appeals to me greatly is the contributory nature of this plan. Too often today we hear people saying that the government should do this, or the government should do that-a continual attitude of "gimme, gimme". The benefits foreseen under the Canadian pension plan are not in the nature of a straight handout from the government to senior citizens, but something they are receiving in return for contributions made. But this is where the fairness ends. There are many discrepancies which are bound to arise under the system now contemplated. What I am trying to say is that the relation of the contribution to the ultimate benefits is not, in many cases, really fair. I would just draw
EMr. Enns.]
attention to the windfalls which accrue to older people. To give an obvious example, a person who has contributed for ten years at the maximum rate, which is almost $80 a year, has paid in almost $800 in that period. Yet the first year in which he is eligible for pension he will get, possibly, ten times $104, or $1,040. In other words, in the first year he more than recovers the contribution he has made during the ten year period. This is an unfair windfall and for this reason I say the contributions are not fairly related to the benefits expected.


Mr. Francis:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has he taken into account the employer's share of contributions in his calculation?


Siegfried John Enns: No, but I could very quickly double the $800 to $1,600 and then say that in two years a beneficiary would more than recover the payments. I would suggest that at the end of 47 years, when all today's 18 year olds are in receipt of pensions, there may be some form of equity. Even then I fear this will not be the case, because there are so many exemptions and qualifications attached to the period of contributions, taking into account the best ten years of earnings and the like. I am wondering how members of parliament will deal with constituents who write to them and say: My neighbour, who is just as old as I am, is receiving $2.37 more than I receive, though I believe I am in the same circumstances. I feel our task in assisting constituents with regard to questions of this kind will be greatly increased. Again I acknowledge there will have to be inequities, because at no time can any measure such as this be completely equitable. Nevertheless I am drawing attention to some of the difficulties. I certainly still endorse the plan, but 47 years seems a long time to wait for the full fruition of this scheme.
Another area of concern is the manner in which the plan will be integrated with private plans-I am putting this in reverse because, of course, private plans will have to be integrated with the Canada pension plan, I suppose. As a result, I think there will be a shifting of private plans and a difficult adjustment period before everyone is happy with the situation.
Hon. members who have already spoken have asked for an economic report to show just how this scheme will affect the economy of the country. I am interested to know whether or not we shall be given such a report. It would also be extremely interest-

ing to know the attitude of the royal commission on taxation with regard to this plan. I feel we are on the doorstep of vast changes in our taxation structure and it is a valid expectation that we should be made aware of the attitude which such an important commission takes toward the federal plan. I would also remind the committee that the royal commission on banking and finance has commented on the Canada pension plan, pointing out that even though the per capita income of Canadians is something like 30 per cent below the per capita income of the United States, the Canadian plan undertakes none the less to provide benefits considerably in excess of those available under the United States social security scheme. This comparison worries me. I wish to emphasize that, though we talk about a 3.6 per cent contribution and an over-all pension benefit of $179, we should keep in mind the contribution made by the existing 4 per cent social security tax. So already we are paying 7.6 per cent for this pension of $179, which is not very different from the cost of the United States scheme. However, we hear rumours and reports on good authority that United States costs are rising and will likely increase to almost 9 per cent in the present year. I think therefore there is cause to worry, inasmuch as the scale of contribution may have to be increased in the future-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he implying that the 4 per cent income tax levy is the only additional source of revenue? Is he not aware of the 3 per cent on corporation income tax and the 3 per cent sales tax?


Siegfried John Enns: Yes, but this bears out my point that the funds required to support this plan are much larger than are evident. I just wanted to say that in general I certainly support the plan in principle; but some of the observations I have made are by way of caution, and some of the amendments yet to come are certainly designed with the hope of improving the bill. I know that the committee is in a mood which will mean that every consideration will be given to the suggested amendments.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to say that I, too, wish to deal with one general topic today, and having dealt with it, I hope it will make the government more susceptible-if that is the right word, and I am not sure that it is-to amendments that are going to be proposed as we go along with the discussion of legisla-
Canada Pension Plan
tion regarding which members on this side of the house have already expressed their general approval.
I am sure the minister agrees that it is in the interests of all Canadians and all members of this house that we proceed very carefully, clause by clause, with this very important legislation. Before I deal with the main topic of my remarks this afternoon I would like to mention something touched upon by the previous speaker, namely the necessity for governments to plan priorities. I cannot escape making a comment on this matter at the present time. I think most of us in public life now realize that the electorate feel that governments do not hand out anything any more. Moreover they recognize that governments merely collect and administer tax dollars; and today most people recognize that if we are going to alleviate some of the problems and conditions facing the country, governments, be it the federal government or provincial governments, are going to have to spend vast and vaster sums of money. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about medicare, when we are talking about education, when we are talking about the expenditures involved in a plan such as we are analysing today, I think more and more we must underline the necessity and importance of the federal government and the provinces meeting as soon as possible to plan their priorities.
I only wish to add my support to this idea. It is certainly not the first time it has been mentioned; Premier Roblin of Manitoba has mentioned it time and time again. I think everybody should recognize that big government is not necessarily a bad thing and should welcome large government expenditures in a country like Canada, where consumer spending is at an all-time high. Because of this situation we must time and time again underline the necessity for the planning of priorities in the field of public expenditures, be they federal, provincial or joint expenditures.
I believe it has already been pointed out that many people on this side of the house are concerned with one general proposition, namely that a vast number of Canadians living in grinding poverty and want are not going to be covered by this scheme. I would like to assure the minister in all sincerity that I am not going to discuss this matter in a partisan sense at all; but I believe this is a time when we should underline this whole situation. I say this because, generally speaking, when we discuss social legislation

Canada Pension Plan
in the broadest sense of that word, I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that we usually think this social legislation, whether it is in connection with health or welfare, is going to benefit many citizens in our society who are among the less fortunate. I think that as we go on in our thinking we should pinpoint some of the facts in relation to this problem as it relates to a pension plan.
I believe it is a bad thing when people in responsible positions, such as the Minister of Finance, say we have never had it so good. I think it is a bad thing to say that in a country like Canada, where far too many people are living in grinding poverty and want. I ask myself many, many-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You have used that expression twice.


William Heward Grafftey: The minister says I have used that expression twice. It has to be used many times. I am saying that many governments, Conservative and Liberal, have done a bad job at pushing back the frontiers of poverty and want in Canada. If I am speaking without notes and am repeating myself, it is because I represent a riding in which there is very great poverty and I am speaking from my heart. I hope, therefore, that the minister will not continue to make this type of interjection. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the plan she is proposing today will not cover-I am convinced of this, unless she can stand in her place today in this Canadian House of Commons and tell me otherwise-many of the people in my constituency who are living in destitution, deprivation or poverty. Still, though, I support the general proposition included in this plan. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I say, let us not fool ourselves. The minister has said, as reported in various newspapers, that all Canadians will be given, by this plan, the chance to retire in dignity. I would like to be assured that this includes the greater proportion of the 35 per cent of the Canadian people who are today living in deprivation, poverty or want.
At the present time, Mr. Chairman, I have chosen to discuss the problem of poverty amidst plenty in Canada, and I have chosen to ask myself, the government and every individual member sitting here this afternoon, what proportion of the 35 per cent of the Canadian population living in poverty, deprivation or destitution will be covered by the plan.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, i wonder
whether I could ask the hon. member a question.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


John Carr Munro: Does the hon. member not agree that when you are talking about a wage related contributory pension scheme, you are talking in terms of those people who are wage earners; and when talking of poverty, as far as this plan is concerned, are you not talking of those people who just about every year of their working lives are earning less than $600? That being the case, is it not reasonable to assume that there should be all sorts of other programs which should be designed, and are being designed, to arrive at a solution in the case of those people who earn only $600 a year. I do not believe this question should be raised when we are discussing a wage related contributory pension scheme.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I am going to touch upon this subject in a minute. The hon. member has raised a very, very good point, which I fully understand. However, I feel very strongly about this question. Very often we quote statistics in the House of Commons with regard to what the gross national product is going to be, and so on, when we discuss social legislation-and all of us are guilty of this. But for my part I should say that many people who visit my office in the country, because I am their member of parliament, have never fallen under the aegis of government or private welfare help. Many people who come into my office would not know where the unemployment insurance office is; they have not seen a book or an unemployment insurance stamp. I say that we should not fool ourselves in this respect.
The hon. member who just asked me this question referred, in a speech he made in the house a few days ago, to the late President Kennedy, who spoke of the voiceless, silent poor who very rarely were covered by government or private schemes. My only reason for taking up the time of the committee this afternoon is to again issue the warning that has been issued many times in the last few weeks by the Minister of Forestry, namely that we should not fool ourselves that by passing certain social legislation we are in any way coming to grips with the problem of poverty that is facing this country today.
Going back to my original remarks, Mr Chairman, I ask this question: Am I not right in saying that classically speaking and tra-

ditionally speaking, when we pass social legislation do we not usually-I am referring to social legislation in the true sense of that word-think we are passing legislation to help those people who need help the most?
All I can say is that I hope when we have voted on this bill and the vast expenditures of money which will be voted have been made, there will still be some public funds left over to really do battle with the question of poverty in Canada.
I am going to pinpoint this question of poverty in Canada and then ask the minister and the government to give us a general idea of how many people in this general area she thinks will be covered by the proposed plan.
I intend to go further and say this. Mass poverty is one thing in African and Asian countries, but it is yet another thing in Canada where we have at the present time the second highest economic standard of living in the world.
It is my impression, Mr. Chairman, that millions of Canadians are not truly sharing in our nation's prosperity. I think this has been the situation under all governments up to the present time. Right here at home we have done a poor job in pushing back the frontiers of poverty and want. Many people talk about the concept of individual and national excellence. This concept will be or is meaningless to the millions of Canadians who barely exist, or should I say subsist, under substandard conditions.
I hope, sir, that while we are discussing this bill in the broadest sense of the word we will realize that it is not coming to grips with the basic question of poverty in Canada, which is something most social legislation should and can do. I hope that we shall realize that we must put an end to poverty in the midst of plenty. Otherwise, sir, what will our answer be to communism abroad?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted some statistics in this regard yesterday. I followed up those statistics with some brief remarks, enlarging upon them. However, I should like to, in some detail, put these statistics on the record this afternoon for the minister's consideration, and then ask her the following question. What percentage of this group will be covered by the plan?
The Ontario federation of labour makes the following classification. It states that destitution means families of four persons with total annual incomes under $2,000. It goes on to state that poverty means families of four persons with total annual incomes of 20220-737
Canada Pension Plan
under $3,000, and that deprivation means families of four persons with total annual incomes under $4,000. On that basis 35 per cent of Canadian citizens today-35 per cent of our population-subsists or exists, if you wish, in a state of destitution, poverty or deprivation. I ask the minister to give us some idea, as we proceed with our consideration, as to her view of what portion of that 35 per cent group is going to be covered by this proposed legislation.
As I said to the parliamentary secretary who asked me a question a few moments ago, many of the people who come into my office rarely come under the provisions of government or private welfare. They are the silent, voiceless poor who have never known economic opportunity. As I said in my answer, they rarely, if ever, have been in unemployment insurance offices. They do not know what an unemployment insurance book looks like. What does a prosperous Canada mean to these people? What does the Minister of Finance's remark that we have never had it so good mean to them? I should simply like to say this. When conditions such as these exist in a country which enjoys the second highest economic standard of living in the world, we as members of parliament ought to be pretty careful when we quote statistics.
The gross national product may be up and unemployment may be down, yet these people I am referring to still remain poor. I do not wish to be irresponsible in any references I make, but I want to be satisfied by the minister that this is not a piece of legislation which is going to make the semi-affluent more affluent and the rich richer, and completely forget the poor of this nation.
I should like to state, sir, that in respect of statistics, very often an ever increasing gross national product locks more people into poverty. I think the Minister of Forestry and rural affairs, who is in charge of ARDA, has certainly recognized this fact as indicated by his attempt to pinpoint areas of poverty in our land. Indeed, our rising gross national product means that many Canadians are becoming richer.


