1965-03-05

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great satisfaction to table today in the house the report of the board of review set up on October 28, 1964 to inquire into the actions taken by me as postmaster general in issuing an interim prohibitory order against the national states' rights party to prevent the delivery in Canada of all mail directed to it in Canada, and the delivery in Canada of all mail coming into Canada for redistribution.
I should like to point out that I am tabling this report rather than my colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay), and this is being done with his consent, because the interim prohibitory order was issued by me, because subsequently a board of review was set up on my instructions; I advised the house that it had been done, and the original report in the English language was presented to me before I changed portfolios. Let me say further that while the report was presented to me before I changed portfolios, the present Postmaster General has read the report and has informed me that he shares my views regarding it.
As hon. members will see from the report, copies of which will be made available today or tomorrow to all members of the house, the board of review supports in most definite terms my actions as postmaster general in proceeding to restrict in Canada the activities of the national states' rights party. The board states its flat opinion that the interim prohibitory order should be made permanent, and I quote a line from the bottom of page 56 and the top of page 57 of the report:
In our opinion your order was a public necessity.
Having considered the report before relinquishing the post office portfolio I ordered that the interim prohibitory order be made permanent. My colleague the Postmaster General assures me that steps have been taken toward that end.
In tabling the report I would like on behalf of my colleague the Postmaster General, on behalf of the government, and I am sure on behalf of every member of this house to thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Justice Dalton C. Wells and the other two members of the board, Mr. Rodrigue Bedard, Q.C., and Mr. C. Douglas McIntyre, Q.C., for the thorough and painstaking manner in which they did the job.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I offer words of congratulation to a minister, as I am about to do, for the stand the minister took in this matter, the very reasonable attitude he adopted and the very necessary measure that he took in setting up a board of review.
This is a very difficult problem. The question of censorship is something that shocks the conscience of all who love freedom. Censorship in time of war is necessary. However, censorship in other times is a very difficult problem as the line between liberty and licence is sometimes very thin. I think what has been done here in setting up a board headed by so distinguished a jurist as Mr. Justice Dalton Wells will be a real assurance to all Canadians who want to see freedom preserved while at the same time protecting against action that is criminal in its intent, and which would separate our people.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on motion of Mr. Olson, seconded by Mr. Walker,-That the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on December 14, 1964, be now concurred in.
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would again ask that this motion be allowed to stand, with unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: know this is an important matter. Is it the

Inquiries of the Ministry intention that it should be discussed during the present session?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For the information of hon. members it is the intention to discuss this motion during the current session, and I believe that at a meeting of house leaders today the time at which it will be brought before the house for debate will be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands, by unanimous consent.



FIGURE SKATING-WINNING OF WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP BY PETRA BURKA

['Mr. Speaker, the text of what I said last night in Cleveland will\n\nreveal that I supported the view that we had to take a look at NATO in the light of the obligations that face us in 1965, and not those which faced us in 1949; and that Canada recognized there was a continuing need for this defensive alliance that has contributed so much to the preservation of at least the relative peace that prevails in the world today. I was simply making an appeal and saying that in making this alliance work, we had to recognize that we were thereby giving up some of our national control in the common interest of the peace of the world, and that other countries in the alliance should be encouraged to take a similar course.']
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know the house will be pleased to learn that Miss Petra Burka has become world figure skating champion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This 17 year old girl from Toronto won the title early this morning, our time, when she gave an outstanding free skating performance after already having taken the lead in the difficult compulsory figures part of the competition. I have already sent a telegram to Miss Burka congratulating her and telling her "All Canada is proud of you".
I am pleased to add that Miss Burka and other members of the Canadian team were able to go to the world championships in Colorado Springs with the assistance of a $5,000 grant from the federal government's fitness and amateur sport program.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in all the circumstances, particularly the multiplication of incidents in Viet Nam in the last ten days or so, which causes fear in the hearts of free men everywhere, he would be prepared early next week to follow the course which is generally followed in the British House of Commons of having a day set aside so this house may be able to secure some information on the subject and be in a position to clarify some of the statements which have been made in connection with this serious and perilous situation.
[Mr. Winch.J

We should like to be able to discuss this matter and ascertain the views of the government. The Prime Minister will be going to New York today, I am informed, and will meet with the secretary general tomorrow. Following that, I think this house and Canadians generally have a right to more information than has yet been given either to this chamber or to the country at large.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I will say to the right hon. gentleman that I shall be glad to consult with my colleagues as to his request. I am hopeful that some day next week, depending on the action of the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord group, it will be possible to table the majority and minority reports of the international control supervisory commission upon which Canada serves. This will be of some assistance by way of making additional information available. It will not, of course, provide a solution to the problem which, quite correctly, the right hon. gentleman refers to as one in which we have an understandable interest and about which we have great concern. I will give consideration to his request.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say when he expects to table those two reports?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not quite certain. The report is in the hands of the two co-chairmen, the Soviet union and the United Kingdom. We have not as yet had any reaction from the Soviet union. If we do not get their permission we shall have to consider whether we will act on the decision of one co-chairman, or whether we will act on our own.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that yesterday in the city of Cleveland the minister made a rather extensive statement in regard to Canadian policy as it relates to NATO and its future, and particularly as he referred to the fact that in his opinion it was necessary to place national interests secondary to the objectives of that organization, does the minister now have some statement for the house in regard to such policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the text of what I said last night in Cleveland will

reveal that I supported the view that we had to take a look at NATO in the light of the obligations that face us in 1965, and not those which faced us in 1949; and that Canada recognized there was a continuing need for this defensive alliance that has contributed so much to the preservation of at least the relative peace that prevails in the world today. I was simply making an appeal and saying that in making this alliance work, we had to recognize that we were thereby giving up some of our national control in the common interest of the peace of the world, and that other countries in the alliance should be encouraged to take a similar course.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his position as a cabinet minister from the city of Vancouver. I had the opportunity of a few informal words with the minister yesterday and would therefore like to ask this question.
In view of the importance to Vancouver of this matter, what is the present status of the former R.C.A.F. base, with regard to which there is a request from Vancouver for use as park land, and from the C.B.C. a request for many months for accommodation. In view of the importance of this matter to Vancouver, could the minister now give the house some exposition as to the present position?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is of course referring to the proposal to transfer the C.B.C. from its present location in downtown Vancouver to the Kitsilano area formerly used by the R.C.A.F. The present position is that for some time the C.B.C. has been investigating the requirement they would have in respect of the length of their tenure there, in order to make such a move from Georgia street to Kitsilano. I would ask the hon. member to allow me to take the substance of his question as notice, and I will endeavour to speak to my colleague who is responsible and make a policy statement next week, or he will make a policy statement then.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: This is not a matter for the order paper; it is far too important to Vancouver. I would ask the minister whether, as a result of his inquiries, he will be able to comment on the application of the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver park commissioners for park allocation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REFERENCE BY QUEBEC MINISTER TO CULTURAL EXCHANGE WITH FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he make today the statement he promised last Tuesday as to whether the federal government protested to the government of the province of Quebec because Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, Quebec minister of education, qualified as an "international entente" the entente on education entered into between the French government and the provincial government of Quebec?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The other day when the hon. member for Lapointe asked whether the federal government had protested to the government of the province of Quebec concerning the term "international entente" used to describe the exchange and co-operation policy in the field of education adopted in Paris last Saturday, I did say that I would make a statement today in that connection.
No doubt the hon. member for Lapointe read the comprehensive answer I gave on this very matter in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), as reported on page 11818 of Hansard for Monday, March 1, 1965.
I simply wish to add that the term "entente" was only used after the provincial authorities concerned consulted with my department and obtained its consent. As far as the word "international" is concerned, it is justified under the circumstances by the ex-

Inquiries of the Ministry change of letters between France's charge d'affaires in Ottawa and myself last February 27.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour an abstract question arising out of the first report of the economic council and several of the studies and monographs which have just been published which have tended immediately to get the popular interpretation that the advance of automation is not a very serious factor in the unemployment situation. The latest monograph, the one by Mrs. Ostry, coincides with the one published by the Ontario economic council relating to the lake-head, which says that structurally unemployment is a most serious thing, which is a general contradiction.
I want to ask the minister, in view of the confusion which is developing about this factor, whether as the senior policy making person he or his department has any statement or appreciation to give the public in this particular controversy or difference of opinion which is developing.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: How can you put that on the [DOT]order paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is undoubtedly very interesting and important, but it seems it would require a long explanation at this time. If the minister is prepared to give an answer, that is well; otherwise I think the question should be put on the order paper.


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour which is relevant to the report that the Minister of Finance tabled this morning. I would like to ask my question of the Minister of Labour because it has some pertinence to one of the phrases in the report, and I shall ask my question in French because I have only the French report.

Does the Minister of Labour agree with this part of the report on page 4, which says:
However, consideration will have to be given to serious problems, such as slow development and


excessive unemployment, in some industries and areas which will need special attention.
Does the Minister of Labour intend to pay special attention to the province of Quebec and to the city of Montreal, which are faced at present with a serious unemployment problem in spite of the fine reports made to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me that while this is a very interesting and important question, indeed especially interesting to me, nevertheless it does raise a question of policy far too large for an answer to be expected at this time. Possibly the hon. member would put it on the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: Then I ask this question. In view of the statement in the report that there is excessive unemployment in certain regions and special attention has to be given to this matter, what special attention does the minister intend to give in the province of Quebec? This is an urgent matter, because we are facing a great unemployment problem in that province.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that certain parts of Canada have experienced excessive unemployment, and there will be an opportunity for the government to disclose its intentions with respect to further measures in this field in the speech from the throne next session.



EXEMPTION OF CROWN CORPORATIONS FROM NEW LABOUR CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell the house if he intends to follow up the statement made by some crown corporations which would like to evade the new federal labour code?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention, if it is at all possible, of leaving anyone outside the code.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask him whether it is the intention of the

government to extend the expiration date relating to the completion of winter works projects.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No decision has been reached with respect to a possible extension. The matter is under review, and it will be possible to make a definite decision at a later time. A decision at the present time one way or another might not have the effect which the hon. member would seem to wish.



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION RESPECTING OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's assurance three days ago that he would carry out the commitment he made with regard to legislation respecting occupational safety, and in view of his statement in the house on October 14 last

and I quote his words as reported on page 9062: "it is now being drafted and will be proceeded with as soon as possible"-can the hon. gentleman tell us whether this legislation has been drafted and when it will be presented to the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the drafting process is about complete. It is my expectation that we ought to be able to deal with this matter during the next session. That will be my object.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesier-Hanis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received representations from the local C.B.R.T. of Truro, Nova Scotia, protesting what they term unwarranted lay-offs in the C.N.R. express and freight departments there?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire before I could answer that question.


Cyril Frost Kennedy: A supplementary question. In view of the seriousness of the situation as set out in their telegram, would the minister investigate the situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to.
20220-7C0
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBILITY OF STRIKE ACTION BY POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur, who inquired if there was any likelihood of a strike of C.N.R. policemen as the result of the postponement of a definite decision by the Canada labour relations board as announced recently.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, would seem to be no. There was nothing in the decision of the board that would increase the possibility of strike action in the current dispute over wages and working conditions. The C.N.R. had asked the board to reconsider its decision of 1960 certifying the bargaining unit of policemen. The board replied that it did not consider the company had advanced adequate grounds for such action, but would grant a hearing if on further consideration the company desired one.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the action of the C.N.R. in raising the wages of the C.N.R. policemen at a time when the matter was being negotiated was not in fact an unfair labour practice. I wonder whether the minister would look into that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziulc (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the minister of northern affairs and ask him when he expects to announce the hay cutting permit policy and the grazing permit policy in the Riding Mountain national park. Quite a lot of the territory adjacent to the park is submarginal land. The farmers on this land have had to establish herds to supplement their income, and not having sufficient land of their own on which to graze their cattle and cut hay they have resorted to the park land for this purpose. This has been the practice for generations, for the last 70 years. Therefore, in view of this situation and the disturbing rumours which are circulating-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -and in view of the fact that I have written to the minister two letters to which he has not replied, would he reply now?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am going to frankly admit that we have not got a hay cutting policy. When the hon. member suggests that this practice has grown up over the last 60 or 70 years, I am quite sure he will admit that previous governments have not had a hay cutting policy either.
We found that a great deal of hay was being taken out of our national parks for little or nothing. This year we instituted a policy whereby we decided to try to get a little something for it, and some of the farmers are not happy with that policy. We have put a value upon the hay which is cut in the several parks, and we are trying to make a charge equivalent to prices which exist for hay obtained outside the parks.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was it not a policy by which the department increased-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Oh, pardon me-the fee of 50 cents a ton to $5 a ton, or about five times what the provincial government is charging on its lands?


Arthur Laing: All I wish to say is that we are endeavouring to make some of the practices of the national parks more businesslike than they have been in the past.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Another supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have grave doubts about this question. The hon. member has had two supplementaries.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I have just had one.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, it seems to me that the question should have been put on the order paper in the first place, but as it is Friday and with all the good will which is evident in the house I thought we could let it go.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Kerridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege,

which I rarely do. Living in daily and constant fear of the government dragnet encircling the reputation of members of parliament, I hereby wish to publicly confess my past misdeeds.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a short day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in 1932 I was fined $2 for failure to have a dog licence. At that time I was first vice president of the British Columbia Liberal association.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the lapse of time and the wisdom I have gained in recent years will indicate that I have paid my debt to society.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Timmins with respect to the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to miners at Timmins. There are two aspects to his question; first, the length of time the miners had to wait outside the office and, second, the size of the benefits paid in certain cases.
The unusual circumstance arose from the fact that 1,200 miners, accustomed to getting up early, arrived at the local office at 7.30 in the morning and because of the limited space available many miners, regrettably, had to wait outside in the cold weather. But it is a fact that the local office had augmented its staff and that by 2.30 some 1,200 applications had been received and processed. The size of the payments in certain cases arose from the shortness of the lay-off combined with the one week waiting period requirement of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would look into similar situations in the north country, where weather conditions can quite conceivably be as they were on that particular day. I have heard it was anywhere from 30 to 40 below zero. Would the minister see whether some better arrangement can be made to avoid similar incidents in the future, perhaps either dealing with the matter by mail, or

by taking the men alphabetically or one at a time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it would have been preferable in the circumstances if some arrangement had been made to take the applications at different periods, but the office, acting in good faith, opened on Saturday and advertised that the staff would be available from nine o'clock to two o'clock in the afternoon. Apparently many miners had not listened to the radio and arrived very early in the morning, which is a rather characteristic habit of the miners of this country.



HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING USE OF DRUG LAETRILE On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency asked both the Prime Minister and myself about representations made by a radio commentator in Edmonton concerning the drug laetrile. I replied that I did not know about any such representations.
I am sorry to find that I have misled the hon. member. Mr. Phil Floyd of radio station CJCA in Edmonton did write the Prime Minister about laetrile last December, and because of the intervening three months the matter had passed from both our memories.
That letter was referred to my office for answer. We informed Mr. Floyd that because of experience with the manufacturer and because of medical and scientific evidence it was considered in the interests of public welfare to apply the sanction of the law to the distribution of laetrile until supporting experimental evidence was obtained to indicate whether the drug could possibly possess some measure of effectiveness for the purpose for which it was recommended. The action taken was wholly within the intent of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations.
I must apologize again. If my hon. friend had sent notice it would have been possible, of course, to search the correspondence, but over a period of three months it is virtually impossible to remember an individual letter. I hope the hon. member will accept my apology.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
LUCIEN RIVARD-REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO RECAPTURE On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question 20220-760i
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether the R.C.M.P. are participating in the search for the elusive Mr. Rivard. I raise this question in view of the fact that the mounted police always get their man. Also, in view of the fact that the custody of Rivard was naturally the concern of the federal government, I ask him whether the government has yet made any decision to offer a reward for the return of this gentleman.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is my duty to point out that from the Leader of the Opposition any ironical remark concerning the R.C.M.P. whose work and achievements I respect-


Mr. Lambert:: You did not defend it against Mr. Gregoire.


Guy Favreau: I defend it in important matters.
Mr. Speaker, I must state that I had a conversation with the attorney general of the province of Quebec concerning the suggestion which was made of offering a reward to whomever would cause the police or the authorities to arrest Rivard.
Yesterday, in the Quebec legislature, the attorney general replied that he had not decided, for the time being, to offer such a reward, and for a reason with which I agree: that is, the co-ordination which exists between the various police forces in Canada, including evidently the R.C.M.P., should normally bring about the arrest of Rivard.
However, should there be an unusual delay between the date of escape and that upon which that arrest should have been normally effected, we are both ready to reconsider that decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister made the suggestion that I had ironically referred to the mounted police. That statement-


Some hon. Members:: You did.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is an unqualified falsehood. I have been shocked at the conduct of the Minister of Justice in recent
weeks-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am now on a question of privilege.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the right hon. gentleman is asking a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: I say he is the last person who should speak about the mounted police after the manner in which-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Crouse:: Howl him down over there; you always did howl him down.


John George Diefenbaker: -the manner in which, in connection with the investigation now going on, he has placed the mounted police in an invidious position dangerous to the greatness of that force.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. Can he tell this house if, when he escaped, Rivard was still considered as one of the important organizers of the Liberal party on the island of Montreal?


Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
I should like to ask him whether there is any truth to the rumour that Lucien Rivard, like another ex-prisoner, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), left Bordeaux because the guards were not bilingual?


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Did he leave unanswered the question put to him by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) because he felt it was so stupid it did not deserve an answer?


Auguste Choquette: Is it because the hon. member for Lapointe is stupid that the Minister of Justice did not give him an answer?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Earlier, when he was asked about the possibility of offering a reward for the recapture of Mr. Rivard, he said it would be

taken into consideration after the normal period had elapsed between escape and rearrest. I was wondering whether the minister would inform the house what is the length of the normal period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sixty days.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is something to consider in the light of the efforts that the police authorities will have made in the circumstances.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask if he would advise the house whether Mr. Rivard broke out of Bordeaux jail, or did he opt out?



QUEBEC-PROSECUTION FOR POSSESSION OF FORGED BANK NOTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister been informed today or yesterday of the ruling of the Quebec court of appeal concerning the case of Jimmy Levesque who was arrested in the United States while he had 23 bogus $20 bills on his person and in whose house, in Drummondville, 81 bogus $20 bills were seized?
If that ruling has been brought to his attention, could the minister answer the questions which the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and myself asked him yesterday?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I checked the file when I got back to my office yesterday afternoon, and I found that the copy of the ruling of the court of appeal had reached the officers of the department that very morning.
This is a case where the accused was granted by the judge of the first court a suspended sentence, that is, a remission for all practical purposes. The Department of Justice appealed from the sentence, and I can see that the court of appeal admitted the proceedings taken by the department and that the accused was condemned to a prison term of six months.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?

Is it not true that the solicitor for the Department of Justice requested a prison term of two or three months? Can the minister tell us if the Department of Justice gave instructions to ask for a prison term of two or three months respecting an offence which carried a maximum of 14 years in jail, and why?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important to point out that in this case as in others, the practice which has prevailed for many years, except in exceptional cases, has been followed.
According to this practice the solicitor of the department is instructed not to ask for a given or special prison term. According to this practice the solicitor of the department is supplied with decisions rendered in similar cases so he may, without asking for a specific term, communicate those facts to the court.
In this case, the report I have from the solicitor in charge of the appeal, Mr. Gratton, dated February 24, 1965, after the appeal was heard, is as follows: "The judge of the court of appeal asked me what I suggested. I told him that I had not received any particular mandate concerning the sentence, which was left to the discretion of the court."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Right from the beginning I had grievous doubts as to whether this type of question should be asked. It is a detailed question concerning one particular case, and if we were to stop the business of the house for every detailed case that takes place in law we would never get anything done. It seems to me that if the hon. member wants more detail he should put his question on the order paper and get more detail in that way.


Mr. Vinceni:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
This matter of bogus bills is of a very great importance to the citizens of my area, and my constituents are asking many questions in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely the proper
thing for the hon. member to do would be to put a detailed question on the order paper, to which he would receive a detailed answer. The answer could be given the widest possible dissemination in the local press, rather than taking up the time of the house at this time.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]
Is this on the same question?


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Justice inform the house as to whether he has received any complaints from the Liberal organizers of Drum-mond-Arthabaska, to the effect that they had been paid with counterfeit money at the last election?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Finance a question arising from his statement of last February 16. Could the minister tell the house whether that statement was made possible by another made in a report submitted to the other place, that is, the Senate?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am rather confused by the question, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure which statement we are talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that the question be put on the order paper. It was difficult for me to hear it.



CREATION OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
As shown in the January 1965 issue of External Affairs, funds totalling $10 million have been made available to the Inter-American Bank for interest-free loans requiring merely fair carrying charges.
Should this then give us reason to hope that this sound policy advocated by our group will be applied to the benefit of our Canadian municipal corporations, through the establishment of a public credit bank attached to the Bank of Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry



REMOVAL OF TAX ON MACHINERY OF PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Slenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received from the Canadian Export Association a report of their 21st annual convention at which there was unanimously approved a resolution that in part stated:
Canadian industry remains dissatisfied with the June 1963 budget measures concerning the sales tax on production facilities.
Second, in view of this resolution and the general concern of Canadian industry about this matter, can the minister assure the house that he is seriously considering the abolition, or at least a sharp reduction, of the 11 per cent sales tax on production equipment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on that question because it might be interpreted one way or another in connection with the budget which may be presented to the house some weeks from now. However, I would remind my hon. friend that business in Canada has never been so active and the country has never been so prosperous.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Would the Minister of Finance say that to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough.


Fred Frise Stenson: Although our exports have increased, does the minister not feel our imports are increasing faster?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No. On the contrary, exports have gone up faster than imports.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me this question has been explored almost down to its fundamental depths.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who makes this kind of statement in the house every so often, if he would say to the 3,500,000 Canadian people, who according to Ontario federation of labour statistics are living in deprivation, poverty and destitution, that the country has never been so prosperous. Would he make that statement to those people, and does he think we have been doing a good job just checking the prevalence of poverty?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to suggest for a moment that this country has got anywhere close to its potential. We are going to be far more prosperous in Canada if the government is given a chance to get on with the business of the country.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (SI. John's West):: have a question for the Minister of Industry. I wonder if he would assure the house that he will be consulting the premier of Saskatchewan, who is now in Ottawa, concerning the great program of industrial development taking place in that province as a result of the change of government in that province.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisler of Industry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, later this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to complete that question, may I advise all hon. members that the premier of Saskatchewan is in the Speaker's gallery at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister be able to advise whether there is any foundation for a press report to the effect that the premier of Saskatchewan is asking for assistance for certain areas that are regarded by him to be distressed areas economically?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of talking this morning to the premier of Saskatchewan when the question of Prince Albert came up, but we decided there was nothing we could do about Prince Albert until the next election.


John George Diefenbaker: That is another false hope on the part of the right hon. gentleman. I ask him whether the premier of Saskatchewan pointed out certain distressed areas economically; also whether he asked that action be taken to provide something in the nature of acreage payments to meet the position of farmers in that province who find themselves in grave difficulty by reason of crop failure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; that question may come up later in the day, but I did not have an opportunity of discussing that particular matter with the premier this morning.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wonder whether in the discussions with the premier so far the question of $2 wheat was raised, which both the premier and the Prime Minister promised the farmers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. member will put that very important question on the order paper.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD-NEGOTIATIONS WITH NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with regard to the Atlantic development board. Has the Atlantic development board reached a conclusion in its negotiations with the government of Nova Scotia with regard to the $20 million earmarked for its use?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there have been conversations not only between the board and the government of Nova Scotia but also between the premier and myself on this matter. I think at the present time we feel that it would be desirable to continue these discussions a little longer before trying to reach a conclusion. I think the premier and I are in agreement on this particular point.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the honourable and distinguished Minister of Transport. In view of the continuing need for a second New England to Nova Scotia ferry, will the minister, as an interim measure, make representations to the Canadian Pacific to operate the Princess of Acadia between Saint John and Digby twice daily during the coming tourist season?
Kon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport): I shall be glad to give that matter consideration.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED FEDERAL SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is the cabinet minister representing Manitoba. I should like to ask him what action, if any, he is taking to per-
Inquiries of the Ministry suade the federal government to give greater financial assistance to the Pan-Am games in Winnipeg in 1967, in view of the increased cost of these games and in view of their great international importance.
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I fully realize that when the bringing of these games to Manitoba was first announced on the eve of an election, inadequate consideration was given to the financial aspects. Adequate consideration has now been given, and I am satisfied the federal government will do its share to keep these games in Winnipeg.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. On the eve of another general election, what is the present government going to suggest?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I think it is proper for me to keep the recommendations I make to the cabinet to myself and to my colleagues.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister of external affairs, who adopts a much more responsible attitude to these matters. In view of the international character of the Pan-Am games, would the minister of external affairs not interest himself in this great project which is of importance not only to western Canada but to all Canada, and is of great importance to his portfolio in the international field?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend knows this matter came up when he was in office, and I will not comment on what was done in that connection. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, I know, has been very active in this matter. I should think there is no relationship between this problem and the possibility of a general election, say a year from now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand the minister is
not interested, then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hasten to assure my hon. friend that I am very interested; but my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs has been so active in this matter that he has relieved me of a responsibility that possibly otherwise I would have to assume.



NOVA SCOTIA-SUBVENTIONS ON COAL SOLD TO ONTARIO HYDRO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but in his absence I shall direct it to the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia. Is he in a position today to provide any information or can he announce an extension of subventions on Nova Scotia coal for use by the Ontario hydro commission, as was suggested in yesterday's Halifax Chronic le-HeralcL?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make any statement. I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and possibly he will be able to provide a definite answer later.



GATT-PROTESTS RESPECTING CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware of any protests to GATT concerning the elimination of the tariff on cars under the Canada-U.S. pact?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: As a supplementary question, has the government given the Canadian officials at GATT instructions to agree to have this tariff elimination made available to other countries such as Great Britain and West Germany?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John N. Turner (St. Lawrence-St.
George): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether in the absence of the Prime Minister I could put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister assure the house that contrary to recent press reports the proposed opting out legislation will not result in the balkanization of the Conservative party?
John George Diefenbaker: Ask Hal Banks about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that question obviously should be put on the order paper.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Toronto city 

council is to provide free birth control information to those who request it, is the government considering prosecution of the Toronto city council for violation of section 150 of the Criminal Code?


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



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question affecting the prosperity of the city of Winnipeg. Has the Thompson commission of inquiry with regard to the Air Canada maintenance base at Winnipeg completed its report and, if it has not, when it is completed will that document be made public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The inquiry, as the press has reported [DOT]-and that is the only report I have-is still going on, and there are to be public hearings in April in the city of Montreal at the request of interested parties. I would hope that fairly soon afterward Mr. Thompson will be able to give his attention to preparing a report, and I would be astonished if it were not made public.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the interim, while the report is being compiled, can the Minister of Transport give an assurance to this house that there will be no transfer of personnel from the Air Canada maintenance base in Winnipeg to the city of Montreal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I cannot; and of course as the hon. gentleman, an experienced privy councillor and a former member of the government, knows, Air Canada is a crown corporation which is operated by its own management and not by the government. I believe, however, there are certain collective agreements between the company and its employees which have to be adhered to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister aware that his colleague the former minister of transport gave an assurance a year ago that there would be no transfers of personnel from Winnipeg to Montreal until the inquiry had been completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the company gave to my colleague an assurance that there would be no transfers except those re-

quired by the collective agreements and I understand that the company has maintained that position.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
He is quite aware of the objections raised by the province of Quebec against the setting up of the Thompson commission. Is the government taking them into consideration. Is the government taking into account the Quebec objections to that commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The correspondence on this subject was tabled in the house some little time ago and is a matter of public record. I think it would be inadvisable for me to attempt to summarize that correspondence, but I will see that the hon. gentleman is given the number of the return.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the minister tell me whether he agrees with the statement in the press on February 2 attributed to Mr. Lesage that the Thompson commission was intolerable? Does the Minister of Transport agree with Mr. Lesage in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a matter which concerns the administration of my department; therefore it appears to me I should not answer the question. I would be breaking the rules of the house if I did.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, the minister certainly answered the first question, accepting responsibility in this matter by saying he would not make a statement until he had received the report. Now he refuses to say whether he agrees with the statement by Mr. Lesage that this commission was intolerable. I am asking the minister to accept his responsibility and tell us whether he agrees with Mr. Lesage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that the hon. member is asking for comment on something which appeared in a newspaper, and I do not think he should ask the minister to be as broadminded as that.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether he has taken any action in order to postpone the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Dixon-Speas report on this matter?
12027
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been no interference of any kind with the management of Air Canada.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
Following the statement of the minister to the effect that the Thompson commission will sit in Montreal soon, will the minister force this commission on the various groups of Quebec which do not want to recognize it and require that it be abolished? Is he aware of the claims of those employees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is a question I would like to think about for a while.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Would he be ready to tell the house some good news regarding the construction of an air terminal at Bagotville, Saguenay, and to tell us when such work can start?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government is very anxious to get ahead with this work, which will be of advantage to that whole region, and to get a new air terminal at Bagotville constructed as quickly as possible. I have asked the officials to push this ahead as fast as they can, and I will try to give the hon. member a date as soon as I can make inquiries.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. With respect to the announcement last week made simultaneously here and in the Saskatchewan legislature, to the effect that Estevan would be the location of Canada's second heavy water plant, and in view of the fact that the Western Deuter-
12028	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ium Ltd. formula for the production of heavy water has not yet been definitely established, would the minister assure the house that the second lowest bidder will establish the plant at Estevan should the original bidder not establish a successful formula?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the choice of a site for the plant, under the terms of the Gulf proposals, is a choice to be made by the bidder, and it would be improper and indeed unwise of me to give any assurance as to what any particular bidder will or might do.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Churchill asked a question concerning the construction of the performing arts centre, and more particularly as to whether the department would follow the normal practice in calling for tenders. At that time I answered that because of the complexity of the performing arts centre, and because of the deadline, the Department of Public Works had met with members of the Canadian Construction Association in order to determine what would be the best way to have this building ready for 1967.
As a result of this meeting a selection committee was appointed, composed of representatives of the construction industry and the Department of Public Works. This committee has selected the names of a number of representative general contractors from across Canada who are being invited today to indicate their interest in the project and to answer a questionnaire. From the response the committee will select five tenderers and invite them to submit bids on a cost plus fixed fee basis, with an upset price. It is intended that these bids be received by March 31, 1965.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. Would he say how many firms are being asked to tender on this project, and will he table the names of the firms which have been asked to participate?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, these invitations have gone out to maybe 20 firms across Canada. There is no objection to tabling the list of firms which have been asked to tender.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 4, 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 yesterday, clause 115 of the bill was being considered. Shall clause 115 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
On clause 115-"Included province" defined. [Translation]


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Chairman, a perusal of clause 115 shows that there is only one provision to protect the provinces against too much interference or too much control by the federal government.
Now, I readily understand that some may wish to have that amount reduced, for the simple reason that it would entail less difficulties, create fewer headaches, without the provinces raising any objection, whenever there would be a change in rates or whenever the federal government decided, regarding its pension plan, to amend clause 115 in order to raise the rates of contributions, for instance. But as objection has been raised against this clause-and I do not want to complain for the sake of complaining-I think we must maintain at all cost the proportion established in this clause in order that the provinces may at least enjoy some protection and some assurance that the government would not change the rates and raise contributions at its discretion, simply because it wants to, and without consulting the provinces or obtaining their assent.
Quebec and Ontario account for two thirds of the total population of the country, and that is why another clause has been added providing for a proportion of one third. Now, under the present circumstances, Quebec intends to set up its own pension plan while the other provinces will join the Canada pension plan.
As the minister stated last night that the Quebec pension plan would be similar to that of the federal government, not only as to pensions paid but also as to rates of contributions, and that the proportion must more

or less remain the same, should the province of Quebec ever decide to oppose increasing contributions or making changes in this field, the support of one province would suffice, or should Ontario be in the same boat, the consent of only one other province would suffice to maintain the status quo.
I simply wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that some are objecting to this two thirds formula or one third of the provinces. Personally, I think it is about the only protection which this bill affords the provinces and I suggest it should be maintained for the time being.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to, on division.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee to return at this time to the clauses which have been allowed to stand?


Mr. Monieith:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue intimated that he was going to make a statement on clause 97, but to my knowledge this clause has not been stood. Therefore I was wondering whether this might be a good time to make that statement.


Mr. Benson:: Yes, and I will do so with the permission of the committee. This is to clear up a couple of points I raised with respect to clause 97 because I felt that I had been less than clear in my explanation.
There are, Mr. Chairman, two changes that I should like to make to the answers I gave several days ago to questions raised on clause 97 by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich which dealt with the record of earnings. The first amendment relates to the manner in which pensionable earnings for a month are determined. All information is recorded in the record of earnings on an annual basis and has to be recorded in sufficient detail for each contributor to permit the unadjusted pensionable earnings for each year to be determined. The definition of unadjusted pensionable earnings is contained in clause 53, and the manner in which these amounts are calculated is illustrated in examples No. 6, No. 8 and No. 9 on pages 180-133 of the proceedings of the special joint committee.
20220-761i
Canada Pension Plan
To determine the amount of a pension payable to a contributor, the unadjusted pensionable earnings for a year must first be converted to monthly amounts. The manner in which this is done is described in clause 52. In effect this is accomplished by dividing the amount for the year by 12, except in those special circumstances mentioned in that clause, in which case the amount for the year is divided by the number of months that are appropriate. Therefore it will be apparent from the above that the actual number of months in a year for which contributions were made is not material.
The second amendment I wish to make has to do with the manner in which the record of earnings is protected in the event there should be a fire or accident at the computer centre. In the early years, at least, the record of earnings will be maintained by the comptroller of the treasury for the Minister of National Health and Welfare under the provisions of clause 95. Under the system proposed the record of earnings will be produced by computer operation and recorded on magnetic tape. These very important records will be protected by keeping at a different location magnetic tapes containing such other information as would be necessary to permit the reconstruction of the record of earnings if it should for any reason be destroyed or made unusable. These are the normal conventional techniques which are adopted, and are recognized as adequate by computer users who have important records to protect.


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee will now return to clause 6.
On clause 6-Pensionable employment defined.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 6 the government proposes an amendment as a result of discussions which took place in the pension committee. It may be recalled that the aim always with respect to this legislation has been to cover as many Canadians as is administratively feasible. From the beginning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the members of the armed forces were not specifically covered. As has been explained many times, this arose by virtue of the fact that they already have pension arrangements which are quite different from those under the present bill, particularly because they call for a very early retirement. However, after listening to the officials and various witnesses it was the

Canada Pension Plan
recommendation of the special joint committee on pensions that, if at all feasible, these two bodies of Canadians should be covered.
As there are a great many things involved in this it will be necessary to take some time to consider it. However, if the chamber does feel that these two groups should be covered later on, if technically feasible and after actuarial reports have been received, it is suggested that this may be done by amending other legislation, namely the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. As some hon. members will be aware, the armed forces in the United States are covered by O.A.S.D.I. However, there the provisions are stacked, and this arises by virtue of the fact that in the United States there is compulsory service at an early age for almost everyone who subsequently enters the labour force. So there is no integration between the two schemes in the United States; it is simply a stacking procedure.
It does not seem reasonable, in the conditions which prevail in Canada, to stack the Canadian pension plan on top of the already fairly generous service plan; therefore it will be necessary to integrate the two schemes. The government has asked for actuarial studies and plans to give this matter further consideration. It will be necessary to base any decision on technical feasibility as well as on financial implications and, not least, on the views expressed during consultation with the groups concerned, and then action could be taken by amending the two pieces of legislation which I mentioned earlier.
Therefore, in order that we may leave this matter open until a later date, it is my pleasure to move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue:
That section 6 be amended by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 8 and substituting the following:
"(g) employment as a member of the Canadian forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, except as provided by any other act of the parliament of Canada."
There is as well a consequential amendment to section 7(l)(g).


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to make some general remarks first and then ask a question. The object of the plan, to which all parties agreed at the beginning, was that it should be fair and that it should be for the benefit of as many Canadians as possible. Can the minister give me percentagewise or in some other fashion the number of farmers in Canada who will be included in the plan? Let

us take a percentage; it will probably be a lot easier.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give that figure at this minute but I can have it dug up.


David Vaughan Pugh: Surely the dominion bureau of statistics has it.


Edgar John Benson: We will get the information. We do not have it in front of us at the moment.


David Vaughan Pugh: It seems to me this is something that should be ascertained now, before we pass this clause; because if my information is correct there is a tremendous exclusion of the farming population of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: The only answer I can give without having the figures before me-I am arranging to have them brought to me-is that only farmers who earn less than $800 would not be covered by the Canada pension plan. That means that only those will get no pension who have been out of the plan during the whole of their working life because they have earned under $800 during their whole working life. In a year in which they make $800 they would contribute to the Canada pension plan. This is the only exemption. The similar exemption in the case of an employed person is one who makes less than $600 during the whole of his lifetime. This is the only way they could be absolutely out of the Canada pension plan.


Mr. Francis:: I should like to speak to the amendment. I am particularly anxious that this amendment be adopted by the house because there is a serious problem with regard to the pension programs of former members of the armed forces. As hon. members know, the legislation before us cannot be amended except with the consent of two thirds of the provinces representing two thirds of the population of Canada. The effect of the amendment moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is to leave the door open for subsequent amendment of legislation specifically providing for retirement pensions for members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P.
I have had a substantial number of representations expressing concern with regard to those who have retired from active service with the armed forces and who subsequently seek re-employment with the government of Canada, often with one of the crown corporations. In these cases a very rigorous retirement test is applied. There are many such retired persons in the employ of the government of

Canada today who are not drawing one dollar of pension although they have contributed to such a pension under the armed forces scheme with matching contributions from their employer. This retirement test is a very discriminatory one. It does not apply if such retired persons seek employment in private industry. Representations have been made with regard to the matter, and I am sure they are being considered by responsible people in the government.
There will be an alleviation of this situation in the future to the extent that it is possible to substitute a Canada pension plan component for a portion of the service pension. That Canada pension plan component would be completely portable. It would apply equally in government of Canada subsequent employment or in private subsequent employment. It would go some way toward alleviating what I consider to be a rather substantial inequity in the present arrangements.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to say that we are in agreement with the amendment put forward by the government. Discussion took place in the committee with regard to these two particular groups of government employees, one might say. I understand the difficulties that are involved, but I believe this is probably the best way to go about the matter. If it can be determined at a subsequent time that they can be integrated, then by the amendment we are leaving the door open for their inclusion. We are going one step further in making it possible to provide a large group of Canadian citizens with coverage under the plan, and we feel this is a good thing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have been looking at the various sections trying to find an appropriate place to ask the minister a question, and I judge this section to be as appropriate as any. Would the minister mind explaining just what procedure is used in dealing with company pension plans and their possible integration with this plan? Just how will the company and the employees proceed to this end?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not so sure this matter is appropriate here, but perhaps I can give a very brief answer. The jurisdiction of the federal government, of course, does not run to interference with private pension plans which have been negotiated between employees and an employer or which have been purchased by an individual from a private carrier.
However, since announcing the Canada pension plan about two years ago the federal
Canada Pension Plan
government, through the Department of Insurance, has been doing a great deal of work on the question of integration. The first thing realized was that much of the lead throughout the country would be taken from the federal government in respect of its attitude qua employment inasmuch as it is the biggest employer in Canada. It was anticipated that the attitude which the federal government would take toward its own civil servants' plan might set a pattern. Accordingly, very intensive work has been done in this regard. The staff associations were consulted. A particular individual in the Department of Finance has had charge of this matter. The house was informed by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance at the resolution stage, I believe, that agreement had been reached.
We have had some discussion in the house in the last week about the way in which plans are to be integrated. Many of the private plans are trust operated plans which are administered by trust companies throughout Canada. I am informed that approximately 75 per cent of the private plans are administered by trust companies. It might be noted that no trust company appeared before the pension committee, nor has any one of them made a public outcry. Indeed, the trust companies have offered the government their assistance in order that there should be less disruption in the integration of private and government plans.
About 25 per cent of the private plans are held through insurance companies. The individual in the federal government who has been responsible for the integration problem has travelled across the country, dealing in particular with provincial governments which have special problems, such as teachers, municipal employees and other classes of provincial civil servants. We are informed that these meetings have gone very smoothly, and the way in which these plans might be integrated has been dealt with in detail to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Now, the federal government cannot direct what happens, and it will be appreciated that there are different approaches. In some cases where the plans are not particularly good it might be considered by the employers and employees that they would stack this government plan on their private pension plan so the workers could look forward to benefits both from their private plan and under the Canada pension plan. In other instances it may be that the rate will be changed so the person will receive richer

Canada Pension Plan
benefits upon retirement. It may be in other cases that the contribution rate will be cut back without much change in the benefits in order to integrate with this scheme. There are various forms.
I believe there are between 5,000 and 6,000 different private schemes already in existence across the country. Each of these will be changed or left according to the decisions of the employers and employees, and in accordance with the federal government's decision. The reason there is no provision in this bill in respect of integration is that integration will be accomplished by something external from the Canada pension plan.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


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


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to reiterate my remarks about the pension plan.


An hon. Member:: Reiterate.


David Vaughan Pugh: Actually it does not do much harm to reiterate, because all parties agreed in principle that this plan should provide benefits for all the people of Canada. I am just wondering if all groups are included in this plan. I should like to know how many farmers would be included and how many farmers are excluded from the plan.
There is another point that comes up with regard to farmers. How many farmers in Canada would be eligible to receive maximum benefits? The Minister of National Revenue is shaking his head, but surely it is possible to extract from the statistics the number of farmers who pay income tax, and of those who pay income tax the number who are earning more than $5,000. They will be the ones who will receive the maximum benefit under this plan. I am suggesting to the minister that if he searches the statistics he will find there are not very many such farmers in Canada.
Before I go on with my questioning, I am wondering whether those figures are available to the minister now. Surely the minister has looked into this situation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare must have looked into it because she indicated the government wanted to provide the greatest benefits for the most people in Canada. I would take it that in the normal course of investigation since 1963, when she first broached this plan, she would have been looking at these figures to ascertain how many people could be covered by the plan.


Edgar John Benson: I have sent for some figures. I have a few figures here. I cannot give the number of farmers who will obtain maximum benefits under the Canada pension plan because this would depend upon what happens in the future. I mean someone may be a contributor earning $5,000, the maximum, and this may increase in the years to come. A little later I will get for my hon. friend the number of farmers, according to the latest taxation data, who are earning over $5,000.
However, I can tell him that the total labour force in Canada, including the self employed-and this includes Quebec as well as other parts of Canada-is 6,920,000. Of this number, 6,373,000 will be covered by the Canadian pension plan. This does not mean, however, that they will be at any particular level. They are above the $600 for an employee or the $800 for a self employed person. This leaves the number not covered at some 559,000. It means that about 92.1 per cent of the labour force would be covered by the Canadian pension plan.


David Vaughan Pugh: Before I deal with what may happen in the future I should like to return to this question of the farmers. I have a great many people in agriculture in my area, and I know a little bit about their earnings. I know, too, about their hardships in certain years. Perhaps I could take the grower of cherries by way of illustration. A man might have a sizeable orchard, a large investment, and in certain years he will get a very good return. He will pay income tax. I know the department can average the earnings over the years, but what I should like to point out to the minister is what sometimes happens in this area. A man might have a good cherry crop but might not get any return from it for three years in a row. In other words, sometimes it is not worth while to pick the cherries off the trees because they are split, frosted or something like that.
I was wondering if the minister would explain this averaging. I was wondering whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare had considered making this a true pension plan, in other words not entirely on a contributory basis. If a citizen has a bad year he might be allowed to make it up by paying a premium into the plan in order to safeguard receiving what he considers to be a reasonable pension.
This question might be discussed under another clause, but I believe it is related to the clause under discussion, which refers to pensionable employment. Of course we

are talking about farmers and they are selfemployed people, so they must earn more than $800 before they will contribute. The figures the minister is going to give me later will be for farmers earning $5,000, but there is a vast difference between earning $800 and earning $5,000. For a farmer it is a far cry from earnings of $800 a year up to $5,000. He may be included in the figure which the minister gave of 6,300,000 Canadians who will be part and parcel of this plan, but it seems to me the plan does not include sufficient Canadians within the category in which it will mean something for them on their retirement. I am talking about those who are getting only $5, $10 or $15 a month.
I know we have heard a lot on this provision, but it does not hurt to rehash it. It seems to me this plan is directed toward those people who are in the higher earning brackets and not to those in the low income brackets, which include large numbers of farmers and those who need help the most. The person who most needs help has not the opportunity of putting himself in a position to get a decent pension under the Canada pension plan.
There should be a method of averaging for a farmer who has funds in the pension plan and who then meets one or two bad years. He should be allowed to keep his pension plan consistent and not have it vary according to the tempo of the weather, with frost, rusting, poor harvests, late harvests, poor selling of crops and all the other variables. A farmer should be able to say "Right; I want $75 a month out of the Canada pension plan, and I should be able to contribute and keep the pension to that figure." In other words he should not be subject to an act of God which could completely destroy his pension plan benefits.