An hon. Member:: No.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, it does, and we are pleased about that; yet more than four million people are becoming poorer. I suppose the four fifths of us who earn salaries or have incomes tied to rising production or prices, get richer when the gross national product goes up, but the other one fifth must pay the higher prices with shrinking incomes.

Canada Pension Plan
Again 1 ask this question, and will keep asking it to myself until I am satisfied with the answers the minister gives: What percentage of this one fifth will be covered by contemplated measures such as this Canada pension plan?
I should like to take this opportunity, along with the hon. member who has just spoken, of congratulating the members of the committee who did such a fine job during a time when most of us had a recess. I often like to argue at times with my constituents when they say that a recess is a holiday. At any rate, it was a recess. I am sure that many members of that committee and other members of this house have much more detailed knowledge of this plan than I have, but I am asking a question which many Canadians are asking at this time. I hope supporters of the government sitting about the minister and who speak for the government, will clear up many of the doubts and questions I have relating to those individuals to be covered by this plan.
As the Minister of Forestry has stated, rural poverty in Canada has become a great challenge. The rural poor and unemployed are to be found in our countryside, in our villages and in our small towns. We are told that the farmer owning his own land must gross $2,500 annually if he wishes even barely to exist. By these standards we now have subsisting at or below such a level 500,000 rural families. Will the minister tell me how many of them are going to be included in this plan? These families together with the city poor make up one fifth of our nation's population-one fifth of our nation's population, and we in Canada who are a little smug about some of the advances we have made in our first 100 years cannot be smug about this kind of poverty amidst plenty.
Let me now refer to the situation in certain cities. As the more affluent members of our society move to the suburbs the city poor can still be found by the millions in the centres of our metropolitan areas. Here we find the disabled, the unskilled and the aged in rundown housing areas. Need I say more about something of which many members of the house are well aware at this time? Perhaps we are aware of it, but the fact is that we have done a very poor job in pushing back the problem of grinding poverty and want in this otherwise prosperous country. I have purposely waited for this point in the debate to outline my thinking in relation to the question of poverty.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What point? We are just starting out.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. lady says we are just starting.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We are on the second clause.


William Heward Grafftey: I said "at this point in the debate". I thought it was a good time to bring these ideas forward. It is incomprehensible to me that the minister would interject in this way because I know she has been in my part of the country. She has visited my constituency. She has seen the poverty of many of my rural families and she must recognize that when as a young person I stand in my place in the House of Commons I have every right before voting vast millions of dollars to ask a simple, straight question, namely, how many of my constituents are going to be included in the plan? I repeat for the fourth, fifth or sixth time that if we spend vast sums of money on social legislation that does not come to grips with the problem of poverty, if in an incredible way ministers of the crown are going to get up in their places and say we have never had it so good while 35 per cent of our people live in poverty, deprivation and destitution in a prosperous country like Canada, what will the answer be to communism abroad? What will our answer be? I simply tell the hon. lady that I am asking a question that many Canadians are asking.
Apart from asking this question I should like to re-emphasize something I said in my original remarks. Surely as we proceed with a discussion of this legislation we are going to see more and more the necessity for the federal government and the provinces getting together to establish priorities in the field of public spending. I thank the committee for its attention to my very general outline of a problem that I thought should be brought up at this time when we are discussing a most important piece of social legislation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I could not help being moved by my friend's sentiments with respect to his constituents. I have indeed been in his very beautiful constituency, and in the rural area there I have indeed seen evidence that all of the people within that constituency do not have as much as my hon. friend has. They do not all have pools in their backyards.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to say to the hon. lady that I do not think such a remark is worthy of her. I am not touchy about the point but I really would ask her to behave

and act in the house in a manner befitting her position. She has made a most unworthy and unnecessary comment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If my hon. friend would simmer down-


Mr. Graff  ley:@: I do not think a debate of this nature should be approached on a personal level, and if the hon. lady cannot act like a lady in the house maybe she will let her parliamentary secretary take over for her.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I trust my hon. friend will not do as he did once before, get up and run from the house; but he did ask for an answer to his question.


William Heward Grafftey: I asked for politeness.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He gave certain figures and said that anyone with four children and with an income of $4,000 a year or less was classified so far as he was concerned as living in poverty. He went on to say that these people represented 35 per cent of the population and were not covered by the plan. He asked how many of them will be covered. I should like to say to him that everyone who earns $600 or more, regardless of the number of children, and everyone who is self-employed and earns $800 a year or more will be covered. I know the hon. member was not on the committee, but he must have read the proceedings and it is clear that these people are all covered under the plan. Furthermore, I think he should be aware that anyone who is not in the plan but has earned $600 or less throughout his whole lifetime will, when he retires at the age of 65, automatically receive an income of $900 a year, 50 per cent more than he has earned throughout the whole period.
While my hon. friend attempted to use statistics to indicate how many are excluded from the plan, I think in all honesty he should acknowledge that these are the facts, and the fact is that most of the people of Canada will be included. As was pointed out earlier, this is a bill which applies to those within the labour force. It is a wage related scheme. There is a minimum amount of $600 and I dare say that most of his constituents in Brome-Mississquoi will find themselves within the contributory provision.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, I am prompted to rise this afternoon for two reasons. First of all, last evening the hon. member for Middlesex West quoted a statement from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 18 with which I am afraid I cannot agree 20220-737i
Canada Pension Plan
-not with the first part of it anyway. That statement was:
The special Senate committee which studied the proposed Canada pension plan during the recess has not been very lavish with its recommendations for improvements.
The implication is that no recommendations were made and this, of course, I deny categorically. When I was speaking yesterday afternoon my time was somewhat confined because of the disturbance, I suppose we might call it, which arose, and I was not able to state the recommendations that my party had made during the committee meetings. I should like to state those now.
First of all, my party supports the suggestion that a flat rate benefit of $25 monthly should be taken from the Canada pension plan funds to assist all persons over the age of 70 who are receiving old age security benefits. This of course is intended to assist those who are now retired. I also support the proposition that persons from 65 to 70 who have retired from regular employment shall receive an additional uniform flat rate amount of up to $25 a month to be paid from the Canada pension plan funds. These recommendations were made.
These two groups contain people whom the Canada pension plan completely forgets, save for the small cost of living bonus. In my view they deserve at least as good treatment as Canadians who retire under the Canada pension plan. They are a large part of that one and a quarter million I mentioned who 10 years after the plan begins will be getting nothing from the plan. The rest of that one and a quarter million will be people who never earned, or earned so little that they never paid. To help these people my party proposes, and so recommended in the committee, that no one, regardless of income, shall be excluded from the Canada pension plan, and those persons earning less than the eligibility minimum of $600 for employees and $800 for self-employed should be credited with their actual earnings for the purpose of determining the pension which they will be entitled to draw without making a contribution.
To ensure that pensions will never be at the exceedingly low level of $2.50 monthly, which will be drawn by those earning as low as $100 a month in 1967, and to minimize the effect of extending the transitional period to 20 years, my party suggests that all persons qualifying for any pension benefit under the act shall receive, subject to an appropriate residence test, a minimum pension of $25 a

Canada Pension Plan
month in the case of a single person and $40 a month in the case of a married couple. We suggest that this $40 a month for couples continue until the wife reaches the age when she will draw her old age security allowance. If I remember correctly, the best figures the department could provide indicated that wives are on average 4.2 years younger than their husbands. This means that this couple would for as long as four years have to live on a rather low income rate, if something is not done to correct this situation. It is for this reason that we suggest it should be $40 a couple till the wife reaches the point where she draws her old age security benefits.
Finally, it is a definitely wrong principle to discriminate against students. It is very wrong indeed to penalize those who take advanced educational courses when developments in science and industry are so dependent upon the contributions which these young people can make to the nation. We were pleased that the committee saw fit to accept, in part, our recommendation, which was also made by others, that the dropout years should be increased in calculating the earnings base. The committee did suggest that the dropout percentages should be raised from 10 to 20 per cent. However, this does not completely meet the needs of students who may be in university or technical college until as late a year as 25. This time in school will, in effect, use up seven of the nine years of dropout which they are allowed under the new 20 per cent arrangement.
We believe that a student between the ages of 18 and 25 should at his own option not be required to make contributions in each of those years in which he is registered as a full time student at a recognized educational institution, in which case the years in which such person did not make contributions should not be included in determining his lifetime earnings.
I had intended, Mr. Chairman, to say more, but probably with what I said yesterday and what I have said today I have used up about as much of the time of the committee as I am entitled to. Therefore, with these suggestions which I hope will be adopted by the government we can correct the main deficiencies and inequities of the plan. However, adopted or not-and I think the government would be most unwise not to adopt them-it is my present intention to vote for this bill. I never did believe that one has to have the whole loaf of bread in order to make a meal. Half a loaf is a whole lot better than none, so I intend to vote for the bill even as presently

framed. I hope that some time in the near future when the next election is over and the Conservatives are returned to power I will be able to get the other half of the loaf.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words at this time on what I feel may turn out to be one of Canada's most important pieces of social legislation since confederation. Everyone, whether old or young, single or married, will agree that the welfare of our nation's old people, the disabled, and so on, in this and in future generations is a matter of vital concern to us all. I am also certain they will agree that the enactment of a pension plan to assist this age group can be amongst the greatest moves which this or any future parliament can make.
Since the plan was first advanced I have had numerous letters on the subject from people within my riding and from outside my riding, from businessmen and labourers and from people who stand to receive major benefits and those who expect to gain very little. Most of these people seem to be agreed on at least one point-that the plan as outlined by our government and which was worked on by members from all parties in committee for a number of weeks recently has considerable merit. They see it as a step in the right direction, as a move to provide financial security for Canadians in their twilight years. Like the speaker who preceded me, I also hope to support this bill.
However, many of these writers have pointed out that while they feel there are shortcomings in the plan set up by the government, some of these minor faults, if I may call them that, have been corrected by the committee which laboured so hard for so many weeks. But many of the people with whom I have been in contact, as well as members in my own party, believe that further improvements should be made before the bill becomes law. I think it is my duty as the representative of the people in the riding of Waterloo North and as a member of Canada's parliament to bring forward these criticisms and suggestions regarding changes in the bill, with the hope that the best possible plan can be drawn up to benefit the greatest number of people.
Probably the chief criticism is that the scheme gives little or nothing to those who are in the greatest need, and provides the most for those who have the most. Payment is based not on need but rather on income. Those now retired receive nothing. Many of