Edgar John Benson: First of all, this is an earnings related pension plan. I went into some detail on the last question my hon. friend raised, with regard to averaging, when an amendment with respect to fishermen was moved earlier by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni. The pension plan is an earnings related plan, and people can contribute if they have earnings in excess of $600 if they are employed, or equal to $800 if they are selfemployed.
My hon. friend has raised the question of a person who does not benefit because he may not have had earnings of $600 per year over his lifetime. Such a person has not had to contribute to the Canada pension plan but
Canada Pension Plan
when he reaches 65, under the amendments to part IV which are proposed in the resolution, he will get a $900 old age security pension, and this of course is attached to the cost of living index. Even though he does not get anything out of the Canada pension plan if he earns less than $600 a year all his life, he is better off when he retires because he automatically gets $900 through the old age pension.


Norman Platt Lambert: So does everybody else. That is a specious argument.


Edgar John Benson: This is an argument in reply to what my hon. friend said, that such a person does not get anything out of the plan because he does not contribute. The plan is designed as an earnings related plan through which people contribute a percentage of their earnings up to a maximum, and draw pensions based on their earnings over their lifetime.
With regard to the other question about low years and the averaging of farmers' incomes, I explained this very fully when we dealt with the previous amendment and I refer the hon. member to what I said on that occasion. Under the Canada pension plan there is no averaging provision for farmers. Indeed, it was calculated by my department that most farmers with moderate incomes would benefit more by the drop out formula than by an averaging formula, and they can take advantage of the drop out formula in the same way as any other person.


David Vaughan Pugh: Take the particular case of a man who might have tough luck for three years. We have many orchards in the Okanagan and this has happened with them. With respect to taxes I realize that in the operation of an orchard a great many things can be written off against earnings, but when a man comes to the point of retirement or becomes so old that he is no longer fit to work in his orchard, he then must employ help. At that stage his earnings go down, and I do not think it is a fair argument to say he will get the old age pension of $75 a month. He is entitled to that already. It is not part of the pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: It is part of the package.


David Vaughan Pugh: I return to the avowed intention of the plan, which is supposed to benefit all Canadians. Before the clause carries I want some indication of how many farmers will be excluded from the plan. It is no good giving me the average earnings all over Can-

Canada Pension Plan
ada and saying that 6,300,000 Canadians will be covered by the plan. I have picked one category, farmers, who live a little differently than many other people and do not earn as much as other categories. They are satisfied with a reasonable life, but the fact remains that they are Canadians and should be entitled to be part of the pension plan. Is it correct that 40 per cent of the farmers will be excluded from the plan or will get little if any benefit from it?


Edgar John Benson: It is now one o'clock, and during the lunch hour I shall get the income distribution of farmers in Canada, the figures being for farmers who file tax returns. I have that in my department, and will also see if there are d.b.s. figures which I might give the hon. member.


David Vaughan Pugh: When the minister is searching would he also look for the categorization of farmers?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, I will bring in the tax statistics for 1962, which will deal with all farmers who filed tax returns.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: The committee is on clause 6 as amended.


David Vaughan Pugh: The Minister of National Revenue undertook to produce figures for me at this time.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps we could hear from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni until the minister arrives.


Mr. Barnett:: I had one specific question to raise on this clause but it is not related to the matter which was being discussed earlier.


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, the minister is here now, and perhaps in that case he would be prepared to answer the question posed this morning by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. During the lunch recess I got some figures as to the number of farmers outside the province of Que-

bee who would be covered. Under the federal plan, the total number of farmers outside Quebec is 335,033.


Mr. Rapp:: What would that represent as a percentage?


Edgar John Benson: I am dealing with figures now. That is under the Canada pension plan outside of Quebec. Of these it is estimated that 52,300 will earn less than $800 and will not be covered by the Canada pension plan. Now for the breakdown of earnings of farmers who filed tax returns-the figure I gave includes, of course, farmers who do not file tax returns because their incomes are too low. There are estimated to be 22,000 who filed income tax returns and who earn less than $800.


David Vaughan Pugh: Is that $800 net income?


Edgar John Benson: Yes. About 22,000 were earning less than $800; earning between $800 and $2,000, 66,000; from $2,000 to $3,000, 51,100; between $3,000 and $4,000, 32,930; between $4,000 and $5,000, 14,560 and over $5,000, 28,440.


David Vaughan Pugh: I still say this is a Canada pension plan and I am a little astonished that those Quebec farmers will be excluded. In other words, strictly speaking they are a part of this legislation even though they opt out.


Edgar John Benson: This course was taken so as not to confuse the issue with regard to the number covered under the Canada pension plan. The province of Quebec should be responsible for its own statistics; we should not make assumptions with regard to statistics applying to that province. One can say roughly that 25 per cent of the farmers are from the province of Quebec.


David Vaughan Pugh: According to the dominion
bureau of statistics more than 25 per cent of the farmers in Canada receive cash returns from actual sales. This amounts to a gross figure of less than $1,200. So 25 per cent of our farmers would, I believe, be excluded right off the bat.


Edgar John Benson: We may not be taking into account a difference in classification. These farmers classified as farmers by the Department of National Revenue were carrying on farming as a main source of income, whereas those others which the hon. member mentioned may include many who were carrying on farming as an ancillary operation.


David Vaughan Pugh: That is possible. But I do not believe it would change the situation materially. I know many farmers have to take jobs away from their farming operations in order to make ends meet. With regard to those farmers earning under $1,200, there is a total of roughly 137,000 out of a total number of 480,000 listed as farmers. This is over 25 per cent. This is not a net income, Mr. Chairman; this is gross sales. Then we go from $1,200 to $2,500. In this category there are 94,000 plus.
Going back to my original point, Mr. Chairman, I have a certain amount of knowledge with regard to orchards, which is the type of farming in which I am most interested in the Okanagan valley, and in areas in Boundary. We do know that from gross sales you have to work down to the net figure. In that part of the country the gross sale is materially cut by certain fixed charges which occur all year round in each and every year, regardless of the crop return. In other words, you must do certain things before you get a penny back with which to pay your taxes, first of all, your irrigation expenses and so on. You must spray your trees. You cannot wait and say, "Am I going to get a crop?" You have to do certain things, like thinning, pruning, and all the rest of it. These all cost money. When you take that and relate it to these figures, I do not believe that anyone with a cash return of $1,200 would fit within the Canada pension plan; so it automatically excludes all those people. It could be possible, but it is highly unlikely when you consider the cost of spray materials and all the other expenses that are involved in this type of farming. If a farmer has a successful crop, he then has his picking expenses to contend with, and so on, and all these things are added to his costs. There is not much possibility that with a cash crop or cash sales of $1,200 he would be in this plan; he would be excluded.
Then, Mr. Chairman, going up to $2,500 gross, it would be a very good operator who would end up with $1,800 net. I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that he would have to be a very good operator to end up with that figure, with a maximum of $2,500. But this class comprises not only those who are making the maximum of $2,500, but also those who are earning $1,201 and up. I suggest that in this group very few people in our area-and possibly in many other areas of Canada-would be eligible to come under the plan. I am suggesting to the minister-also relating back to what I said before-that with good years
Canada Pension Plan
and bad years the plan should give you a chance to average out. In other words, by the exclusion of up to 10 per cent, as I understand it, of the number of years involved, if a man started in on this plan at age 25 and carried on until age 65-that is, for 40 years-he would then be able to take out 10 per cent of those years, which amounts to only four years.
I mention specifically cherry growers.


An hon. Member:: There is going to be an amendment up to 20 per cent.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I hear that there is going to be an amendment up to 20 per cent, so we go to eight years. But I assure the minister, in all honesty, that it is an extraordinarily good year or an extraordinarily lucky man with an orchard that is producing cherries who will get more than one out of two good crop years; the normal is about one out of three years that these people will have a good crop which they are able to harvest, and sometimes it runs to as high as one in four.
I suggest to the minister that he might well consider averaging out over those years as well; in other words, giving an option to the grower so that he has a fair chance of completing his planned program under the Canada pension plan. As it is now, as we see it, it looks as though a number of-I do not want to call them city dwellers, although I cannot think of anything better to call them-city people have planned this and that one large class has been almost entirely neglected. These are farmers of honest endeavour; they are people who have far too many things to cope with from nature. This provision makes this plan unworkable. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the total number of years that you cut out, or in regard to which you can opt out of payments because of a bad crop or something like that, is far too few.
I would now like to deal with the averaging basis. If I may give an example, again, in connection with the fruit grower, he may have a bad year but next year his crop may be a good one. At that time his earnings will be well over, we will say, the $5,000 mark. But he is only able to take up to $5,000 in any good year; in other words, he cannot average out. I am suggesting to the minister that he should consider this proposition. I would like to hear the minister's views on this matter, because farming is a little different than any other fixed income or steady income job, which this plan seems to have been designed to suit.

Canada Pension Plan


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, although I represent a practically 100 per cent urban riding, I do wish to bring to the attention ol the minister a tew points along the same line as the argument advanced by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I believe this plan is an urban-oriented plan, designed primarily for a wage earner or salaried person, and not for those large masses of self-employed people in the country. I am thinking primarily of the grain farmer. The eastern people are not concerned with this, but the western grain farmer is subject to quota regulations. We have seen time and time again that, as a result of marketing conditions, the quota in the latter months of the year is limited to the basic one and two bushel quotas; therefore the majority of the man's income for the year is translated into the subsequent year. There is no privilege of averaging out. If the farmer's expenses are incurred in the year when he is preparing for his crop, the only thing that is delayed is the realization on the crop. I think the inability to average out is unfair to this large category of Canadian citizens, and I just cannot see the justification for it. The selfemployed person has as much right to participate in the Canada pension plan to the maximum as any salaried person or wage earner. Yet, because of the inequality of the flow of income, the farmer class, particularly those who are subject to quota regulations over which they have no control, do not have the same participation in this plan as do other people. I do not know how the minister has figured this out, but if a man has taken a cash advance for farm stored grain, how is his income going to be determined? These are the points that I think we want to get straightened out before we go any further with this particular clause, Mr. Chairman.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend and the hon. member who preceded him are not dealing at all with this clause of the bill. Clause 13 of the bill deals with the question of income, and it is a clause that has already been approved by this committee. I made a rather long statement indicating the reasons for our not permitting averaging under this particular clause. If my hon. friends will look back at Hansard they will see what my explanation was. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni which was defeated, and the clause was carried. I do not think it would serve any purpose in this committee if I were to give that explanation again. My calculation, based 
on the figure which I was given at lunchtime, is that under the Canada pension plan 18 per cent of the farmers will not be covered, compared with a national average under the Canada pension plan of over 92 per cent coverage. But 84 per cent of the farmers will be covered according to the figures I quoted to my hon. friend.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pose a question to the minister on the basis of his figures. He said 92 per cent of the farmers would be covered. The d.b.s. figures we have-


Edgar John Benson: No, I said 84 per cent. The figures I quoted were not based on d.b.s. figures but on an analysis of the tax returns of farmers.


David Vaughan Pugh: Except those in Quebec.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, outside of the province of Quebec. The 92 per cent figure is the entire labour force in Canada, including self-employed persons.


Harold Warren Danforth: In the minister's figures which he gave us this morning he said that roughly 6,300,000 of the labour force would be covered, compared with a total labour force of 6,700,000, or perhaps it was 6,800,000 or 6,900,000. Are we to understand from the minister's calculation that all of the selfemployed small store owners, small businessmen, individual lumbermen, small lumber operators, self-employed fishermen, farmers, and so on, are all taken into the difference of
600.000	between the two figures quoted this morning? In the minister's opinion these people will constitute the total number in Canada who will not be covered under the category of either employed or self-employed.


Edgar John Benson: The figure I quoted of 6,920,000 was supplied to the Department of National Health and Welfare and constitutes the total labour force in Canada, including both selfemployed persons and persons who are employed. Of this total labour force, which includes, as I say, all the self-employed farmers, fishermen, and various others, some
559.000	will not be covered by the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan. This will amount to a figure of 7.9 per cent over the whole of Canada.
Arising out of the question raised this morning, during the lunch hour I had my officials prepare a summary of an analysis of tax returns of farmers in Canada, adjusting this for farmers outside of Quebec who would be under the Canada pension plan and also adjusting it for the persons who had not

filed returns. We arrived at a figure of 52,000 who would not be covered, which means that on the rough calculation I have made 84 per cent of the farmers outside Quebec would be covered by some level of earnings under the Canada pension plan. However, I would maintain that really this is not the subject matter of the particular clause with which we are dealing; and as I explained to my hon. friend this matter was fully discussed earlier.


David Vaughan Pugh: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have the categories here. We have gone into it fairly fully now but it might be pertinent if I raised this again so as to clean things up. This clause commences with the words "Pensionable employment is". Then underneath that we have the categories of people who are employable. The argument being put forward is that the bill excludes a tremendous number of people who should be within its terms. For example, farmers earning $800 and under.
I do not want to quarrel with the minister's figures because he did go to quite a bit of trouble to obtain them, but I think that to be considered Canada-wide the Canada pension plan should not exclude the province of Quebec. According to the figures there are
139,000	farmers whose returns are below $1,200 before expenses are deducted. The figure I used before in my argument was $2,500 after expenses are deducted. Just for the sake of illustration let me say a farmer has a net income of $1,800, which is away above average for that class. There will still be 200,000 farmers, or one third of the farmers, who do not come under the plan, people who are in the farmer category.
If the minister would follow that through, he would find that a farmer who makes a net income of $1,800 has to contribute on that amount. Having paid in for a number of years all he will get is a pension of $25 a month. Even taking the minister's figures and excluding Quebec, I suggest that there would be a tremendous number of farmers in Canada who might well qualify for the plan but who, for the most part, would not be in as good a position as the steady income city dweller at the $5,000 level. Although they qualify for this plan these farmers will receive a very small benefit after paying in for several years.
I think that this is contrary to the expressed spirit of the plan, as related by the minister at the outset. All parties agreed in principle that the pension plan was a good thing, laying down the criterion that it be fair to all Canadians and open to all Canadians. But I do not
Canada Pension Plan
think that this criterion is being met. I did use the term "city dweller" and I said that I did not like using that term, but in actual fact it does look as though the city dweller has dreamed up some idea about what a farmer makes which I think is far from reality. Even on the best set of figures put forward a tremendous number of farmers are excluded. I suggested that one way to remove this problem would be to allow a farmer to choose the pension plan he thought he could meet, and in his bad years pay in himself so that he can look forward to a pension plan.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member has been making an argument for the last half hour which to my mind goes away beyond the terms of clause 6. The minister has listened to him and the Chair has also listened to him. Having had an opportunity to make his argument and repeat it perhaps he will now limit himself to a consideration of clause 6.


David Vaughan Pugh: I defer to your strictures, Mr. Chairman, and I will not repeat myself again, except to say that under clause 6 pensionable employment is defined, a long list of categories being set out. This has reference to employed people who come under the bill. Certainly a farmer is self-employed, but if he comes under this bill he must of necessity come under what is known as pensionable employment. I do not feel that my argument has been answered by the minister in any way shape or form. I have made my suggestion. It may well be that the government has a very different idea from that of the opposition of what kind of pension plan should be available to certain people who are citizens of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that since the plan was first introduced everyone has known that persons in employment with incomes of less than $600 are not covered by the plan. Persons who are self-employed and who have an income of less than $800 are not covered by the plan.
I think I have answered my friend's argument. Perhaps he might go back and read my comments on February 25, as found on page 11749 and following of Hansard, where we discussed this problem.


David Vaughan Pugh: The only thing I would point out to the minister is that all the words in Hansard, however well intentioned, will not help those who cannot come under this plan or who can only come under it in a very minimum way.

Canada Pension Plan


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this morning we had an amendment to clause 6 which in the future will possibly allow members of the R.C.M.P. and armed forces to have their plans integrated with the Canada pension plan. If this develops it will bring under the Canada pension plan a large number of Canadian citizens who otherwise would not be covered. I should like to point out that in subclause 2 of clause 6 we are dealing with excepted employment and subclause 2 (j) reads as follows:
2. Excepted employment Is...
O') employment in Canada by the government of a country other than Canada or by an international organization.
I seem to recall that in the committee it was mentioned that those involved would not be a large group. The figure of 5,000 runs in my mind. Maybe this does not seem like a particularly large group of Canadian citizens but we feel that they should be allowed to participate under the Canada pension plan. We realize the difficulties in suggesting that a foreign government should pay toward the Canada pension plan, but we believe that these Canadian citizens working for foreign governments should have the opportunity of participating in the Canada pension plan if they so wish. The government has indicated that it wants to see the greatest number of Canadians possible covered by the plan, so to try to assist in achieving this end I move:
On page 8 in line 23, amend subclause 2(j) of clause 6 by adding after the word "organization" the following words:
"except that a person so employed may elect, in prescribed manner and form, to have his' earnings deemed to be self-employed earnings; or"
I do not see how we can get them under the pension plan at the regular employee rate of 1.8 per cent of wages. Consequently we suggest that they be given the opportunity to elect to be regarded as self-employed. It is true that they would pay double the rate of the average employee but they would not be paying a higher rate than any other selfemployed person in Canada.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder whether I might say something. This amendment would mean that if a foreign government will not sign an agreement with the federal government with respect to its employees, the employees of that government working in Canada would have the right to come in as volunteers by paying double the rate. But I should like to point out what would happen. The effect

of this amendment would be to put pressure on the foreign government never to sign an agreement and to penalize all its employees working for it. It would indicate to the foreign government that if it did not sign an agreement, and refused to pays its 1.8 per cent, its employees could still join. This would place on the individual employee the obligation, if he chose to accept it, of paying double. We have no indication that there will be any difficulty with any foreign government with respect to its employees in Canada who wish to become participants in the contributory pension plan. I fail to see that the problem is so urgent as to justify the amendment which my hon. friend has put forward. We feel it would not be in the interests of these employees but would in effect penalize them.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I say I can see some of the arguments put forward by the hon. lady, but what concerns me is that Canadian citizens, whether employed in a consulate, embassy or what have you of a foreign country, are absolutely at the mercy of whatever the result may be of the negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the particular employing country. I do not think this is fair at all. If a country refuses, surely to goodness the employees, realizing the situation, will want to enter into the plan; but as the legislation now stands there is a prohibition against such employees ever coming under the Canada pension plan. In other words, such employees will be faced with this ultimatum: If you do not like it, give up the job. That is all there is to it. Participation in the Canada pension plan is definitely going to become part and parcel of working conditions. If this is not so, then the whole thing is going to go down the drain as being worthless. I say it is wrong for these employees to be placed in the position where they may be told: "Tough luck, but your employer will not sign an agreement with us and therefore you cannot join." If a particular country does not sign an agreement, and I think most of them will, I would prefer to see an alternative whereby the employee will have the right to come under the plan as a self-employed person. After all, why deny them that right? You are making a second class job of it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure my hon. friend does not mean to put the case of those who

work for foreign governments any higher than the case of those who work for provincial governments. The key to the whole thing is that the federal government cannot require foreign governments to make contributions for their employees or require provincial governments to make contributions for their employees. That is why they are not automatically covered and that is why there is provision for agreements to be made. If a provincial government decides that its employees shall not be covered, there is no provision whatsoever for them to be allowed to come in on a voluntary basis. What my hon. friend is suggesting would put these relatively few employees of foreign governments in a preferred position when compared with employees of provincial governments.


Norman Platt Lambert: With the greatest respect, surely there is no provincial government whose employees are not covered by a contributory pension scheme. Let us not have that put before us.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There are probably just as few foreign governments whose employees are not covered by some sort of private scheme.


Norman Platt Lambert: Let us have these Canadian employees covered by this plan too.


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is wise in this particular connection to remember that in this case we are interested in the employees of foreign governments, not of provincial governments and, second, if those who are employees of foreign governments do not care to come into the plan they do not have to do so. The wording in the amendment is "may elect". If the plan is as good as we are led to believe, one would think that everybody would elect to come into it, and the amendment allows them to do so. That is all this amendment does.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member addressing himself to the amendment?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Perth, who has moved this amendment, may recall that we had a fairly lengthy discussion the other evening of what to me is a closely related problem, that is the problem of large numbers of people such as the bushworkers who travel from provinces like Quebec and New Brunswick to work in the United States for a part of the year. At that time, some of us who raised this question asked whether or not their earnings should not be considered as self-employed
Canada Pension Plan
earnings for the purposes of the Canada pension plan.
I have been giving some thought to this question. I took part in the discussion of this related problem the other evening, and I feel that there is some force in the argument that was advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that, as this amendment is worded, it would in effect be an invitation to the employers not to pick up their share of the contributions. I am wondering if the hon. member for Perth might not be prepared to consider if this matter could not be dealt with more suitably under the provisions of clause 7(c). The governor in council is given the authority to make regulations to cover pensionable employment. Any employment, then, if it appears to the governor in council that the nature of the work performed is similar to work performed by persons employed in pensionable employment, can be covered. It strikes me that if an amendment somewhat along the lines the hon. member has proposed to clause 6 were to be proposed to clause 7(c), then by regulation the governor in council could consider such earnings to be deemed to be self-employed earnings. This might meet the problem.
I am wondering if the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of National Revenue might be prepared to give consideration to this kind of amendment to clause 7, which would cover not only the particular problem to which the amendment of the hon. member for Perth is addressed, but would cover a large number of people involved in the problem raised by some of us the other evening. I am wondering if the hon. member for Perth might be prepared to consider approaching this problem under clause 7 rather than under clause 6. I feel this would meet the objection which was raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Norman Platt Lambert: On behalf of the hon. member from Perth, may I say that I understand the point the hon. member is trying to make? There might be some hope of action under 7(c) if 6(2)(j) were not a prohibition. Unless 6(2)(j) is wiped out or amended, nothing can be done under 7(c). This is the dilemma in which the committee finds itself at the moment. I am sure there are many cases where, as time goes on, the governor in council will find opportunities to make regulations under clause 7 to provide for these people, provided he is not prohibited from doing so under clause 6.

Canada Pension Plan


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I be permitted to suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West that in my view the objection he raised is covered by the provisions of clause 6(l)(c), which specifically gives legislative authority for any employment to be included as pensionable employment by regulation under clause 7? It seems to me that that clause overrides the objection which he has raised under clause 7(2)(j). In other words, clauses 6 and 7 are interlocking and, in a sense, overriding one another.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, is the question for the carrying of clause 6 in full?


Lucien Lamoureux: No, it is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith).

Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived: Yeas, 32; nays, 70.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; perhaps the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Lapointe. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has had a lot of opportunity to contribute to the debate earlier this afternoon.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words concerning clause 6(2) (a) which reads as follows:
(2) Excepted employment is
(a) employment in agriculture or an agricultural enterprise, horticulture, fishing, hunting... less than $250 in cash remuneration in a year.. .less than 25 working days in a year;
Mr. Chairman, it would seem that it is always in the field of agriculture that we find the greatest number of exceptions. It would seem that the farmer is the one generally ignored in all our legislation. In fact, a farmer cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits and he is excluded from many other programs.
And now the federal government proposes a pension plan to which farmers earning less than $250 and working less than 25 days a year will not have the right to contribute.
Mr. Chairman, in the field of agriculture, a large number of employees will work for different employers and in each case will

earn less than $250 and work less than 25 days.
Take for instance the Saguenay-Lake St. John district where blueberry farms operate under ARDA. Those farms, which are practically an organized industry, can have up to 80 employees; however, in that kind of farming, those employees will work less than 25 days and earn less than $250. But those same people will be working in some kind of enterprise, and yet they will not be able to benefit from the federal government's pension plan. Then, they would help farmers in other fields, working less than 25 days for the same employer and earning less than $250, so that at the end of the year they would have worked six, seven or eight months and would neither qualify under unemployment insurance nor under the pension plan upon reaching retirement age.
When an employee works in a particular field of agriculture, even if he works less than 25 days for an employer and learns less than $250, and when such an employee has worked more than 25 days during the year and earned more than $250, I wonder if the minister would consider the advisability of allowing such an employee, under the pension plan, benefits proportionate to his earnings in the various jobs he has held, even though he worked for different employers?
I see that the Minister of National Revenue is about to rise. Perhaps he can answer my question or clarify this paragraph? I would be obliged if he could do it now.


Edgar John Benson: First of all, the reason that this provision is in the bill is to make it easier for the farmer employer, where he has people come in and work for a few days and he would have to get their numbers, keep payroll records for them and prepare T-4 slips at the end of the year. I should point out that where a farm employee works 20 days in a number of places there is power under clause 7(l)(g) to bring him back into the plan, and if we found that there were employees who wanted to be covered by the plan, and who were moving from place to place, it would be possible under this clause to bring them in.
The reason they are not brought in is because we felt it would be unfair to the individual farmer who, for example, hires people to pick berries for a few days and who would have to keep payroll records, take deductions from the employees and submit T-4 records at the end of the year.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words on that same subject. A farmer employing a helper for a few days only may be faced with that problem; if so, I think the Minister of National Revenue is right to exempt that farmer from the many formalities required to ensure participation in the pension plan. But I explained the particular case we have in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area where the same people are denied the benefits of another act, the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There is the case of the blueberry farms where 70, 80 and even 100 persons are employed for certain periods of the year only. In many cases it will be for less than 25 days. Here we are not dealing with farmers to whom we are asking to keep a set of books, we are not dealing with an ordinary farmer of whom we are asking to keep a set of books for one individual; we are dealing with a co-operative association recognized as an agricultural enterprise.
Employees in those industries, for instance, are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Well, we want their right to be recognized in the case of the pension plan and also with regard to unemployment insurance. Here it is not a case of a farmer hiring help for a few days. Those are co-operative organizations. In many cases, it is the municipal corporation itself.
I wonder if, in those circumstances, the Minister of National Revenue could not see to it that this thing is no longer left necessarily to the sole discretion of the department, because then there would be so many particular cases that it would be difficult to deal with each one. Instead, those workers or that farm help working, not for some particular farmer, but for a farm co-operative, a co-operative organization sponsored by ARDA or under a municipal council, should be recognized as employees of a normal industry and entitled to the pension plan benefits.
I am wondering whether the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be in a position to tell us if they are ready to make that distinction between the ordinary farm help and the employee who works for an agricultural enterprise, a co-operative organization, some ARDA agency or municipal organization?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the employees mentioned by my hon. friend would be covered by the Quebec pension plan rather
Canada Pension Plan
than by the bill which we are discussing. The second point I would like to make is that we cannot amend the Unemployment Insurance Act by this legislation. The third point I would like to make is that there is provision where such people can be brought in if this is considered the right thing to do under clause 7(l)(g).


Mr. McBain:: I am thinking of the casual farm labourer who may work for one farmer for a number of days and who receives $240. During that time the farmer is exempted from contributions, but then the labourer goes back and works for him two days more, which brings him over the exemption limit. Is the farmer in such a case required to go back and make the exemption on those last two days of employment? Also when does the casual labourer cease to become self-employed? He may work in a number of places during the year. For example he may earn $1,000, but he has not been at any one place long enough to earn $250.


Edgar John Benson: Once the employee goes over 25 days and $250 he would be covered for the whole year. It is looked at on the yearly basis. The second question about a person being self-employed is of course a matter of fact. Whether or not a person is in business operating it for himself or has an employer-employee relationship is a matter of law which has to be determined in each particular instance. I do not think I could give one general rule in this regard.


Mr. Willoughby:: I should like to ask a couple of questions probably more related to paragraph (e) of the clause. I presume that this provision could be circumvented by an employer forming a company, in which case the wife could become pensionable. If an employer forms himself into a company, his wife is eligible for a pension.


Edgar John Benson: The situation is the same as that which exists under the Income Tax Act; a person may not deduct a wage paid to his own wife. If a business becomes incorporated, the corporation is the employer; and if the corporation employed both the shareholder and his wife, both would have the right to contribute through the corporation.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Let me ask a related question. Take the case of a farmer who employs his family. Could he not form a company so as to cover his family, including his wife?


Edgar John Benson: A large farmer has every right in the world to form a corporation and

Canada Pension Plan
in computing the income of the corporation he could deduct earnings, provided the employment is related to earning the income of the corporation. In such circumstances one could deduct pension plan contributions.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I would certainly consider that anyone who worked within such a company whether as cook or out on the range would be covered.


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that my department would not consider it employment by the corporation if a woman were employed to cook meals for her own husband.