them, particularly those in the higher age bracket, spent a great part of their earning years during the depression-I hope that will not be forgotten-when it was practically impossible to salt away any savings for later life. Many of these same people were unfortunate to be working in an age when private pension plans were relatively rare. Today many thousands of these people who formed the backbone of our country in the dark days of depression, through the war years and in the adjustment to a peace time economy are struggling to eke out an existence until they can qualify for the old age pension.
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, does a government have a greater responsibility to those who will be retiring in the future than to those now retired? May I repeat that: Does a government have a greater responsibility to those who will be retiring in the future than to those now retired? While today's retired get nothing, the man who finishes his working days after contributing to the plan for only ten years can receive what has been termed by many as a windfall or an unearned bonus. For example, a person at the maximum earnings limits of $5,000 who retires at age 65 after contributing for only ten years will have paid about $1,000 into the plan, but his pension will be worth more than $18,000.
I think it is important too to point out that those whose average earnings are consistently lower than the minimum set out in the bill receive no benefits. These unfortunate Canadians, who form some 5 per cent of the work force, will be unable to provide for their own retirement. It is also my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that while the plan overlooks those now retired and those in greatest need, it also penalizes students, as was mentioned by my comrade who preceded me. According to the plan envisaged by our government, a person's pension is calculated on an average lifetime earnings, but he is allowed to eliminate one tenth of his poorest income years. I understand that the government has accepted one fifth. This penalizes students for the years which they spend as students, during which period they earn only enough in their holidays to finance their education.
How can some of these shortcomings, which I and many others feel are inequities, be overcome? For a few moments let me dwell on some of the recommendations which our party is advancing, and suggestions which I can offer after speaking to some of my constituents and giving considerable thought to the matter.
Canada Pension Plan
First, let us give to those receiving the old age pension of $75 an additional payment of $25. Then we might also give an additional payment of $25 a month to those retired people between 65 and 70 who do not receive the old age pension, as announced by the Prime Minister last Wednesday. I believe that on several occasions I have mentioned the dire need of people between 65 and 70 who, unfortunately, were working for a firm which had no pension plan but who, during their 35 years or so with it, were able to save enough money to buy their homes, but have not enough money left in the bank when they retire. I feel we should give much consideration to these people.
We could also set a minimum pension of $25 a month for single persons, and $40 for married couples. A further suggestion is that persons earning less than the qualifying amount for the plan be credited with their actual earnings so that they can be included in determining the amount of pensions received. This, you may say, would require a bigger outlay if these people were not assessed. However, the plan could be changed so that those whose annual earnings exceed the minimum amounts could contribute on their total earnings.
Costs resulting from these recommendations would of course be higher, but our party feels they could be balanced by a lower implementation of the plan. Lengthening the period for the scheme would also narrow the inequalities between people with high and low earnings, reduce the number of people who would get a pension higher than their previous earnings, make it easier to integrate the plan with private pension schemes, and increase the pension fund available for the provinces to borrow.
Recently a member of the government in an address to a Toronto audience expressed hope that the Canada pension plan would be whipped through parliament as fast as possible and with as few changes as possible. I believe he suggested that failure to speed the bill into law would be a calamity.
As I said previously, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the greatest pieces of legislation we shall be faced with in our time. As I stressed earlier in my remarks, we are now on the threshold of one of the greatest pieces of social legislation in Canada's nearly 100 year history. The plan is of vital importance to every Canadian, regardless of how much or how little he stands to benefit by it. All of us sitting here today have a duty to do all possible to see that the plan is the best one

Canada Pension Plan
possible within our means. The real calamity would not be in failing to push the plan through parliament rapidly, but rather in jamming through the House of Commons a second rate plan, one which we might be ashamed of in years to come.
Built into the bill are safeguards which will make future major changes extremely difficult. Such changes could be effected only with the approval of two thirds of the participating provinces, and then only if they represent two thirds of the people.
So, let us not be hasty, even if it takes days, weeks, months to come up with a top-notch plan. This is just as important as reciprocity, the flag and many other things we have been grumbling about for a long time. I do not care if it takes six months in order that we get a plan whereby all Canadians can benefit, especially those between the ages of 65 and 70 who for long have wanted some social help.
We have before us the framework for legislation which can benefit millions of Canadians for hundreds of years. It is our first and also one of the few national schemes anywhere. Let us make it a plan of which all Canada can be proud, and a working model for other countries throughout the world.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward some views at this time with regard to the legislation before us. I think it has been stated with sufficient clarity and often enough that we members of the Conservative party support the principle of the legislation.
With respect to my own views it can be seen, on reading Hansard of June 24, 1961 that in committee of supply at that time I gave in some detail a recommendation to the government of that day, in which I outlined my thoughts with regard to an old age security program on a contributory basis, with the inclusion in it of somewhat more than this bill provides. That is now perhaps academic and I shall turn to the practical.
We have to consider the specifics of this legislation with respect to the benefit it will give to the people of Canada. Previously during this discussion certain words in the white paper preceding the bill have been reiterated, and I quote:
This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that, as soon as is possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look .forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
I still cannot fathom it, but early last week there was an attempt made to indicate to the Canadian people that the government

is in favour of extending the current flat rate old age security payment of $75 a month, on the most peculiar basis of starting the increase at age 69 on January 1 next year and continuing to reduce the age yearly until the entire group between the ages 65 to 70 are covered by that flat rate payment.
We cannot determine here this afternoon the effect this plan will have on the economy of the country. Certainly, we do not expect that Canada, with all its resources and with the future we believe is ahead of us, will in any way lag behind any other of the progressive countries of the world. Therefore there is a need today, and I believe there will be a need in the future, to consider those words which appear in the white paper- "security and dignity". The first question I would ask is this: Do we expect that people over the age of 65 as well as others, today, who need support, can live in security and dignity on $75 a month? I ask this as a legitimate question. We all know of people in our constituencies who find it impossible, particularly when there are medical needs, to exist on $75 a month. Possibly my interpretation of the word "security" and of the word "dignity" is different from that of the minister who obviously espouses those words in the white paper.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that the words he quoted from the white paper were preceded by the phrase "will look forward to"? Those words are applicable to all those wage earners presently in the labour force. Those who are not in the labour force and who are not making contributions will have to be taken care of under other programs. I think the hon. member should take those words into account if he wishes to be fair.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his contribution, but I want to ask him right now: What do people aged 65 and over have to look forward to, either as of today or as of January 1? Do they have dignity and security waiting for them? Thank goodness we have gone past the "six buck" days, or they would have nothing at all. That was a Liberal program back in 1956 or 1957. Has the hon. gentleman anything to say about that? But let us not get mixed up in politics, now.


John Carr Munro: May I answer the hon. member's question?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has the floor. Anyway, I believe his question was-


An hon. Member:: Rhetorical.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you. I was discussing the plan announced by the government last week, making people eligible for pension at the age of 65, and I was discussing the ability of such people to live in dignity and security on $75 a month. I say once again: What have these people to look forward to, as far as the Canada pension plan is concerned? My understanding is, nothing. If I am wrong, say so.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is the hon. member not aware that the bill will permit a person at the age of 65 to become eligible for a reduced portion of the old age security benefit. Is this not something which was not previously available and which is made available by this legislation?


Eric Alfred Winkler: My reference was to people who would be 65 on January 1 of next year. That is a different matter, I am sure.
Letters which have reached me from my constituents contain requests that pensions payable under this plan should be increased to $100 a month at the age of 65. I would support such a move. Indeed, I would be happy to take the initiative in such a move. I believe the minister is aware that those who represented the Conservative party on the pension committee put forward an amendment which would, in essence, have brought about such a result.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not know from his colleagues who served on that committee that when on the last day the committee sat I moved that we recommend that the old age security pension be increased to $100 a month to be made available at the age of 65, his colleagues voted against my proposal?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I must frankly admit I was not aware of that, but right away I would ask the hon. member whether he supported the proposition as put forward by members of the Conservative party on that committee the net result of which would have been the payment of such pension at the age of 65?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you want an answer?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I want to say this right now -that I am prepared to stand here and say
Canada Pension Plan
I hope the government will see eye to eye with me in my view that as of January 1, in order to bring these payments closer to my understanding of security and dignity, we should increase these pension payments to $100 a month at the age of 65. I should like to see that put into effect. If the government would take steps to bring it about as of next month, I would still agree.
As early as June 24, 1961, when I made my previous statement on this subject, I incorporated the figure of $100 in my thinking. So I have not changed my views very much in the meantime.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have persuaded your colleagues to vote for my amendment.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I know it is a little difficult to get your heads together, sometimes. But that is my feeling and I hope the hon. member who is speaking on my left understands what I mean.
I have had certain other views placed before me, particularly from my constituents, with regard to the inception of this plan. These people are very close to me because I have been a member of the local woodworkers union in my area-I have worked in the plants with these men and I know whereof they speak. But may I digress from what I was about to say?
I said at that time, on June 24, 1961, speaking of a Canada pension plan-and I will quote from Hansard:
-ours might have to be slightly higher than in the United States-the earner in the higher bracket would support the program to a greater degree than the earner whose income is in the lower scale, but to compensate there would also be a graduated scale of benefits which in reality would give the minimum income group more than they could buy for the contribution they actually make, and the maximum less than they would receive on a similar basis.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is easy to interpret; it means that those who pay the most would assist in equating an income for everyone, and those paying the least would receive more than they could buy for a similar amount of money outside. My understanding is that this is not the case with the plan as it is to be applied at the moment; in other words, those who make the most will receive the most, and those who make the least will receive the least, in regard to the amount of money spent. I do not believe this is a fair way of implementing such a plan. 1 do not think this is the principle that we should consider in applying the Canada pension plan. I believe that if what is needed is

Canada Pension Plan
social legislation, those who make the most should assist those who make the least, and let us bring everybody into the scheme. Surely that is what Canadians want in such a plan. It this is not the case, why consider such a lengthy and complicated process? Why do we not relate it completely to the current old age security legislation and forget about the Canada pension plan? Then we would not have to build up a bureaucracy of 1,000 or 2,000 people, creating a-


An hon. Member:: Three thousand.