Harold Warren Danforth: I should like to follow up what was said by the hon. member for Lapointe when he dealt with casual labour in agriculture. I know the minister has said that 7(1) (g) makes it possible to include anyone if there is hardship under this clause, but I am wondering whether the minister is fully aware of the tremendous difficulties in which intensive farmers might find themselves under the terms of 6(1) (a). I am thinking especially of farmers who may for short periods employ, as I have done, up to 100 individuals for brief periods of time. The fact remains that if such employees do not get insurance stamps and cannot qualify for the pension they may well be discouraged from this type of work. It must be remembered there is intense competition attached to obtaining the necessary labour today, and anything which worsened their competitive position would place farmers in still greater difficulty when it comes to finding the necessary labour. At this moment the labour situation facing intensive farmers who desire to employ a large number of people for short periods of time is critical. I can think of many large corporations which need to employ people for three weeks in the planting season and three or four weeks in the harvest season. Often there are about 25 days involved, representing $250 in cash. These farm corporations are likely to be placed in a most unfavourable position with regard to obtaining the necessary labour unless we are very careful. I wonder whether the minister fully appreciates this problem and whether he believes there is machinery to take care of this situation if the provisions in this legislation are found to be an adverse factor.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, this was one of the reasons for the inclusion of 7(l)(g). The reason this exemption was made initially was so that we might assist farmers who have to employ a large amount of help for short periods. If

the system is found to be working adversely, the provisions of paragraph (g) could be put into force, the minister could prescribe this as being employment and a farmer would then have to make the deductions and submit the contributions.
I understand that many of the people who work for short periods on these farms for high wages during harvest time, sometimes work in other places during the year, so they would have in a year, earnings of this extra amount that would be included.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A number of hon. members have made reference to the provisions of clause 6(2)(a), but all who have participated in the discussion thus far have dealt with the fact that employment in agriculture is an excepted employment. I should like to point out that the clause covers other categories of employment including horticulture, fishing, hunting, trapping, forestry and logging.
While I am willing to agree there may be some necessity for exempting from pensionable employment purely casual short term employment for small amounts, I fail to see the necessity for including an exempting clause as all-embracing as this one is. I completely fail to understand why there has to be a double barrelled exclusion of people who are engaged in occupations which are among the more strenuous and difficult occupations with which Canadian citizens are connected. Why should it be necessary to exclude them by this double barrelled proposition?
I wish to put before the committee for its consideration an amendment to this particular subclause. Before doing so I would point out that when we talk about a period of less than 25 days, that is to say, 24 days, we are talking about a period which amounts to more than a month as far as working days are concerned, if we take the number of days in a month to be 20 or 21 as is commonly the case today. As this clause stands, loggers in my constituency who move from camp to camp in the course of a year could earn $600 a month for ten months of the year and still be exempted from pensionable employment. This, to my mind, is an absurd situation. Or for example a logger could work for six months of the year, as many do, earning let us say $3,000, and then work for another couple of months in two other camps, what we sometimes refer to as gypo camps, earning $600 a month for each of those months, and still be classified as being in pensionable employment only with respect to the first $3,000 of his income.

So, without attempting to pursue my argument at any undue length, I wish to move:
That clause 6(2) (a) of Bill C-136 be amended by deleting the figure "$250" where it appears in line 30 and substituting therefor the sum "$100" and by deleting therefrom all the words after "year" where it appears in line 30.
I suppose the figures I have included are, of necessity, somewhat arbitrary.
I might be disposed to listen to argument as to whether $100 or $250, or something in between, is a suitable amount. But, Mr. Chairman, I completely fail to see why there has to be this double barrelled prohibition. If we are going to exclude pensionable employment, why cannot we simply do it by saying that any earnings of less than $100, or $150, from a single employer shall not be classified as pensionable employment? I hope the minister will be prepared to give real consideration to this amendment. I put it forward purely from the point of view of not having the people in this long list of categories that I have mentioned excluded in regard to a basic provision of the bill.
I have listened to the minister say once or twice before that there is provision for bringing people back in under certain circumstances, but it seems to me it would be much better, within reason, to include all these people in the first instance. I understand that in the provisions there is authority to make regulations in situations where administrative impossibilities develop. It would be a matter of exempting them out, rather than excluding them out, in the first instance. After all, Mr. Chairman, the people who are in agriculture, forestry and fishing represent a very basic segment of the people who produce the wealth of this country. Without them we would not function very long as a nation.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I personally wish to register my objection to the fact that we are specifically saying that people in these occupations are not in pensionable employment, as a basic premise of this legislation.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Did anybody appointed to that drafting committee have any knowledge of farming whatsoever?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman; the chief draftsman I believe has had some experience in farming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to indicate to the hon. member who proposed this amendment that the approach used in this legislation, namely that of using the number of days and the amount of money, is exactly the same as that followed and developed, as a matter of fact, in the United States over a good many years of experience in dealing with this type of legislation. One had to choose a point in a number of days and dollars, or simply dollars, in order to protect the employer, particularly farmers. This was chosen to be $250 or 25 days, and if people were employed for less than 25 days or earned less than $250, they would not have to be included. As I have mentioned, this provision is subject to change, in the light of experience, and there is provision for such change in clause 7(l)(g). As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, under clause 7(l)(g) we could bring in exactly what my hon. friend is trying to bring in through his amendment, by ruling that all employment from which over $100 was earned would be pensionable employment. But from an administrative point of view and a practical point of view, initially it was felt wise to use the same kind of approach that has been developed in the United States over a great many years of experience in operating under similar legislation.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister another question. Inasmuch as we deplore the fact that we have so many unemployed in this country, this bill is going to drive thousands more farmers off the land in order to get employment elsewhere and so they may come under this plan. That is exactly what is going to happen, because they will not be able to make enough money to get into the plan, and they will leave the farm and join the labour market, which is overcrowded now. You will have thousands and thousands more farmers going off the land and onto the labour market, to whom unemployment insurance will have to be paid, regardless of whether you want to or not. Farmers are the most important people we have in this country, regardless of what the government may think about them. We must have food. Food is one item that has never gone up very much in price; it has not changed much through the years. But the government are going to drive the farmers right off the land and put them on unemployment insurance.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Canada Pension Plan


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is the hon. member aware that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted a brief, and a delegation representing them appeared before the select committee of this house and the other place?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Was attention paid to it?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Yes, a great deal of attention.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If it was paid attention to, this pension plan would have been drafted in a different form than appears before us, and you would not have had so much trouble in getting it through the house. I understand this is the fourth draft to come before the house. Another draft should have been presented before we were asked to pass it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the minister mentioned that the chief draftsman of this legislation came from the farm. Would he mind putting his name on the imperishable records of this house so that we may have it for reference in the years to come? I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had to say when he proposed this amendment. I think he spoke with a great deal of common sense. I also believe that the hon. member at the other end of the chamber, who disagrees with us with regard to a number of matters, indicated a weakness in the present legislation.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni proposed this amendment as a result of his knowledge of what happens, under these circumstances, in the daily lives of these people. I do urge that serious consideration be given to this amendment or to some amendment that would achieve the same result, whether it is to this clause or to another clause.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the amendment which I recently proposed, the Minister of National Revenue made reference to the experience of the United States. I would like . to say that my amendment arises in part out of some experience of encountering the kind of problems that people in these categories have met in the operation of our Unemployment Insurance Act, and I am not anxious to see this long, slow process repeated in respect of this pension plan. In regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, it was a matter of arguing for years in order to get some of these categories of people included, in a reasonable way, within the framework of that act. One par-particular category with which I have per-

haps a particular familiarity is that of the loggers. I just cannot understand why this particular double barrelled exclusion should prevent the loggers-in the pattern of employment, at least, that is followed in my part of the world-being covered initially by the provisions of this bill; or why they should be included, perhaps for part of their annual earnings as being in pensionable employment and for the rest of their annual earnings as not being in pensionable employment. This is going to create a most unpleasant situation, where people who happen to work in a certain type of camp for one employer the year round will immediately be covered, whereas a large group of people following the same line of employment, working under the same kind of conditions in the same kind of jobs and at the same wage rates under what is known as the master union agreement in British Columbia will not have their earnings covered or be classified as engaging in pensionable employment. How long will it take to get regulations to cover people of this kind sorted out? The minister has not told us why there has to be both a dollar exclusion and a time exclusion, a period of up to a month's employment. This is what I completely fail to understand. They are included either on the one basis or the other, which means, as I suggested, that a person can earn $600, $800 or, say, $1,500 a month theoretically, or $2,000 within 24 days, but will still not have those earnings included as pensionable earnings.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In fact, I have outlined some similar situations existing in eastern Canada. The same situation repeats itself in the farming industry, the fishing industry and other forms of industry. As the hon. member has just said, this is a fairly serious situation. We have received representations from all parts of this house concerning abnormal conditions existing at the moment in connection with unemployment. These situations have been neglected, and we are doing exactly the same thing again today in this national pension plan. It seems it is always easier to prevent than to cure in this house, but once matters get into the machinery of the civil service, before they are properly completed several years may elapse before they can be put right. Therefore we should get the whole matter settled now so that we do not have to consider the problem again.

I think that serious consideration should be .given to eliminating what I call this injustice. If we are going to have a national scheme in operation in the provinces which are contributing to the scheme, I think the greater the number of people allowed to participate in it the better. I strongly urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue to apply the same diligence here as they do sometimes in regard to income tax matters, because they do not miss very many of those. Not that I blame them; if we should be taxed we should all be taxed at the same rate. But if benefits are going to be made available, let them at least he made available to the greatest number of people possible.
I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that in the past injustices have existed through wrongly drafted legislation, and I have in mind here the unemployment insurance commission. But I think we should try and prevent these injustices occurring in this Canada pension plan by giving greater latitude to those who do not have a year round job, or a job which lasts for more than 25 days, or who do not make more than $250 by way of earnings from one employer. I think that members on both sides of this house should seriously consider this question, because there are probably people in all constituencies who are in this same fix. To prevent our having to redraft this legislation at a later date or to prepare a series of amendments after this plan has gone through, I say it is better to consider the matter now, when it can be fully discussed and any amendments which are worth while can be drafted into the legislation. I think this is good common sense.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, like my hon. friend from Megantic (Mr. Langlois), I should like to make a few remarks, as the situation is of the utmost importance.
I read with much interest the white paper of the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning a Canada pension plan. What struck me is the fact that the minister mentioned the following as an essential factor: the national pension plan is to ensure that all Canadians will be able to retire in security and with dignity. I think that this bill is far from providing that essential factor on which the Minister of National Health and Welfare based this piece of legislation.
As a matter of fact, if there is a segment of the population to which we should pay particular attention it is those people who
Canada Pension irian
are deprived of the means to earn a salary which would enable them to cope with future financial problems. After reading this bill, we are under the impression that a large segment of the population will be denied the right to come under the plan.
I agree with the hon. member for Megantic and I say that because of the requirements imposed by the minister, a large part of the population of the province of Quebec will be pushed into the background, will be more or less ignored, in short, will not be able to contribute to the pension plan, which, according to the minister, aims at giving every Canadian across the country welfare and security benefits, nearly heaven on earth, once they reach a certain age.
But if we carefully consider the legislation now before us, we can easily see that it is nothing but a smokescreen of the type we particularly and generally recognize as coming from the Liberal party.
I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that we are not here to pass discriminating legislation. In fact, we would like the legislation which we study in parliament to apply generally to the people of Canada.
We do not want it to be said throughout Canada that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare took advantage of her prestige to deny the benefit of this pension plan to a certain part of the population.
As the representative in the House of Commons of a riding which is in part a farming riding, I am sure that many farmers in my constituency do not have the income required by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to take advantage of this pension plan.
Like my hon. friend from Megantic, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that by taking the attitude of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, this will only result in depriving a large part of the population I have the honour of representing here of this pension plan.
I would not like to let the opportunity pass without strongly urging the ministers concerned to act with moderation and take all the necessary time so that an important part of the people in my riding and the other completely rural or semi-rural constituencies in the province of Quebec will not be deprived of the benefits offered to the Canadian people by a national pension plan.
It is all well and good to make election promises

we know the Liberals are experts

Canada Pension Plan
at that game-but it is important when we have to pass legislation, to assume our responsibilities and to see to it that all sectors of the community will enjoy the benefits we intend to give to the people at large.
In that regard, I should like to see my colleagues from the province of Quebec rise-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Not only rise like my hon. friend from Longueuil is doing, but make suggestions that would be beneficial for the people of my riding, of their own ridings and of all ridings in the province of Quebec. Then, they would discharge their obligations and they would do a service not only to the people of my province but the people of all the provinces.
Surely, I have the support from my friends on this side to ask my colleagues from the province of Quebec, not to be passive witnesses, but rather to work toward the improvement of economic conditions in the areas which we represent in this House of Commons.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: May I ask the hon. member a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: How can the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot say that there is discrimination against the people of his riding when he is very well aware of the fact that nobody in the province of Quebec will be contributing to this plan and therefore will not benefit from it, because the province of Quebec will not take part in this plan?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I precisely set a trap for my hon. friends. The minister indicated herself that she wanted to set up a comparable Canada-wide plan, from sea to sea.
If, in the field of pension schemes, we let the federal government set for the whole of Canada a pattern which is not to the advantage of all citizens and if the province of Quebec which is governed by a Liberal administration feels compelled to help out the federal government and follow its example, all Canadians will suffer from it. That is why, this afternoon, I asked my hon. friends from the province of Quebec not to be content with listening to this debate but to do something for the people of their province because they are the ones who promised [Mr. Ricard.J
the moon to the electorate of our province during past election campaigns.
I would just ask them to stand up and to say openly to their Liberal colleagues: "Carry out the promises you made during previous election campaigns."


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is quite apparent that what the hon. member is saying is not at all relevant to this particular clause.