Mr, Winkler:: The hon. member says, "Three thousand". Then we would not have to build up this bureaucracy which will be a charge on the taxapayers and the people who will make these contributions. I do not know what the number will be, but it certainly is extremely important to the people of Canada. I hope, therefore, that the minister will take this point into consideration.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, the workers who have made representations to me have complained that in the very near future, if governments continue making deductions from their wages, all they will have to do is simply turn their wages over to the government, let the government supply them with the balance and tell them how much of their pay cheque they can spend. This has been said to me by members of the local branch of the international woodworkers union, of which, as I said before, I was a member; and they know whereof they speak. They fall exactly into the category that I mentioned before.
In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, economic factors are involved in this particular scheme that is before us. For instance, as I understand it, it is going to take something like $400 million out of the economy, and I am wondering whether the minister and the government have given any consideration to how they will replace this amount of money in the economy for purchasing power. As we create this degree of security and move into an era when leisure hours will be more plentiful, and so on, I believe that consideration of the economy and how much money and purchasing power is going to be taken out is a very important factor. I would like to know whether there is any thought in the mind of the government with regard to replacing this amount of money in the economy.
Another point that is not particularly desirable with regard to the legislation as introduced is that a province, after the plan is implemented and after a given period of time, may change its own status within the

plan at its own choosing; may change it at its whim with regard to the way they find the plan is being applied within their province and how it affects them. Surely this is not a tremendously unifying feature for a federal government to implement in such a plan. I believe that a very hard look at this particular piece of legislation is important to us at this time. It may be that further consultation with the provinces would be of considerable advantage. I believe, further, that in the field of unity so far as the federal government is concerned, such further consultation in order to achieve unity becomes almost essential.
I said earlier in my discourse, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the Conservative party supported in essence a move that would bring to the contributors of this scheme a return of $100 at age 65. If my memory serves me correctly-and I regret that I do not have the brief of the Ontario government before me-the members of that group who attended the committee here in Ottawa, on the insistence of the government of Ontario and obviously of Premier Bobarts, took the same position, namely that they favoured a flat rate payment or some such differential, as opposed to the present plan of the payment of $100 a month at age 65. I believe this would be a very strong point for the government to bring forward. Although I cannot say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a very close friend of the premier of the province of Ontario, nevertheless I think she might well be counselled by a little of his advice now, as she may well have been counselled on other occasions. I believe this would give us a stronger basis and a stronger feeling among the people of Canada; first of all, among the parties in the house, and also with the largest province in the country. It may induce a feeling in other parts of the country to reconsider positions and to consider joining the Canada pension plan, as Premier Robarts has said, for the sake of national unity. I believe that this is a worthy consideration today and we should take a close look at this situation and perhaps bring Premier Robarts back to Ottawa-


An hon. Member:: No.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -and discuss with him the possibilities of his assisting us in bringing about a greater degree of national unity among the other premiers of the country. After all, his is a very strong position, and there may be areas of leadership for him right across the floor, as a matter of fact. I

say this, Mr. Chairman, now that my hon. friend has brought this matter forward. Hon. members will know whereof I speak, as well as I do. I believe that this matter is worthy of consideration because as we enter the final stages of the consideration of this bill we have in Canada a position of national unity which might well be improved if we could here and now bring together those people who matter in this regard.
I must admit that I have not fully investigated the constitutional question as it affects the British North America Act, I believe sections 92 and 94; but it would be my hope and dream that the efforts which have been put forth by Premier Robarts in regard, not only to an increase in the basic payment of $100 a month but also in regard to his position for national unity in Canada, may be impressed upon other people. There was certainly a very agreeable meeting, I believe, last week end, and it may be that this influence will be valuable so far as lasting relationships of the federal government with the provinces is concerned.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few more remarks to make before concluding. When the house rose at six o'clock I was addressing my remarks to the contribution made toward the unity of Canada by Premier Robarts of Ontario who has indicated his desire that Ontario participate in the Canada pension plan, with certain reservations. In view of the lack of unity that has, on occasion, been displayed in this chamber that attitude on the part of Mr. Robarts has indicated his responsibility in the position he has taken toward this legislation. It is my greatest desire that all ten provinces of Canada partake in a comprehensive Canada pension plan.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, how does the hon. member for Grey-Bruce reconcile what he is now saying with the position taken by the Conservative members during the early meetings of the special committee, when they were making a case on behalf of Ontario opting out of this plan?
Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Aiken:: That is not true.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has just suggested, the remarks of the hon. member for York-Scarborough are not true. I suggest rather that the Liberal party, by allowing a situation to exist whereby provinces may opt out, have divided the administration of this country. That is inherent in the attitude taken by the Liberal party in respect of this bill now before us. I think the efforts put forward by the premier of the province of Ontario have been worthy and show a great degree of leadership. Perhaps it would be of value if the Minister of National Health and Welfare showed a similar degree of leadership in regard to this and other legislative measures which may and could be introduced in this house. She could really make a big person of herself if she showed some leadership of this type.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member talks about divide and rule. Since the leadership of his party has been divided, who rules?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact the Minister of Transport has opened the way for me to make this statement, perhaps I should inform that hon. minister that we do not require any sympathy from members of his party. We realize when the destruction began in this regard. It commenced in 1958 as a result of the nonsensical things which occurred at the Toronto exhibition as well as at other places.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I will curtail my remarks in this vein.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is my opinion that the remarks made and questions asked by mem bers on both sides of the house in the past few minutes go beyond the terms of the clause now before this committee for consideration. Will the hon. member who has the floor resume the remarks he was making before he was interrupted with a question? I refer of course to those remarks which I suppose were relevant to clause 2.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a supplementary question?

Canada Pension Plan


Eric Alfred Winkler: No more questions, please.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your remarks which created a cooling off period. Several members on the other side of this house have irritated me to the point that I answered with some heat, and strayed from the subject matter before us for consideration. It is unfortunate that those members continue along that line.
As I understand the proposal, Mr. Chairman, contributions are to be made to the Canada pension plan in the amount of 1.8 per cent by both employer and employee. I am sure there are very few members on this side of the house who will not agree with the principle of a Canada pension plan, but let us not deceive ourselves or the public by thinking that contributions in that amount will be sufficient to carry out this pension plan successfully. All one need do to be convinced of that fact is look at the United States social security plans which require payments in the amount of 7.25 per cent, which we understand very shortly will be increased to 9 per cent. Let us not be deceived that the plan with its presently proposed contributions will operate successfully after its institution on January 1, 1966. The Canadian people must be made to understand that fact.
As other hon. members have suggested, there are many things about this plan which must be clarified. I have referred to one such aspect already today and should like again to state it for clarification. I refer of course to the suggestion that $100 per month should be paid to every individual in Canada 65 years of age and over. That suggestion, I believe, is in essence what the Ontario representatives supported and enunciated to the special committee on the Canada pension plan. I believe also that is the idea supported by all members of the Conservative party, particularly those who were members of that committee. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I will stand on what the record shows.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that many advantageous things can be developed as a result of our consideration of this bill, one of which could be the creation of greater unity in Canada. I suggest once again to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whom I hold in high regard, that she has the opportunity of making a really big person of herself by showing some leadership in the presentation of a bill which will be accepted by the Canadian public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, this is an all party project in spite of the fact that most political parties like to say they were first in thinking of the idea. This is the type of legislative measure which affects every man, woman and child in Canada. All political parties have expressed themselves at one time or another as being in favour of a universal pension plan. On many occasions during the past six years I have publicly advocated such a universal pension plan. However, Mr. Chairman, the plan now before us for consideration is not a universal pension plan.
I represent a rural district comprised largely of farming families, two thirds of which receive incomes of less than $600. In many cases these families do not receive any income at all, and during the past two years particularly have been living at a subsistence level only. This plan will not contribute anything at all to those citizens of Canada. If the plan was universal, as I said, I would support it. I promised to support it and I am one who after an election remembers his election promises and works as hard as he possibly can to bring them into effect.
If this plan offered these people what I have always said I stood for I would be willing to put it through now, but if one third to two thirds of the people in my district cannot benefit under it I cannot go back to them and say that this is the universal plan for which I have fought. At the end of the debate on this subject it may be that because there is a desire to have half a cake rather than no cake at all a good many of us will be in the position that we have to vote for some improvement, and perhaps to certain groups in the country this plan will represent an improvement. I know there are certain people in the 55 to 65 age group who are going to join the Cartwrights on the Bonanza ranch, but because the plan happens to help a few people I do not think we are honour bound to put it through merely because 10 per cent of the population are going to find themselves very well off. The very people I want to help the most are the ones who are going to be helped the least.
Surely those people who have worked all their lives on small bush farms, have reached the age of 60, five years away from the present suggestion, and are no longer able to do hard outdoor work under sub-Arctic weather conditions in the winter should be able to retire and perhaps make way for more efficient farming units. The tendency is in that direction. What are these people going to do?

They certainly cannot move into the thriving cities of Calgary and Edmonton and afford to pay rent, because under reasonable conditions rent would take up the whole of their pension.
I am willing to offer these people half a cake rather than no cake at all, but every member in every party is looking forward to our future today with great faith. We are always boasting about our country having the second highest standard of living in the world. I think we have only scratched our potential in that regard. We might well look after the few in the 55 to 65 group but we are going to place an unbearable burden on coming generations. We are going to saddle the young married people, the young pioneers whose days of earning are still ahead of them.
The goose can only lay so many golden eggs. This is where I part company with my socialistic friends in the corner, because while the idea of socialism is very attractive I have never heard them offer any answer as to how we are going to pay for it. We hear about shorter hours and bigger wages, but who is going to pay the shot? That is something I should like to know. When you are not in office and do not have the responsibility of paying for things, it is easy to offer bonanzas in one form or another. Although I am not an actuary, I certainly say that what we are really doing is offering a prize packet, but when we open the prize packet it is something like the bacon that we buy these days: The red meat is against the cellophane and all the lard is hidden underneath. In this pension bill we are advertising a false product. We are offering the people of Canada something for nothing, but at the present time the people are in no mood to be fooled by this type of cheap window dressing. They want to know what is under the cellophane in addition to the thin strip of red meat. They want to know how much pale lard is there, and they want to know who is going to have to pay an A grade price for a C grade product.
You will pardon me if I talk in peasant terms. I was raised on a farm and I like to get down to brass tacks. I want to know whether there is bacon in the package or nothing but lard. As I see it, the present pension plan is neither universal nor contributory in a fair way, nor will it be portable once the ambitions of the provincial leaders have full play. I do not think any of the provincial leaders deserve any great kudos at the present time. They all appear to be balkanizing Canada. I should like to see them get together. In fact I think the minister should call them
Canada Pension Plan
together again and tell them to look at the real project, to keep in mind the fair advertising of what we are selling the people of Canada and give them a chance to co-operate and go along with us in a pension plan which is portable, contributory and universal.
I do not like to be merely negative in my criticism. I have what I think is an answer and it is merely coincidental that it happens to agree with certain parts of Mr. Robarts' proposal the other evening. I think our present system of help for the old people of Canada is one of the best in the world from the point of view of being universal and contributory, because if we are able we all pay more or less equally into the plan. It does not have to be portable because at the present time it covers every citizen of Canada who reaches the age of 70. I go along with the idea that this age is somewhat unrealistic. The people who need help most are those who are engaged in the primary industries. It is virtually impossible for them to be effective after the age of 60, and so the age of 65 is approaching a little closer to what I think is a reasonable retirement age for people in this category.
I do not like anything that smells of socialism when it tends to take the fight and initiative out of the individual. I believe in any social justice program which gives security to our senior citizens in their nonproductive years. If this is socialism, then in this narrow sense I go along with it, but I also want to know who is going to pay. There is no such thing as something for nothing in Canada or anywhere else in the world and we can only spend that wealth which we produce. I want to know how this plan is going to be integrated with our plans for producing more wealth and I want to make sure that the people most affected, the hard working family people between the ages of 25 and 55, are going to be able to carry this staggering load.
I sometimes think that the more haste the less speed. We are faced here with the job of unravelling a plan which is going to affect us for perhaps a hundred years. The actuaries who presented briefs to the minister and to parliament quoted figures extending as far as the year 2045. That was the year farthest in the future to which reference was made. So we are tying the hands of future generations well into the middle of the next century. Therefore this is not the time for haste, although the matter is certainly urgent. We have a plan before us already, as I said, as an experiment. It is