Norman Platt Lambert: Oh, come, come. We will answer the hon. member. Just for the edification of the hon. and youthful member and also the hon. member for Longueuil, it has been indicated by the ministers that any province which wishes to bring in a plan in substitution for the Canada pension plan must bring in a comparable plan and therefore the more we can improve this particular plan the more it will be the responsibility of any province to bring in a comparable plan. The hon. member for Longueuil shakes his head, but I think he will find he is quite wrong and that the plan that any province wishes to bring in by way of substitution for its participation in the Canada pension plan-


John Carr Munro: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I brought up the point of order that the hon. member's remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with section 6 and offended against standing order 59, paragraph 2, which provides that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. The hon. member who has just spoken said he was going to speak to the point of order but proceeded to talk about something quite divorced from it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What is your point of order?
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. The question before the committee at the moment is an amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. When the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot was speaking it did appear at times that he was moving away a little from the question before the house. I would ask hon. members to confine themselves as closely as possible to the question of the amendment.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, perhaps your caution might also go to government members in the addressing of their questions which also elicit replies from this side in the same way our questions elicit replies from the other side. With regard to the amendment

I would say that I have some sympathy with what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is trying to do except that I And he has gone a little too far. Under clause 6(2)(a) the disability extends to 25 working days which today is equivalent to five weeks. At the least, it would be four weeks working time. I think that this goes a bit far. At today's wage rates, it is quite possible to earn almost double $250 within 24 days, which I think is the maximum since 25 working days would bring an employee within the category of pensionable employment.
Within 24 days, therefore, according to the provisions of this bill, an employee working within these accepted fields of employment-I won't say in all of them-could earn up to almost $500 and would find himself disqualified in so far as the Canada pension plan is concerned. I would have thought it would have been better-I recognize some of the difficulties employers and the department would have in handling small casual earnings of $100, but I believe a limit of $100 is too low. Certainly casual earnings under the Income Tax Act are set at $250. They are the casual earnings for a wife, and that is the limit. I would say that perhaps my colleagues would join me if an appropriate amendment were made to restore the $250, which is the floor, but remove any question of time. On that basis, it would be roughly 12 days or 12 working days, something like two weeks. If the hon. member wants to join us in that point of view, I think we would be quite prepared to support his amendment except, as I say, his figure of $100 is still a bit low. If he wishes to change it to $250, leaving the rest of his amendment the same, we would be quite prepared to support it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In looking over my amendment, particularly in the light of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I realize that I have drafted it on the basis of two separate questions on which members may have different views. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you and the committee may agree that we consider the amendment as two separate propositions? In other words, we could vote on the amendment which would say that the clause be amended by deleting the figure $250 and substituting therefor the sum of $100. Then, we could vote on what would be the second amendment, that the clause be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after "year"
Canada Pension Plan
where they appear in line 30. It is quite apparent to me now that actually I have included two separate questions in one proposal. I think a separation of the two questions would be the logical method, if you would agree to dispose of the question on that basis, Mr. Chairman.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni realizes that he is amending his own amendment. Whether or not the committee is willing to give unanimous consent for him to do so, is for them to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Since the committee agrees, I will ask the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to let me have a revised copy of his amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have the draft divided so it is marked (a) and (b), which I hope you will consider as separate amendments.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni moves:
That clause 6 (2) (a) of Bill No. C-136, be amended by,
(a)	deleting the figure $250 where it appears in line 30 and substituting therefor the sum of $100 and,
(b)	deleting therefrom all the words after "year" where it appears in line 30.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Are you going to call a vote on the first one, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that part (a) constitute one question and part (b) another?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (a) (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 59.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Is the committee ready for the question on amendment (b)?
Amendment (b) (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 37; nays, 60.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 6 as amended carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have a further question I should like to ask, Mr. Chairman, on clause 6. It has nothing to do with the subject matter that has been under discussion. I should like to ask where, in so far as pensionable employment is concerned, and for that matter selfemployed earnings, do the people who are residents on Indian reserves stand? I have not been able to find any reference to this matter either under pensionable employment

Canada Pension Plan
or the exceptions to pensionable employment, and for the record I think it is a rather important point that that should be clarified. My understanding is that so far as the Income Tax Act is concerned there is a difference with respect to earnings on Indian reserves.


Edgar John Benson: The income earned off a reserve would be treated as income for the purposes of the Canada pension plan and would be subject to the provisions of the plan, but income earned on the reserve is exempted and would not be.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If members of a band on an Indian reserve wanted to have their earnings within the reserve included by way of wages or self-employed earnings, is there any authority within the bill to enable them to be included by regulation?


Edgar John Benson: No, there is no such provision. As a matter of fact, I am informed that to include such a provision would require a change in the Indian Act, in the Income Tax Act and in this bill, because the income here is tied into income as determined under the Income Tax Act, which in turn is dependant upon the provisions of the Indian Act. It would require a change in the three acts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It would be possible for a member of the government to introduce a bill which would amend the three acts, but would an amendment of that kind be affected by another clause in the bill which deals with the consent of two thirds of the provinces? Is there anything in that clause which would prevent parliament on its own initiative from taking action to introduce amending bills dealing with the three acts which the minister mentioned?


Edgar John Benson: I would not like to indicate in any way that the government has any intention to introduce such a bill as that suggested by my hon. friend.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not asking the government's intentions.


Edgar John Benson: I am informed the government would have the power to introduce such a bill, if it were government policy, without consultation with the provinces.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, in this clause concerning pensionable employment, I notice that paragraph (h) mentions foreign employers who have employees in Canada. On the other hand, I do not see in this clause 6 any provision dealing with Canadian employers

who employ Canadians in foreign countries and who would be considered as pensionable employees.
Several times, during this debate, we tried to understand the clauses which would apply respecting the Quebec pension plan. We could not discover what provisions are intended to cover many persons employed by Canadian employers and working abroad, who thus could not participate in the provincial or federal pension plan.
On several instances, we were told that Quebec will have its own pension plan. On the other hand, sometimes we are told that the provisions of Bill No. C-136 will provide adequately, under the Quebec pension plan, for the peculiar situation of numerous Canadian workers and employers.
This is the essence of the remarks we made during the previous discussions. I will give a specific example. As Canadian employers, timber contractors employ from 300 to 400 persons, who are Canadians and Quebec residents and who during six, seven or eight months work in the state of Maine, in the United States. When they come back, they are denied unemployment insurance benefits because, according to the Minister of Labour, it is impossible to enter into an agreement concerning unemployment insurance.
Should the same thing occur in the case of the pension plan, the provincial or the federal one, it would deprive thousands of people of the benefits provided for in the federal or provincial legislation. Since the federal government has already tried to secure arrangements under the Unemployment Insurance Act, we are afraid, and justifiably so, that Quebec might not have the authority required to fully negotiate a piece of legislation which could also give justice to all those cases which are not isolated ones but concern thousands of Canadian or Quebec employees and workers.
In view of the fact that this situation is not covered and that this clause deals specifically with pensionable employment, we thought it might be possible to have an amendment accepted which would complete, I believe, what the federal legislation cannot provide with regard to certain cases which, indeed, number several thousands.
I may have had copies of the amendment distributed a little too early and some hon. members must surely have had time to prepare arguments against it. However, before moving the amendment, I should like to change it slightly. The text I have here has been corrected.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic, that clause 6(2X1) be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:
Except in the case of a province which has its own pension plan, such province having the power to make the necessary arrangements with the government of a foreign country, and in the case of a Canadian employer who has Canadian employees working in a foreign country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member for Beauce kindly send me a copy of the corrected version of the amendment?


John Carr Munro: I would like to make two submissions with respect to the appropriateness of the amendment. I contend it is out of order. It states that in the case of a province having its own pension plan it could conclude the necessary arrangements with the government of a foreign country. It is a well recognized rule of international law that only a national government can enter into an agreement or agreements with other countries. On that ground the amendment contravenes a fundamental rule of law and I doubt very much, even if it were passed, that it would have any effect whatever. Even if the wording were changed and could be interpreted to mean that the federal government was prepared to delegate this authority to a province, it is questionable whether any foreign government would even wish to negotiate with the province because such governments recognize the fundamental international rule and would wish to deal in any such agreement with the state which had the power to enter upon agreements in these cases. The proposition offends a well known rule of law and for that reason it cannot be entertained.
Again, if we look at clause 6 and examine the wording of this clause it is apparent that the effect of the proposal would be to add a paragraph to the words already there. This does not make sense when one reads the beginning of clause 6 where pensionable employment is defined. The paragraph which the hon. member seeks to add purports to give authority to a particular province to enter into agreements, so it is not a proper amendment to attempt to make to clause 6.
On another occasion we discussed at length clause 109 under which the federal government can enter upon agreements with other states. As I recall it, we discussed that clause for several hours and eventually it was passed. That would have been the occasion upon which to have advanced an argument along the lines suggested by the hon. member, although as I have pointed out his proposal
Canada Pension Plan
offends a basic rule of international law and would not have been acceptable.
Therefore, for these two reasons, that it does offend this well known rule of law and also because it is not relevant to this particular clause, I think the amendment should be declared out of order. In conclusion I would refer Your Honour to citation 203(1) of Beau-chesne, fourth edition, where it is stated on page 171:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair has listened with interest to the representations made relevant to the acceptability of this amendment. The Chair has some doubt as to the relevancy of this amendment. On the other hand, perhaps it would be wise to give the committee an opportunity to express itself on the essence of the question raised by the hon. member for Beauce. I am concerned about the fact that there does not seem to be a logical sequence in clause 6 between paragraph (h) and paragraph (1) as now proposed by the hon. member, but this is questionable and since there is a doubt we should give the hon. member the benefit of that doubt. I suggest that if the committee is ready for the question, it should be put. Is the committee ready for the question?


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, since we are given the opportunity to make some points with respect to the validity-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair has
rendered a decision as to whether or not the amendment was in order, and I do not think that the matter should be discussed further.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, you allowed the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) to make his arguments as to whether or not the amendment was in order. However, since you ask that the question be put, does this mean that you declare the amendment in order?


Lucien Lamoureux: That is correct. The Chair has declared the amendment in order, and the question will now be put.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, my motion has been questioned as to its being in order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is obvious that the Chair has listened to all arguments and does not accept them. In my opinion, the amendment is in order and consequently the question will be put.

Canada Pension Plan


Raymond Langlois: In these conditions, Mr. Chairman, we can speak on the amendment?


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, of course, if there are any comments or arguments to be made on the essence of the amendment itself they will be in order, but my understanding was that the hon. member for Beauce wished to speak on the point of order, which had been settled. If he wishes to address the committee on the substance of the amendment he is quite in order.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the substance of the amendment, I must point out to you that it has been said very often that Quebec will have its own pension plan. On the other hand, it has been said quite often also that the federal government will have full jurisdiction or that the provinces' pension plans will have to be comparable, parallel, identical, in short almost all the words in the dictionary are used to justify the application in the ten provinces of Canada of pensions plans as similar as possible.
But, when some requests are made, allusions are made to the Quebec pension plan. In my opinion, there is therefore some contradiction between the freedom of action that Quebec could have in setting up or administering its own pension plan or the measure that the Quebec legislature will pass, and it is precisely to make sure that Quebec will retain its authority in some fields that I am making these remarks. In fact, a great many people are concerned to see that Quebec is not allowed to retain its authority.
Mr. Chairman, I also call your attention to the fact that my amendment is directly related to clause 6 which deals with pensionable employment. Very often we are told that the pension scheme of an opted out province under Bill No. C-136 must be comparable or similar to the other. Therefore, I think that my amendment can very well be included in this clause, as I am convinced that Quebec must retain its authority precisely under the so-called co-operative federalism which tends to a delegation of powers.
One must not forget also that co-operative federalism should not be a one-way street, as was the case, unfortunately, with bilingualism in Canada for too long. They want Quebec to hand over certain powers to the federal government.
I realize that Bill No. C-136 has to do with a delegation of powers to Ottawa, as in the field of contributions for instance, where the
[The Chairman.]
federal government is allowed to get contributions directly from Quebec residents. This is a delegation of powers from Quebec to the federal government. We have been faced with a similar situation on many occasions, we have seen also the Quebec government, under arrangements entered into following federal-provincial conferences, accept to adopt a plan identical to the one dealt with in the federal legislation.
However, we note that the delegation of powers, under co-operative federalism, and as covered by Bill No. C-136, is a one-way street: only Quebec allows certain things, while it is allowed nothing whatsoever in a field which comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
Arguments of international law are put forward. But Quebec hydro was allowed, under a delegation of powers, to negotiate directly with American states. Mr. Gerin-Lajoie was allowed recently to use-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member in his comments is straying far from the amendment now under consideration. I therefore suggest that he get back to consideration of the amendment.


Gérard Perron: I am considering this amendment, Mr. Chairman. The province of Quebec has said and repeated, through its premier, that Quebec would have a pension plan by Quebec, for Quebec and administered to the advantage of the people of Quebec. I hope the Quebec government will at least be able and free, through delegated powers, if necessary, to protect the six, seven, eight or ten thousands of its citizens who will go to work in the United States or in other countries.
Let them stop putting forward points of international law. As I said earlier, delegation of powers should not work only in one direction.
That is why I wish to point out that thousands of Quebec citizens will be denied pension benefits, under clause 6 as it now stands. I believe, in all fairness, that my colleagues will consider the arguments put forward and the amendment proposed as a point of law as well as a matter of logic and justice, in connection with rights that we are not seeking to override, but to have respected. Those are the rights that would precisely enable the province of Quebec, through its authority, to protect all its people, under provincial legislation respecting those entitled to a pension.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, even if I have to repeat what I have said and after the remarks made by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron), I think his argument is food for thought. The hon. member's amendment deals exactly with the problem I have put to the house time and again for almost a week. If the right to a pension is not provided for the citizens working out of the country, under this plan, it is due to the fact that no agreement has been entered into between the foreign countries and the federal government.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) introduced an amendment concerning lumbermen, and people in various employment, working for a short term, say, between 15 and 20 days. As an example, people who take up fishing. Obviously, the province of Quebec will have its own pension plan. But this time the amendment deals with a province that has opted out of the federal plan and the province of Quebec has stated-it is an admitted fact-that it will not be participating in the federal plan. I do not want to say that the plan will not be the same. I think that the broad lines will be similar and that, in the end, the plan will be identical.
But, Mr. Chairman, do we have to depend on the federal government's good will to negotiate the agreements that must be concluded between Canada and the foreign countries?
A few moments ago, the hon. member for Beauce mentioned some 10,000 workers. I think there are 40,000 people working outside the province of Quebec, either part time or full time. Some of them work for American employers, others for Canadians, but it cannot be said that they only represent a small portion of the population. The injustice is there. It is not the people that must be changed but rather the principle involved.
I believe that the province itself could at least negotiate under its rights, under its autonomy, that means such a great deal to us. I think other provinces would also like to have this right. If they do not want it, they will let the federal government negotiate for them if they are satisfied with the attitude of this government, if they want to wait 30 years before getting any results. But I do not believe that the province of Quebec could wait 30 years. We have already waited for 20 years and we do not want to wait another 20 years in order to solve the unemployment insurance problem which could be settled at the same time and through the same amendments to the constitution.
Canada Pension Plan
This pension plan could also be negotiated with other countries by the province of Quebec to meet the needs of that province. I believe we could settle many problems, and settle them much more rapidly, in this way than through the federal government.
Proud of its national pension plan, the federal government is satisfied to place its head in the bag and wait. We shall not be satisfied with that. At the present time we ask that the province of Quebec have power to negotiate with governments of foreign countries.
A while ago, I heard an hon. member opposite say that the claims or demands of the province of Quebec or any other province would not even be considered. I think he is completely mistaken, because up to now the premier of the province of Quebec or any other official who has taken the time to negotiate with our friends the Americans, the French, the English or the Belgians, have certainly been listened to a lot better than the federal government.
According to what we have here, I want to understand the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger).


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat? I want to remind him that he should limit his remarks to the amendment now before us.