Canada Pension Plan
not so many years ago when objections were made that if we made any kind of retirement payment to our old folks it would break the country. At that time the amount was $40. Then it was raised to $46, then $55, then $65 and now the amount is $75. Having in mind the way living costs have mounted, everybody here knows that the present pension of $75 is not worth as much as the $40 pension at the start. We may slap ourselves on the back and say that we are doing very well in improving our pension plan, but we have done no more than try to keep up with the cost of living.
I think this principle is well outlined in the bill. There are clauses in the bill which seek to cover this point but they are not realistic. I understand that no matter what happens within the next two years the old age pensioners could not receive an increase of more than $1.50 per month. The rent can jump much more than that in one month. For example, we heard in the house today that the price of steel is likely to jump $4 a ton. What is this going to do to the cost of living? It may put up the cost of living 3 or 4 per cent but it would still be impossible for these people to get more than $1.50 extra under the present scheme.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be entirely negative, so let me suggest right away that as fast as we can we push legislation through this house to provide for an increase in the old age pension to at least $100 a month, to take effect at age 65 without any means test whatever. I cannot see that any more administration costs would be involved, but we would save considerably by not increasing the civil service payroll or making other wasteful duplications. I think the experiment of paying $75 a month has worked out very well, although it certainly has not satisfied everyone, and I do not suppose that any retirement sum could be set which would satisfy everyone. But if we are to provide for our elderly people a retirement with comfort to meet their needs, then I for one think this figure of $75 is unrealistic. It is no selling point to tell me that 10 years from now, after having paid in to the plan $800, I may be able to increase my own retirement pension by $104 a month. Surely it is a cynical member of this committee who says to me that this is a good scheme, when I refuse to give my own father, who pioneered this country and worked harder than I did in primitive conditions, more than a mere $75 a month while I collect at the same time 
perhaps $179 a month of unpaid for retirement pension.
If we are going to be big shots let us be big shots. If we are going to bear this burden, let us tie it in with a dynamic approach that we will be willing and able to pay for. If we are not willing and able to pay for it I do not think we have the right to saddle it on to our young people. If we cannot show the necessary drive I would be satisfied to take little or nothing of this bonanza of $104 a month, because I would far rather see my father get another $25 a month to provide him with a reasonable bread and butter allowance. Let hon. members stop putting the red strips of bacon under the cellophane in the hope that because they are getting in first or are yelling the loudest they are going to take all the political advantage they can from it, hoping to win a snap election by offering the old people nothing and covering it up with aid to a few in the 55 to 65 age group.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we are going to have a universal plan, then perhaps this can be thrashed out. I am sure the minister and her government are willing to tailor their cloth somewhat. I would be against anything being compulsory in this plan unless it is universal. I do not think it is right to force self-employed people to pay into a fund which they may not want to pay into, allowing other people to get bonanzas while some may not contribute at all. We are supposed to be a democracy and we should have one law for everyone. If something is to be compulsory I contend that this compulsion automatically should be universal. One Canada, one law. If our provincial leaders have those qualities of leadership which entitle them to be leaders of a state within a state, or a province within the dominion of Canada, I say they should go back to ordinary simple democratic principles and show the leadership to make us one united Canada. Then if they have the ambition and the intention to come to Ottawa and be the big frog in the puddle, then perhaps the people of Canada will be willing to take a second look at them. But if they intend to balkanize Canada they are wasting their time. The people of Canada are looking for the men who are going to make one Canada and who make sure that the same deal is given to each and every one of us.
To me it is ridiculous to add $104 a month to the retirement fund of those who may not need it and some who do not even want it, leaving those people who need it most

at the bottom of the heap. I know it is fun to point to the Conservative party and say that we are the right wing party, the party of the landed gentry. The Conservative party is, and has been for many years, the party of the little people, and it intends to remain the party of the little people. Therefore I hope my appeal is not going to fall on deaf ears, hon. gentlemen opposite describing it as window dressing. It is not window dressing; I am asking for a square deal, something for which we have always worked and for which we intend to go on working.
Some months ago I spoke of certain labour problems in this country, and certain narrow sections of the press called me the enemy of the labouring people because I stood up for the rights of the small labouring man in his own union. What I said on that occasion when I addressed the house was that if we did our duty in the house-and I included myself in that-there would be no need for unions. But I was misunderstood by those who did not hear me, because what I meant to say-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and ask him whether what he is saying now has any reference to the bill under consideration.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it has. I am talking about the whole principle which underlies the bill, which is that it is our responsibility in this matter, as well as in any other federal matter, to see to it that every working man in the country gets what we in this party call a square deal; and I want to clear up a mistaken impression and go out in front by saying that we as a party, and I myself as an individual, stand for the rights of the individual, the universal right of everyone who works and contributes to the welfare of the country.
If we did our duty in this house properly, I contend there would be no need for organizations like labour unions pressing for minimum wages, retirement security and holidays with pay. Having been voted to this house, it is our duty, a duty with which we are all seized, to make sure that the plans which we make are integrated. For example, we must make sure that employers' plans integrate with plans for employment, that our plans for finance integrate with the wages a workman receives when he gets that employment. I am being seriously misunderstood if anybody thinks that I am anti-labour; I am not. But I am pro the working man, and I say that there is no place in Canada for any-
Canada Pension Plan
one who is not a working man, whether he works with a pen or with a plow.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: I realize that the hon. member for Athabasca is usually a very honest man in this house, but one thing which he said was that this plan is not portable. How can he say that it is not portable when he knows, or should know, that this plan is portable not only throughout all the provinces but is portable to all those countries with similar plans? What does he mean when he says that?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member asked that question, although he is not usually as diplomatic when he speaks to me. However, I should like to refer him to one of the words he used tonight, and that is the word "usually". He said that I am usually honest. I am always honest. Portability of this plan is something which I was not going to discuss, particularly on this occasion, because the portability of this plan is at present in the greatest of doubt, and I am not sure whether this is the proper clause of the bill to discuss this feature.
I see the hon. lady smiling. I am not ducking this question; I would be delighted to spend 40 minutes on it. But to my understanding at the present time it is not portable outside Canada. So far as being portable within the provinces is concerned, I will vote for the clause which makes it portable, but. I would like an assurance from the hon. lady that the provinces will not be allowed to opt out to the extent where the plan would not be portable.
I can see great dangers if a province has complete leeway in opting out in stages. As I read the bill there is very great doubt on this matter. The provinces have the right within 30 days to opt out completely, and if they exercise that right then any time within two years they can bring in their own plan which may be quite different from anything we have, and there are no strings attached except that their plan must provide reasonable equality.
I am worried about the portability in such a plan and I see no guarantee that the pension paid for in Alberta will be completely accepted in other provinces.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Even as it is now, if the province of Quebec opted out of the plan you can say it is portable.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I cannot say that; I wish I could.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: The report of the committee says so.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have read the bill. I am putting up, you might say, the red light on the matter. It does not seem to me that any portable rights in this plan are guaranteed.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is certainly part of the democratic processes that both sides of the argument be presented when what we call debate is conducted in this place.


Mr. Monleilh:: A good idea.


John Edward Lloyd: Most of the time since this bill has been in committee we have had a rather extended general review under clause 2. It was hoped we would carry on with the discussion of all clauses and eventually on clause 1, in the enlightenment that would come from such examination, we would have a much more comprehensive review under the present rules of the house; but apparently this is not to be the case.
It seems to me that the official opposition finds some value-I fail to notice just what unless it is purely political-to put their viewpoints into the public agencies of propaganda and monopolize the space available.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order-


John Edward Lloyd: I think this is doing a great disservice-


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order I would like to point out that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) is completely wrong in that statement. We have not monopolized the debate, not one little bit. The opportunity to participate has been open to every person in the chamber.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the point of order is but perhaps you may care to rule on it. Hon. gentlemen opposite put up the cry that they are sticking to the bill, yet they engage in wide ranging debate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Say what you have to say and then shut up.


John Edward Lloyd: I say to the committee that in fact we have ranged far away from the principle of the bill, and today more than any other time. It seems to me we have to get

back to examining what it is we are trying to accomplish and to restate the need that must be filled. What is it? It is the fact that 65 per cent, or thereabouts, of employed Canadians are not members of a wage related pension plan, notwithstanding what some have described as the laudable efforts of those who underwrite or offer private pension schemes. It is still an unalterable fact that 65 per cent of Canadians are not members of a wage related pension scheme.
Another significant thing was discovered in the committee hearings, after some 51 meetings, that of those who do retire the greatest mass of beneficiaries under private pension plans find themselves with approximately 40 per cent of their earnings at retirement as their pension benefit. This is an average. There will be many below that figure, and there will be some above it.
It is to fill this need that this bill has been presented to parliament, and the attempts to cry that we are doing nothing for those who are not able to establish a wage related pension are distracting attention from what the bill proposes to do, which is to fill the need I have described.
The bill is also doing something else- settling one major area of controversy-and when you settle one major area of controversy you can then move to improve upon other areas. This is but a first step, and with this area of need filled the government and parliament can then direct their attention prudently, and with more adequate information and enlightenment, to find out what nobody has yet discovered in this chamber- the criteria for an adequate flat rate pension and how far government should go in taxing to provide it.
A lot of members have said that the bill should do more than it does, but there has been a complete dearth of information from those critics as to how the amount of flat rate pension should be calculated. I suggest to the committee that it is impossible to do that job with a sense of responsibility unless you first remove one area of controversy, by filling the need for a wage related pension for those 65 per cent of wage earners who are not now members of a pension plan. This is a deplorable condition and should occupy priority of attention at this time. This is what we are trying to do.
The next question we address ourselves to is, how shall we finance it? In a democracy you propose measures that are politically acceptable and that are generally understood. Our people generally understand that wage

related plans are usually shared 50-50 between the employer and the employee. There is no complexity about that, and so you propose that the contribution to finance it shall be paid 50-50 by the employer and the employee.
If you start to take the funds that are built up for this purpose and produce a lot of universal flat rate benefits, then you are imposing a contribution system which would be truly regressive in the sense that it would be taking more from the low income brackets to make the scheme financially sound. Therefore you must keep the flat rate benefits to an absolute minimum. You do not allow them to go beyond the area of prudence, and I suggest that in this bill flat rate benefits have been prudently and wisely established.
The generally accepted viewpoint among social scientists and economists is that you find the funds for your universal flat rate benefits from a diversity of taxes such as we now have in the income tax field, the sales tax field and the corporation tax field-the so-called 3-3-4 formula. Funds from those sources relieve pressure on people with small incomes; we should rely upon them for social assistance of the kind available under the old age security legislation. Some hon. members have talked a great deal about complexities. Well, there may be difficulty about understanding fully all the excellent and sound projections which have been made by officials of the Department of Finance. The actuarial predictions of our civil servants are certainly complex. But there is nothing complex about the contribution system or about the scale of benefits; a little careful reading will soon acquaint anyone with these provisions. It is true that projections taking into account the impact of this legislation on the economy of Canada in the future do not lend themselves readily to the kind of debate which usually takes place in this house. We must of necessity rely upon the opinions of the authorities. Throughout the 51 meetings we had in the pensions committee there was not one substantial piece of evidence given to us to indicate that our officials had done anything but a sound, capable and well informed job. They had made projections which give us a real picture of the economic implications of this plan. There is no question about that.
Those who oppose the plan have not seen fit to discuss it in terms of actuarial accuracy or economic soundness. They have been directing their attention to the old age security field, entirely away from the purpose
Canada Pension Plan
of this bill. It seems to me we should pause before making a lot of suggestions about other areas of activity. I believe we should resolve this controversy about a wage related plan first. There are many small employers who cannot afford the cost of an underwritten plan such as is now privately available to them; they are just waiting for this question to be settled so that they can go ahead and work out a private plan to supplement the Canada pension plan through their own efforts. In this way they would be contributing by their savings to the strength of the economy.
I suggest that no one has yet placed before this house a comprehensive, well reasoned and well documented statement as to the impact on the economy involved in a proposal to increase offhand the amounts which are proposed in this measure. There has been no statement based in any way on actuarial calculations, and until such submissions have been made we can only conclude that those suggestions are irresponsible and ill-founded -that they are in fact nothing more than a tactical political move for the sake of political advantage.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Edward Lloyd: I would be happy to answer questions later. I am about to conclude. I have made my main point. Hon. gentlemen may laugh, lacking anything else to contribute. Let them laugh this one away: After 51 meetings during which this legislation was closely examined with the comprehensive information that our civil servants could produce being available to us, we found that this plan is financially sound and economically prudent, besides being a major step toward filling a great gap which exists in our social security program, and clearing the decks for doing something still better in the field of old age assistance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the hon. member permit a question? He made the statement that 65 per cent of all employed Canadians are not now covered by a pension plan. I am wondering how he will laugh off the fact that 66 per cent of all retired Canadians even by the year 1976 will not get one penny out of this plan.


John Edward Lloyd: The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is simple. Let us end this controversy about a wage related plan. This is something which is needed; it must be done. Then prudently, and with common.

Canada Pension Plan
sense, let us attack the question which the hon. gentleman failed to attack when he was minister of health.


Mr. Kindt:: It is a privilege to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this pension plan. I hope you will not fault me, Mr. Chairman, for moving to this seat; I have done so in order to be closer to the minister. Perhaps I can whisper in her ear and get her attention a little better than if I were speaking from back there in the corner.
As I say, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about some of these things which one hears out in the constituency. After all, that is the acid test of whether or not this pension plan is to be a success.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With all due respect to the hon. member

and I would be happy to have him whisper in my ear at any time-may I ask that those whispers should relate, not to what he heard in his constituency but rather to what is contained within the confines of clause 2?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: That is exactly what I was leading up to. If the minister would hold her fire a little longer she would hear all about what I have to say. Every bit of it has something to do with the pension plan. Let me first of all draw attention to one of the major weaknesses of this plan, that is, the value of money. I want to talk about the value of money. The attributes of money are acceptability, transferability and, above all, a standard of values. In other words the value of money must be the same today as it will be 20 years from now. If it is not, how can you work a system of contributions based on payments by young people to a pension plan. Here is a dollar. I have it in my hand. Today that dollar is worth 100 cents. If we go back over the years we find that the value of the dollar in terms of its purchasing power has declined to the extent of about 2J per cent per year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How many cents was it worth then?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: All right. Suppose a young person comes into the scheme at 25 and contributes for 40 years. The dollar, declining at the rate I have mentioned, would be worth about 25 cents by the time he was 65. In other words, a person who puts money in at a certain figure will be drawing out dollars which are only about 25 per cent of the value of the dollars he put in.
IMr. Lloyd.]


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: If you wish. I do not mind answering a question.


Edgar John Benson: The question is a rather simple one. Does the hon. member realize that in this pension plan there is built in an earnings index and a pension index which, for the first time in Canada's history, pays some attention to the decreasing value of the dollar? This means that if someone is paying in over a period of years, his contributory earnings at the time of pensioning will be adjusted up, based on the general increase in wage rates over the whole period; so that it will be related, in current dollars, to the dollars he put in when he was contributing.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, the question that has just been asked shows that the person who asked it has never worked out annuities; you can tell that by the way he talks. Of course, he does not know.


An hon. Member:: He collects; he doesn't pay.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: He believes that these things come out to a nicety. He thinks that in the case of anyone who is 20 years of age and is paying into the scheme for 40 years, with the changes in the value of consumer purchasing power or the value of the dollar of which he speaks, the rough method that will be used in this plan will work out properly for everybody. What a hope. If he had ever computed any of these figures he would not argue that point, certainly not as the Minister of National Revenue.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit another question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I will be delighted to answer any questions from the minister when I have finished. I would ask him to let me get on with my speech. What is going to happen is that these young people who are making their contributions on one value of the dollar are going to be paying the old folks' pensions; there is no doubt about that. They are going to be unduly taxed, or they are going to have to make contributions which are completely out of proportion to the benefits they will receive when they reach retirement age. The government say they are going to scale this thing upward; but if the value of the dollar drops to 25 cents, who is going to pay the difference? Where are they going to raise the money that will be needed? These

things have not been explained. They are going to obtain it from the public, but no mention is made of how they are going to do it.
Most people prefer the type of insurance policy similar to ordinary life insurance. With this type of insurance you know how much you pay in and you know how much you are going to get back. You know exactly how much you are going to get with the old age pension, because it is $75 a month; although I say that it should now be at least $100 a month, and perhaps $125 a month. Certainly if those who are sponsoring this plan were fair to the people who are now over 70 years of age or 65 years of age, they would give immediate consideration to instituting a plan of increasing the old age pension, because these people do not share in the benefits of this plan at all.
Another weakness of this particular pension plan is that a man who earns over $1,500, or around that figure between the ages of 65 and 70 is considered by someone, although I do not know who-some civil servant, I guess, looking over his shoulder-to not need additional assistance. Someone looking over his shoulder says, "Well, you have earned $1,500. You cannot draw any pension". Who wants anything like that to happen? Who wants anybody looking over his shoulder and saying, "How much did you make last year?" When this happens in our society, it means that the one who works, the man who does not retire, who works on from 65 to 70, earns his usual wage and keeps himself busy, will draw no pension between the ages of 65 and 70, unless he is under this other plan that works down to 65. But the problem is that a penalty is imposed upon the person who does not retire; the man who continues to work is penalized. Medical authorities are greatly concerned about finding employment for older people and keeping them usefully employed, but here is a pension plan that is penalizing the man who works.
I now come to my next point, Mr. Chairman. Most people prefer the old age insurance method, because you always know exactly where you are. What appeals to most people is the fact that they are in a position to make their own calculations, to make their own supplementary insurance plans and to provide for their old age. In this way they are not dependant upon government schemes or any other schemes. Furthermore, as I have said before, they know how they are going to come out. There is another provision in this bill dealing with the determination of
Canada Pension Plan
average lifetime earnings. I wonder how I would go about figuring out the lifetime earnings of the Minister of National Health and Revenue.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Stick around.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am afraid I would have to stick around, and stick pretty close, for six months in order to dig into all her earnings here, there and in other places; that is, if the minister is a normal individual, and I assume that she is. I have always found her to be that way.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wish I could say the same for you.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: To compute the lifetime earnings of any individual is an impossible task. The Minister of National Health and Welfare may smile and laugh; but I ask, why didn't she smile and laugh while she was thinking about that and putting it into the act?


An hon. Member:: Which version?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Such brilliance was shown by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the planning of this act that she never overlooked anything. Anything that was doubtful, it is in here; and it was withdrawn twice before we received the version that is now before us. I find that many, many people are worrying about the effect this scheme will have upon existing pensions. These people have never been given any information by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is still laughing and trying to be funny.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Shame.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: But it is only a question of trying, I will admit. Why have you not told those people who have pensions now under existing plans?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Why have you not told them how they can preserve these plans?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. .


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes, Your Honour.


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. gentleman please address the Chair?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes, Your Honour, I would be delighted to do so. We all have been arguing, and in view of what I am facing from this position I have some difficulty in staying within the rules. I had no intention of being discourteous to you, sir.

Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member kindly revert to consideration of the bill?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am right on the beam now.
The next point I should like to refer to relates to the portability of this pension plan. In respect of portability, there is nothing more important to elderly employees than to be able to take their pension rights from one job to another. I know hundreds of people who are unable to change their employment simply because they cannot transfer their pension rights. If we have an honest desire to provide portability of pensions for elderly people there is no finer way of doing so than by providing a pension scheme which will allow them complete portability.
I support the pension plan idea but I am afraid that the complications which now exist in the plan before us for consideration are too great to be overcome. Surely an old age security bill increasing security payments from their present level to $100 or $125 per month would have been a better plan to proceed with at this time. Regardless of that fact I am in favour of the adoption of a pension plan, and I have always gone on record as being in favour of some proposal. It is my hope that as a result of discussions here in the House of Commons a pension plan will be developed in the best interests of Canadian people, though I think many improvements could be made to the present proposal.
I have a lot of misgivings about the plan presented to this committee by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, similar to those misgivings expressed to me by many of my constituents. This is not the type of plan they envisage as a pension plan to which they can look for benefits in years to come. This is not a perfect plan, but something which has been referred to by an hon. gentleman as a settlement of a major area of controversy. However, if this plan represents pension coverage for one portion of the population, perhaps we may expect that it will be extended so as to cover the many other deserving segments of our population in future years. This plan by no means covers the whole waterfront.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, since I
promised to do so, may I be allowed to ask the hon. gentleman a question? Has the hon. gentleman read pages 286 and following of the report of the pension committee which outlines how this pension plan will take care
fMr. Kindt. ]
of increases in the cost of living and decreases in the value of the dollar?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Have you read it, sir?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Fine.


Edgar John Benson: Would you like me to read it to you?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention at the time we commenced our discussion of this clause to make any remarks, but we have had a rather general debate and I should at this time like to do so. I am sure that I will be strictly in order because I intend to speak in relation to paragraph (d) of subclause (1), clause 2, which states:
"beneficiary" means a person to whom a benefit has become payable.
First of all I should like to state that the party to which I belong, as has been stated on numerous occasions, supports the principles of this bill and look upon it as the foundation for a pension plan for Canada which will be extended to every citizen of Canada. I was pleased to hear the assurance of the Minister of National Revenue that this plan will be actuarially sound for at least 20 years. I was also pleased to find out that this bill provides for an adjustment in the pension rights as a result of increases in the cost of living, and I hope that this aspect will meet the increased cost of living circumstances as they change from time to time.
I have been interested in this subject ever since I came to this House of Commons in 1945. On March 30, 1950 I made a speech in relation to the then old age pension legislation. At that time I took some care to do some research as to the purchasing value of the dollar. According to a table which was presented to me by some well informed individuals, based on the purchasing power of the dollar in 1939 as being 100 per cent, the purchasing power of the dollar in 1820 was two dollars and fourteen point six cents. In 1964, in relation to this table, the purchasing power of the dollar was approximately 50 cents. In the light of those facts it is very fortunate, indeed, that this bill provides for an adjustment in pensions payable in relation to the purchasing power of the dollar.
Having made that statement, Mr. Chairman, I find I must now say a few words on behalf of those individuals who are very disappointed

that they are excluded as beneficiaries under this bill, and I refer to the 1,500,000 senior employees whose age and income prohibits them from receiving the benefits of a pension plan based on the provisions of this bill.
That situation was the subject of the major portion of the criticism I heard in respect of this legislation when I was home during the Christmas recess. I have received letters since I returned to Ottawa expressing this same complaint in respect of these persons who are not included under the provisions of this legislation.
The senior member, at least in age, for Halifax stated a few moments ago that we must do one thing at a time. I agree with his suggestion and I will have a little more to say in that regard in a few moments. There is general criticism of this legislation because of this defect which has caused a great deal of concern and disappointment to those senior citizens who will be excluded from this benefit. That certainly is the attitude that has been expressed by individuals in my constituency, and certainly has been the tenor of the criticism which has appeared in Alberta newspapers.
Mr. Chairman, to support my argument I should like to quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Regina Commonwealth of February 17, 1965. The article appears under the heading "Pension plan soaks the poor, says Bryden". The article then states:
The proposed Canada pension plan contains serious defects which turn a first-rate idea into a tenth rate plan, Kenneth Bryden, New Democratic party financial critic, charged in the Ontario legislature.
In a major speech analysing federal and Ontario approaches to the national contributory program, Bryden said the plan now envisaged by the Liberal government in Ottawa was "nothing but a scheme to soak the poor and the relatively poor.'*
Then it goes on to say:
Penalizes low incomes.
Bryden said the system of contributions to the Canada pension plan proposed by the federal government was highly regressive, in effect penalizing the lower income groups.
He declared the high degree of funding proposed was unnecessary and when coupled with the regressive nature of the contributions system amounted to little more than a tax on the poor to provide investment funds for provincial governments.
He went on along those lines. I think he was on fairly sound ground when he was talking in those terms. These are the major criticisms we have received in connection with the bill and one can well understand how concerned the people are about it when they find out
Canada Pension Plan
they are left out of this bill we are discussing at the present time. In my opinion I think we are morally bound after we have passed this legislation, or even before it is passed, to lower the present age to 65 and to increase the present old age security payment to $100 a month. We are morally bound to do that if we are going to meet the needs of those citizens who are disappointed by this legislation.
I should like to ask the minister this one question. Would the minister inform the house of the government's intentions with respect to increasing the payments under old age security legislation, if this bill with amendments is accepted by the house at this time? I do not know if the minister heard my question.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not sure I understood. Would my hon. friend mind repeating it?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am presuming that this bill with amendments will be adopted by the house and I fully expect it will be, as it lays the foundation of a sound pension scheme in Canada for the years ahead; but would the minister tell the house what the government's intentions are with respect to increasing the payments under the old age security legislation when this bill is adopted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think my hon. friend was present or, if not, has certainly heard of the Prime Minister's statement of a few days ago in which he indicated that the first step which would be taken at this time would be a reduction in the age qualification for accepting the flat rate old age pension of $75 a month. I think my hon. friend knows, although some members of the house obviously do not, about the fact that pension payments under the bill will be increased as the cost of living goes up. I am also certain my hon. friend is well aware that with regard to any further amendments to the Old Age Security Act, in respect of which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, there is and has been no suggestion at any time that anything in this act precludes any further amendment of the base amount of the old age security payment. If my hon. friend is intending to ask me at this stage what, if anything, the government proposes to do with respect to part IV, he will permit me to say that that, of course, will be a matter of policy which will be dealt with at that time, and subsequently.

Canada Pension Plan


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I think it is safe for me to conclude that hope springs eternal within the human breast.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Very little.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the government on the announcement made the other day that old age security will gradually be extended until it reaches in a five year period those who are 65 years of age, at which time it will become universal for those of that age. I was happy with the Prime Minister's announcement. I will be happier when the hon. lady has served whatever time in purgatory she has been condemned to, for what sins I cannot imagine, and is once more in a position to make these announcements to the house herself inasmuch as these matters come directly under her responsibility and I know she is genuinely concerned.
I want to enter upon a general discussion of clause 2 and I assume that the Chair's ruling of yesterday that we will be allowed a certain amount of latitude in the hope of expediting the passage of the clauses later will not be challenged by members opposite as happened a little earlier. I want to say that, speaking for myself, I am unequivocally in favour of a national portable pension plan for all Canadians, a plan that will allow people to retire in dignity and with security. I was thrilled beyond words to read the inspiring words in the white paper which outlined government policy. This is what it says on page 5 with reference to the objective of the government:
This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that, as soon as is possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
I think it is very important that the house and the country examine Bill No. C-136 to see how it measures up to these words, "in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity". I am one Canadian who represents a whole bunch of other Canadians to whom none of these words apply so far as the bill is concerned, and I want to make some suggestions later which I think will bring the bill more in line with the objective. When I voted for the bill on second reading I was voting for the principle as enunciated by the minister.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a brief question? Did he hear the explanation of the parliamentary secretary when he stated that it was not so that we could expect

this, but that we could look forward to it? There is a difference.


John Carr Munro: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, that is not exactly what I said at all. It is too bad the hon. member would not listen and interpret my remarks correctly. I would ask him to emphasize the remarks with respect to "looking forward" which he himself quoted. I pointed out that the plan was an earnings related pension scheme for those now in the working force and that so far as old age security for those now retired is concerned, this involved old age security directly and was outside the ambit of the Canada pension plan.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I spent a great deal of time over the Christmas recess with the parliamentary secretary at the committee hearings as a member of the pension plan committee and I got used to the foetal heartbeats of this prime ministerial embryo. If he wishes to make his position clear to me at some other point I will be happy to take an interruption from him.
I am speaking as a Canadian who represents the bulk of the Eskimo people in this country and many Indian people in addition to many other people whose standards of living are not very high. I recall being on Baffin island with the hon. lady at a meeting of the Eskimo people. It was a very pleasant meeting and she was well received. The people believed her when she told them how she ached to bring to them the best of services and the best of help from her department. They had no reason then and indeed even now to believe that she was playing with their emotions in any way. But I want to ask her this question. Inasmuch as nearly every Canadian Indian and Eskimo will get absolutely nothing out of the pension plan, does she believe these poor people need security and dignity as much as anyone else? Does she believe they too have a right to look forward to retirement with security and with dignity?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: When I am finished. You may have even more questions to ask me then. I raise this point specifically at this time because the question is a pertinent one. Are these people with old age security of $75 a month, which is all they are going to get, in a position to enjoy security with dignity?
I want to put on record, because it is pertinent to this problem, one paragraph from

Canada Pension Plan
the second volume of the Hall commission report. We are told that the plan covers all Canadians, and somehow or other through Bill No. C-136 we are going to give them security with dignity. At page 265 of the second volume of the royal commission on health services report it is stated:
In discussing in volume I the particular health problems of the north, we have referred to the inhuman living conditions we found in some settlements. Those conditions are not common to all parts of the territories but they are sufficiently widespread-
And these are pertinent words.
-to cause alarm and demand quick and determined action. The contrast between the primitive conditions of those vegetating in tents and snow-houses with those of officials living in houses providing most of the comforts we know in the south, only serves to accentuate the plight of the former group. We must assume that Canadians have been only dimly aware of these circumstances, which would not be tolerated anywhere else. Even in the more bearable climate of the south, no one would be allowed to even spend one night, let alone a whole winter, or a lifetime under such degrading conditions.
This is a situation which Bill No. C-136 is designed to correct, if I can accept the hon. lady's statement that it is to establish as soon as possible a fair and practical way in which all Canadians will be able to retire in security and with dignity. But the vast majority of these poor people are going to get nothing out of the Canada pension plan as now proposed. I realize we are going to be in the middle of an election campaign one of these fine months, and I can well imagine the kind of things which are going to be said, and this divinely inspired statement in the white paper giving all Canadians security with dignity is going to be one of the statements used.
I suggest to the hon. lady that if she and her government are going to do nothing to give assistance to these people in any national plan, I have another campaign slogan which she had better use, and it is this: "Nothing is too good for the people of the north". Because that is what the Liberals are giving them-nothing.


John Carr Munro: That is what the Conservatives did for them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They did a lot better than you.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I want from the government benches an explanation of whether or not the Canadian Indians and Eskimo are considered full Canadians within the ambit of the description "all Canadians". If they are, why
is it that they are going to get nothing out of this plan? Do they have a right to expect this?
What have they been promised, Mr. Chairman? I have told the committee what the hon. lady promised them, but what about the Prime Minister? He visited this same group of Eskimo people and made promises to them. I do not know whether he remembers his promises; after all, he has a certain kind of selective amnesia which is extremely fascinating; but if he remembers, he promised these people that under his guidance there would be no difference between them and other Canadians. He said, smiling benignly upon them, "There is no difference between us, we are all the same". I want to know whether these Canadians are going to be given any assistance under this Bill No. C-136.
What about the people, Mr. Chairman, who are already old? Let us see how the philosophy which is enunciated in this white paper stands up. Are the old people who are now retired classified as Canadians? The criterion applied is a bare $75 a month for those who are aged today. Is this a practical way to meet the needs of our elderly people? Is $75 a month going to provide dignity and security? How many hundreds of thousands of southern Canadians are in this category? What about those who are disabled; are they Canadians? What about those who are widowed or orphaned? Do these people have the right to dignity and security? What about all those who will become widowed in the next three years, or will become disabled within the next five years, or who will lose their parents and will become orphans? Are these people Canadians? Do they have the right to dignity and security? Because under the Canada pension plan they are going to get absolutely nothing now and nothing in the future. Indeed, estimates have been made that as many as 2.5 million Canadians are not going to be covered by this plan. I know the hon. lady as recently as 20 months ago was addicted to the truth, but what I should like her to do now is to give this committee an honest statement as to what Bill No. C-136 will in fact accomplish; and this is what we will vote on in this committee.
The statement in the white paper is not an accurate statement. I am going to read, Mr. Chairman, what in fact will be an accurate statement of what the plan will do, amending the statement made in the white paper as best I can. First of all, let me read the original

Canada Pension Plan
statement again, because it is a priceless piece of creative writing:
This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that, as soon as is possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
This is how the statement, as amended, would have to read:
This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that...some Canadians will be able to .. .retire.
And that is about all the plan does, if you strip that sentence of its adjectives and of the words which will appear on the next federal election campaign posters. That is in fact a truthful statement of what Bill No. C-136 does.
Other things are said in the white paper with which I do not intend to bother the committee. It promises that the plan will be nation-wide in character. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if 80 per cent of the residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are not even eligible for the plan, how is it going to be nation-wide? Indeed, the only element of portability that I will not question at all is in the case of the two and a half million Canadians who are going to get nothing, because it is not very difficult to carry nothing from one part of the country to another.
May I say I have some serious questions about the funds which will be made available to the provinces, and here I am speaking primarily as a northerner. Because as I understand it, the funds which will be made available to the provincial authorities will depend on the contributions raised in a given area. So where does this principle leave the have-not areas of the country, such as Canada's northern region, the Yukon and Northwest Territories? Surely if there is one area in need of an imaginative development program it is that area. Are we merely going to return all those dollars that will be collected under the Canada pension plan from the handful of people who will be eligible to join it in the far north?
What about some of the administrative problems? I am not going to labour the fact that there will be a new army of federal officials. It is the Department of Labour which will be numbering everyone. It is the Department of National Revenue which will collect, and the Department of National Health and Welfare which will give out. Anyone with experience of such programs knows that when one federal department attempts to administer them it runs into serious problems. My God, what will be the situation

with three different departments in the act, all drawing up files? Every year we have a new child in our family they will want to issue a new number and the flies will mount up.
In the committee hearings we discussed the problems of calculating the pensions according to formulae very few people can understand, including the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee. The formula involved is one that would give Einstein a headache, but we were assured they were going to buy computers to do this, that they could put a card in one end and out of the other end would come the figure of, say, $54.17 to be paid to a widow living in Winnipeg. Then if they want to verify this fact they will merely run another card in another computer which will give the same figure.
Is the government going to provide a computer to each member of parliament to handle the sacks of mail that will arrive from people living in the same community, in apparently identical circumstances, and who receive different pensions? What about the 1,200,000 applications a year for refunds which, according to the experts advising the committee, can be expected to be received from people who overpay to the Canada pension plan? What computer is going to handle that?
I am happy to see the new and amiable Minister of National Revenue in his chair, because we are discussing administrative problems, particularly as they apply to my neck of the woods. I invite the Minister of National Health and Welfare to ask him about the problems of trying to administer income tax matters in the Canadian north, and to read the answer he gave me two days ago saying they have not been able to establish a district taxation office in the Canadian north. If they cannot do that, how in the world are they going to administer a plan for people scattered over 1,600,000 square miles of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?


Edgar John Benson: There is really no problem.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I would hope that somehow or other the hon. lady would see fit to amend this plan. All I want her to do is make it conform to her word. This is a very simple definition of truth. It is whether or not your plan conforms to what you are saying, whether or not your thoughts and your words conform. I invite her to use that kind of

yardstick in the next election campaign in terms of what is truth.
I want the plan to include all Canadians and I would do anything in my power to assist and support a plan that would do that. We have had suggestions made as to how it could be done. We have asked that all people be eligible to receive benefits under the Canada pension plan. We have asked that the old age security be increased to $100 a month to cover all those in circumstances where they will get nothing from the pension plan.
I am alarmed and concerned when I listen to a speech such as that made tonight by the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) who said, "Don't worry, this plan does not cover all Canadians. It does not meet all needs. We are not trying to do that, but if you will do this for us you will get rid of this one area and we will then be free to go on and plan in a common sense prudent manner to meet the needs of the other people". When the hon. member for Kootenay West tried to get a specific commitment from the minister that this in fact was what the government was planning, why in the world could the ministry not take us into its confidence?
I am extremely concerned when a federal government collects upwards of $600 million a year and admits it is not meeting the most pressing problems of the day, saying, "Let's do this first and then we will talk about the aged and the disabled." This chamber has to ask itself, should the state set up a vast bureaucracy, a vast mechanism of tax collection and take in $600 million a year of taxation-this is what it is-at a time when it is not prepared to redistribute it to the areas of most need, and is not even prepared to give us a commitment on what its plans are to meet other needs.
Reviewing the history of the government gives a thinking person even more cause to be concerned, because I have a hunch that the Canadian people are going to be told, indeed that they already believe, that all their needs will be met in some mysterious way by this complicated piece of legislation. I have a hunch that it will not be until after the next election that they will find out that if they are now old, disabled, widowed or orphaned, or become so in the next three or five years, they will get absolutely nothing.
In other words, I am afraid that by adopting this program we will postpone the day when the federal government will sit down with the provincial governments, as requested
Canada Pension Plan
by some of the provincial premiers, to look at those areas of unmet pressing social needs. I am afraid people will be told, "Don't worry, you have got the Canada pension plan," and the bitter truth is that they are going to get absolutely nothing out of it, a truth which will not become apparent until after the next election.
I urge the minister to get up in the committee at any time and admit that people who are now old and retired will get absolutely nothing out of the Canada pension plan. She is a great advocate of truth. Why will she not say that, because that in fact is the truth under this present bill? I want her to get up and say, "Anyone who is now a widow will get absolutely nothing from the Canada pension plan." I want her to say, "All of you who are now disabled are going to get nothing out of the Canada pension plan." I want her to go to the voters in the next election, not with this piece of imaginative fiction about all Canadians retiring in security and with dignity, but to say that there will be nothing for orphans in the next five years, nothing for the disabled in the next five years, and nothing for widows in the next five years.
I have a final plea to make. I for one would be prepared to put up with a slight delay in the implementation of the plan if there were any hope whatever that it could in fact become a national pension plan including all the provinces. It seems to me there is not very much separating the present proposal from such a proposal which would be acceptable to all provinces. I should like the Prime Minister to give some leadership in this regard-to sit down and take a look at it, along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and his $25,000 a year coordinator, in the light of all that the committee has discussed. I am sure there is a possibility that all the provinces would agree and we could in fact have a truly national pension plan. If this could be achieved I submit it would be worth the extra time it might take. The day the minister indicates in some manner that she is prepared to include all Canadians in the plan is the day I shall be able to vote for her plan wholeheartedlj' knowing that it will ensure-these words are so beautiful I have to read them again-"that as soon as possible in a fair and practical way all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring with security and with dignity."


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hasten to answer the questions posed by the hon. member. We did

Canada Pension Plan
indeed spend a few hours with some of his constituents on Baffin island. There I had an opportunity to see the way in which the Eskimos of Frobisher Bay, at least, lived. I learned that many of them are employed by the federal government, though many of them are not employed and often have little cash income.	.
What the hon. member said to the native people of the northern region of Canada then is not of a piece with what he has said this evening, segregating them from all other Canadians. He tried to say this evening that there is something different about Eskimos and Indians which sets them apart from other Canadians. I am astonished he should do so as their representative because it is clear that Indians and Eskimos are treated under the Canada pension plan in exactly the same way as all other Canadians. Those who do not work are not included whether they be Indians, Eskimos or anyone else.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Correction. The hon. lady must surely mean those who are not employed. A lot of them work on the land and I am sure she does not want to leave the impression that trapping and hunting do not constitute work.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is correct. I was referring to those who are not in the labour force, those who do not have wage income. Those who do have income will receive, subsequently, a proportionate pension because they will have made proportionate payment of their income. The hon. member suggests the vast majority will get nothing from this proposal. I demur; it is not correct. The vast majority will get at least 150 per cent of their present income, for if they now have an income of $600 or less they will, by virtue of the Prime Minister's announcement, receive as a minimum $900 a year when they reach the age of 65. In other words they will be in the same position as any other Canadian in similar circumstances.
I might also say that the hon. member has tried to indicate he was led to believe that every last Canadian, every last baby in its cradle, would be covered by the Canada pension plan. We all know he is too intelligent to pass that off in this chamber. From the beginning every hon. member has known that this was to be a wage related plan linked with people who are in employment and who earn wages. The hon. member has therefore sought by sophistry to infer that there has been some change or some attempt to mislead the house at some time in the past. I have

some figures here in which he may be interested. According to the estimates of the labour force, in 1964 there were 6,920,000 persons in the Canadian labour force. The estimates which have been prepared indicate that the Canada pension plan will cover 6,373,000 of them or more than 92 per cent of the Canadian work force.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Would the minister answer a brief question? Was this her statement in the white paper? If it was not her statement I do not want to accuse her of it. I am referring to the words which say that as soon as possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and dignity. I do not know what "all" means under the new Liberal definition. That was the basis of my speech. That is all I am asking the minister to do -to include all Canadians, Indians and Eskimos, too.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker mentioned a moment ago that we should change the wording of the white paper as it is a plan enabling the smallest number of Canadians to retire with dignity and in security.
I wonder if a few sentences could not be replaced in order to say that the purpose of this plan is to remedy the weaknesses of the Canadian taxation program and make up for the administrative deficits of the various governments. I think the purpose of this plan is not to achieve the great social security to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) referred when she spoke about a contributory pension plan for the benefit of the greatest number of Canadians.
After this bill was considered by a committee, sent back to the house and discussed by the official opposition, we all realized, with a few exceptions, that the number of people who would be excluded or would not benefit from this proposed contributory pension plan would be such that it would be readily seen that a very large number of Canadians would get no benefit at all and would not retire with dignity and in security.
Second, if you consider these words, "retired in security and dignity", you find that a great number of Canadians not living at present in security and dignity will nevertheless be subjected to contributions, since those having an income of $600 will be included in this vast group of contributors to

a social security plan allowing retirement in security and dignity.
Those are high sounding words and sentences, words which, as was mentioned by the member who spoke before me, will surely strike the imagination of voters at the next election: federal pension plan advocated by the Liberal party, the party of great men and great achievements, and which will make it possible for workers to retire in security and dignity even though more than two million Canadians do not even earn a taxable income, that is more than $2,000 a year. Those people surely live in the worst state of indignity and insecurity in Canada and yet it is precisely that huge group of workers which will have to pay contributions to build up a pension fund out of which they will get $50 or $100 and some odd dollars when they reach the retirement age.
The proposed scheme has many weaknesses. It has been recognized that the plan cannot truly be considered as a social security program, as several hon. members call it, because a social security plan which further deprives those who already earn too little to cope with the cost of living while they are working, does not allow the latter to live in dignity and security.
This project should certainly not be considered as a comprehensive social security plan. As others have already pointed out, it will surely result in an increased cost of living. This was mentioned in committee, and I noted that in the house other members referred earlier to a possible increase in the cost of living.
I admit that the proposed plan takes into account this increase which will necessarily result from the employers' contributions, because they will certainly have a great deal of work to do in order to establish standards as complicated as those required by such a pension plan.
No contributor will be able to check his benefits, because he will not have access to these automatic computers. We have heard about computers. These contributors will have to be satisfied with the information passed on to them by the plan administrators, and worse than that, they will have to take on the interest burden as well, when the administrators have invested these funds at any level of government. Thus, provincial governments which have secured from the pension fund certain loans for some works within their own field, such as roads or school construction, even at a minimum interest, will have to repay, in 20 years, out of the taxpayers' 20220-738
Canada Pension Plan
money the amounts loaned to them and bear the tax burden in 1980, 1990, to pay a second time, part of the pension the contributors will receive when they reach 65 years of age.
Can we boast that we are establishing in this country a social security program in which all Canadians will be proud to take part? I do not think so.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that Quebec is not directly participating in the pension plan that the other nine provinces seem to be accepting now, although under this co-operative federalism for which the foundations have been laid, enough meetings have been held to lead the people to believe that the Quebec pension plan will meet exactly the standards of the federal plan now before us. But I wonder whether it was not rather the federal plan that was adapted to the standards of the contributory pension plan of the Quebec government, which was studied before and during the federal-provincial conference of March 25, 1964.
I remember that, at that time, some friends in the Liberal party told me: "We are rather proud, we, federal members of parliament from Quebec, that Quebec does not accept the federal plan as a whole, because the provincial government will have the hateful job of collecting the contributions. That means that already some federal Liberal members recognized the hatefulness of collecting contributions from small wage earners, those whose yearly income of $2,000 or $3,000 is already inadequate to enable them to give their dependants a decent and dignified livelihood.
Consequently, if it was recognized that the hateful aspect of collecting the contributions would fall on the Quebec government and if some federal Liberal members of parliament even rejoiced, I wonder how it is possible to approve with such enthusiasm a pension plan identical to that which the Quebec legislature intends to approve shortly?
As I pointed out earlier, this will not solve the problem either. In 20 years from now, the same taxpayers who will have contributed to enable the provincial government to set up or administer a contributory pension plan, will have to pay once again the amounts to be repaid eventually.
Provincial governments will invest money in non-economic undertakings, such as bridge and road building and building of similar things that are certainly not as productive as those in which private enterprises invest money to increase their production capacity. Therefore one must admit in advance that by

Canada Pension Plan
1980-90, the cost of this so-called social security that is said to be the finest of all the measures voted by the Canadian government on behalf of their fellow-citizens will already be twice as great.
Mr. Chairman, it was even suggested a while ago that there had not been throughout the 51 meetings of this committee, any specialist or expert to provide something of a really constructive nature. However, a good number of them said rather clearly, I believe, that the 1.8 per cent contribution from the worker and the 1.8 per cent from the employer, which are now being proposed, were merely used as a basic principle. In fact, the actuaries of various companies, namely those who drafted the U.S. social
security plan, appeared before the said committee and said that, 20 years from now, in all likelihood, the plan would require a 4 per cent contribution from the employee as well as the employer. They are misleading the population; they promote the idea of a large social security plan but fail to say exactly how much it will cost all Canadians to get only some of them to benefit from that old age pension plan.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock? [Text]
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 24, 1965