Raymond Langlois: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
I am dealing precisely with a delegation of powers which would permit agreements. Besides, I shall conclude my remarks. At the present time the situation is confined to the province of Quebec, but in future it will undoubtedly concern other provinces.
I firmly believe in the principle that prevention is better than cure. At present, nobody will make me believe, nor the public, that these people will be protected. They will still suffer poverty, they will always be at the bottom of the ladder as they are at the present time with the unemployment insurance commission.
Their situation will not be any different under similar schemes to be set up in the future. We should face up to the facts now. No part of the population should be neglected because of its small numbers. That is not the principle. The principle is that the plan should cover all the people.
The federal government has already been unfair to the people of Quebec in the field of unemployment insurance and we, from

Canada Pension Plan
Quebec, do not like such injustices, and we will not tolerate them.
I hope this amendment will at least free the federal government. Indeed, it will precisely remove a burden from the central administration since a province will then be empowered to negotiate according to its needs and requirements.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, just before the vote is taken I would like to say that the members of our group have every sympathy for the rights and opportunities under this act of the workers for whom the hon. member who has just spoken and his colleagues have been fighting, and we compliment them on the vigorous approach they have taken to this situation. However, Mr. Chairman, I think the arguments advanced to the committee by the handsome parliamentary secretary were quite sound on this occasion, and I believe it is impossible to delegate the powers of the federal government to some other authority. Therefore I say, with great regret, that while we fully understand what they are aiming to do, we think there is some other method of achieving this end, and in our opinion this amendment is out of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are not discussing a point of order; we are discussing the substance of the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite realize that, Mr. Chairman, but I was just explaining why we would vote against the amendment. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member who has just spoken will vote against the amendment. However, the amendment seems clear enough to me. [Text]
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the argument of the hon. member, I would point out that years ago the hon. member had his own plan, namely not to be with the C.C.F., or to be with the C.C.F., which is now the New Democratic party-


An hon. Member:: Or Liberal.


David Réal Caouette: -or Liberal, or even Social Credit, in the 1930's, and in the year 1935- [Translation]


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member be so kind as to restrict his remarks to the

amendment before the committee. We have already discussed this amendment for quite a while, and I believe that serious arguments have been brought forth in favour or against it. I would ask the hon. member to continue this discussion along the same lines.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for reminding me of the rules. However, I only intended to say what I thought of the hon. member who spoke before me.


Norman Platt Lambert: He was not serious.


David Réal Caouette: But he never was a Conservative, precisely because he was serious.
And now, concerning the amendment which we are introducing and which reads:

In the case of a province having its own pensions plan, that said province could conclude the necessary arrangements with the government of a foreign country where Canadian employers would have Canadian employees working in that foreign country.

It seems to me that recently, even with some applause from federal Liberal members of this house, there was concluded an agreement between France and the province of Quebec on cultural matters. Not a single member of the opposition objected to Quebec negotiating on cultural matters between that province and France or other countries.


Norman Platt Lambert: Through the federal government.


Mr. Boulanger:: In the field of education.


David Réal Caouette: Even in the educational field, as mentioned by the hon. member for Merrier (Mr. Boulanger).
It seems to me that this amendment is completely in order, even if the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is completely against it. I met some of his electors not too long ago, about a week, and those people-


Prosper Boulanger: They will elect him again.


David Réal Caouette: No, he will be defeated at the next election.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is what you think.


David Réal Caouette: No, not what I think, but what your electors think, I believe.
Well, a visit like that in the western provinces, in Alberta, makes you realize the importance of diversity, of unity, if you wish, but in diversity. Everybody agrees that Quebec should make whatever arrangements she

sees fit, regardless of what Ottawa or all the federal members may think, because, without taking anything away from anybody, we feel that the province of Quebec should have the power to act in all fields which belong to her, and this is one of them.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue-[DOT]


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have made my submissions on the point about which the hon. member for Villeneuve has been talking for the last ten minutes. The Chair, despite the arguments advanced, allowed the amendment to be put. Therefore that question having been settled, there is no point in discussing further the question of powers on the part of the province of Quebec to enter into this type of agreement. The Chair allowed the amendment, and all the hon. member is doing now is repeating something which has already been ruled upon and is strictly academic at this stage.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, the point of the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) is not well taken. I fail to see how it could be, since he claims we are talking of powers, but precisely, the amendment itself deals with powers. He speaks of allowing a province which has its own plan the power to enter into agreements.
Therefore, I believe that the point of order raised by the hon. member does not take into consideration what was said by my colleague the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think the chairman who preceded you declared this amendment in order, so therefore we can discuss it. As my hon. friend from Beauce has just said, in the amendment we are talking about the transfer of powers. This amendment was first introduced this afternoon at 20 to five. Since then the junior minister has been up on his feet twice telling us that we should not discuss it. The amendment has been declared in order, and I think the hon. member for Villeneuve is in order in discussing it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair has already ruled that this amendment is not out of order, and I think any discussion on this 20220-762i
Canada Pension Plan
amendment from here on should deal with the amendment itself and not touch at all on the other question as to whether or not it is in order. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to phrase his remarks in such a way that he will be adhering as closely as possible to the question before the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, may I express my heartfelt thanks for your kindness in not declaring the amendment out of order. I sincerely believe that nobody would dare declare this amendment out of order since the Prime Minister, and other ministers as well, have stated that the province of Quebec was different from the other provinces and that the other provinces were different from the province of Quebec.
Under existing circumstances we were asking, through an amendment to this pension plan, the following, which I will quote in English:

-the necessary arrangements with the government of a foreign country where Canadian employers would have Canadian employees working in that foreign countrywould be recognized.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this amendment is quite in order.


Prosper Boulanger: It is in order.


David Réal Caouette: But it has not yet been recognized as relevant.
Even though we agree to the principle or principles enabling Quebec to transact business with France or other countries, it seems to me at this point, respecting the pension plan, that this amendment to clause 6 of Bill No. C-136 should be unanimously agreed to, so as to enable the province of Quebec, in certain circumstances, and any other province, in other circumstances, to take such action. We do not wish to infringe upon the rights of others but we want the rights of Quebec to be fully and entirely respected. That is all we seek by this amendment to clause 6 of Bill No. C-136.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Raymond Langlois: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Could negotiations take place between a prov-

Canada Pension Plan
ince and a state? In the transport field some provinces have arrangements with one or more states in the United States by which an additional licence plate is placed on a truck in order to permit the transportation of goods across their territory. This is an arrangement between a provincial government and a state or states of the United States. I should like to know whether the same thing could be applied in this domain, not between the federal government and the government at Washington but at least between the state concerned and the province of Quebec or any other province of Canada which wishes to make such an arrangement.


Edgar John Benson: There are all sorts of agreements between governments which are not official agreements and do not go to the heart of a program such as this. I believe that this amendment should not be approved. Section 109 is the section which really deals with this particular matter and it has already been passed. I would be against approving this amendment.


Raymond Langlois: Would the minister say
whether it would be possible for a province to negotiate with a state of the United States with regard to the problem of Canadian employees working across the border?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Raymond Langlois: Why not?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Raymond Langlois: Since it is being done in the transport field, is there any special reason?


Edgar John Benson: I would think that the United States would not agree to this kind of negotiation dealing with a pension plan on a national basis, and that is what the United States social security plan is.


Raymond Langlois: I am not talking about the United States government, but the government of a state and that of a province. Is it permissible under the British North America Act at the moment?


Edgar John Benson: The United States plan is a national plan which is administered by the federal government.


Raymond Langlois: But this does not concern the United States plan. It concerns our provincial plan. Could there be specific arrangements between one state and one province as is the case in the transport field now? If not, why

is it permitted in the transport field and not permitted with regard to the pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is no state plan in New York or Vermont or Maine or Massachusetts, so you could not have negotiations say between Quebec and any state.


Raymond Langlois: I am not talking of arrangements between plans but between governments. Whether or not Maine has a pension plan does not concern the province of Quebec. Because we have our plan does not mean that Maine has to have one.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that the ministers responsible have answered the question to the extent they can under the circumstances and I wonder whether the committee would be prepared to vote on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct just a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Is he aware that in the field of highway transportation-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. In order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.


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



RAILWAY ACT


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill No. C-79, to amend the Railway Act (refusal of abandonment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to amend two sections of the Railway Act, namely section 168 and section 182. Section 168 of the Railway Act provides that no rail line may be abandoned without the approval of the board of transport commissioners, and section 182 provides that no removal of an agent, closing of a station, or abandonment of

a station or any divisional point may be decided upon by the railway without the approval of the board of transport commissioners. But the act nowhere limits the frequency of the applications which the railways may make in case their applications with regard to any of the matters provided for in these sections are refused by the board of transport commissioners. Whether the application is to abandon a portion of a line, to remove and dispense with the services of an agent at a station or to remove a station, there is nothing in the Railway Act which limits the frequency of such applications by the railway company.
Bill No. C-79 proposes to place a five year limitation on the frequency within which a new application may be made by the railway in the case of rejection by the board of transport commissioners of any application, whether it is to remove an agent, to abandon a line, to remove a station or to do any of these other things. The bill provides that a five year period must elapse before the railway may make another application, instead of being allowed to make them as frequenly as once a year or even more often, as we have experienced in the past.
Now, I think we need this limitation. I should like to leave as much time as I can for other hon. members who may wish to speak. However I might mention one instance in my own constituency, which I believe is not unique-and I believe there are scores of examples that could be brought forward to the committee. There is a point in my constituency on the Canadian Pacific line called Solsgirth, a small village, and within the last three years the Canadian Pacific has made three applications to remove the station agent. When they made the first application, naturally it aroused the community. Everyone was concerned

the farmers union, the member of legislature-everyone was concerned. A meeting was held when the board of transport commissioners sent their representatives to hear the case. There was so much opposition that it even dampened the enthusiasm of the Canadian Pacific representative, and the railway application was denied.
Within a year the railway made another application. The people who had made these representations were under the impression that their case was already before the board of transport commissioners. They forgot that each hearing was a de novo hearing. However, they still put up a good fight and the Canadian Pacific was turned down again. The third time the application was made, the
Railway Act
community was sick of these continual applications by the Canadian Pacific so that insufficient interest was created in the community and the Canadian Pacific application was granted. The station agent was removed and the railway put in a caretaker who was supposed to keep the station clean, take in freight and look after outgoing freight. However, he is expected to work for peanuts. I know from experience that in a year's time there will be no necessity for a caretaker, according to the railway, and they will close the station just as they are doing at other points in my constituency, for example Oakner. Then the service to which the community has been accustomed will be lost.
My bill proposes, therefore, that a five year period must elapse after a railway application has been turned down before the railway can renew that application. I appreciate the fact that the board of transport commissioners has a difficult task. I believe they try to be fair in making these decisions. However, these continual applications arouse the community because in many cases there is no new ground for the renewal of the application. Of course the railway states that it is not profitable to keep a station agent, but the board of transport commissioners always tries to look at the question from the humane point of view. They always give a great deal of consideration to the question of the service which is rendered to the community.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will give consideration to these amendments. I hope the bill passes and is referred to a committee for consideration, because I think the matter is important. The experience through which my constituency has gone is the same as the experience through which most constituencies served by the railways have gone, so I think this limitation should be imposed and I am appealing for support for this bill.


Richard Russell Southam: In
rising to support second reading of this bill, No. C-79, I should like to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) for having introduced this important subject matter for debate. I come from an area of western Canada which has been affected, as the house very well knows, by proposals for rail line abandonment, abandonment of station agents and other railway services. This is causing the people of these areas a great deal of concern. As a result of the information disclosed by the Mac-Pherson royal commission, this is likely to become the lot of rural areas in Canada. Last

Railway Act
year I had the privilege of speaking to a similar bill with reference to rail line abandonment, for which a moratorium was proposed in that particular measure. The principle involved there was similar to the one my friend from Marquette has been espousing this afternoon.
I think the principle he has suggested is very sound. I know that when the railroad makes an application to the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of any of these services, it immediately sparks the ire of the people who are affected. As the hon. member has pointed out, various groups such as chambers of commerce, farm councils, and so on have these meetings at considerable expense, as well as the time of the people affected. I refer not only to the people in the area but the members of the board of transport commissioners and the representatives of the railroads. If the application is declined, as the hon. member for Marquette has pointed out, it seems to be superfluous and rather a waste of time to immediately renew the application. This just keeps the community in a turmoil. The farmers do not know what to expect next, and do not know whether or not they are going to continue to get service with regard to loading grain in that particular area, or whether they are going to have to go farther afield to get service. The merchants and businessmen in these smaller areas do not know if they are going to continue to get the efficient service they have been able to get, or whether they will have to move their businesses.
I think the point is well taken, Mr. Speaker. If and when these applications are refused, then sections 168 and 182 of the Railway Act ought to be amended to include the principle that has been put forward today by the hon. member for Marquette. I hope that the members will support the principle of the bill, and if it is referred to a committee that they will proceed to bring in an amendment to the act. I would therefore heartily support the principle suggested in this Bill No. C-79, which we are considering at the moment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the spirit behind this bill. I represent a constituency that suffers severe damage because of the failure of the C.P.R. to recognize its responsibility so far as passenger services are concerned.
[Mr. Southam.l
There are over 100,000 people in the south eastern section of B.C., and here we have a railway line running from Hope to Lethbridge, over which there is no passenger service as a result of the application of the C.P.R. being granted by the board of transport commissioners. Here we have air service which, during the winter months, can be intermittent on account of the weather which prevents aircraft landing at Castlegar airport, sometimes days at a time. Here we have road conditions where, owing to our usual snowfall, it is very difficult to keep communications open and to provide satisfactory transport facilities on the roads under certain circumstances.
This is a set of circumstances which means that a large number of persons in the southeastern interior of B.C. are not able to travel by plane, have not the opportunity to travel by train, and on occasion because of weather conditions are denied the opportunity to travel by road. This is a particularly serious matter when it comes to moving persons to the coast, persons who require medical treatment and things of that sort.
I am sure members of the house have heard my views on this question over and over again throughout the years, but owing to the fact that the C.P.R. refuses to accept its responsibility to the some 100,000 people I am speaking of, we now have no passenger service on what is generally known as the Kettle valley railway.
In my opinion the spirit of this bill is excellent. The hon. member has mentioned that on occasion the railway companies make applications for abandonment of rail lines. Possibly at the time they are refused, but they re-apply within a short time. This bill intends to make it certain that they must not re-apply before a certain period of time has elapsed.
Quite recently the C.P.R. decided to withdraw the station agent from the city of Ross-land, a city of 4,000 people, and said all the services could be performed from the city of Trail. It said that telegrams and other things could all be rerouted through Trail and sent from that point, whether they were out-going or in-coming. Now we are suffering the latest indignity. The C.P.R. has made application to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I shall now read a letter written by C. W. Rump, secretary of the board of transport commissioners, dated August 26, 1964:

Dear Sir:
File No. 39309.64-Application of the C.P.R. to abandon part of its Rossland subdivision from Warfield (mile 21.8) to Rossland, B.C. (mile 29.3) a distance of 7.5 miles.
In a letter dated August 7, 1964, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has made application as above noted.
For your information, the railway has forwarded a copy of this application to Mr. H. S. Elmes, mayor, 2115 Queen street, Rossland, B.C.; Mr. C. Waldman, president, chamber of commerce, 1502 First street, Rossland, B.C.; Mr. J. W. Channon, adviser to the minister on branch line rationalization, Canadian Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, and Mr. J. Murray, clerk-treasurer, village of Warfield, B.C. and the board has given them until October 7, 1964 to file any representations they may care to make in this matter.
Yours very truly,
C. W. Rump,
Secretary.
In writing that letter Mr. Rump was only performing his duty as secretary of the board of transport commissioners. I received the letter toward the end of August, and later I received a letter from W. H. Vickers, city clerk of Rossland, B.C., in which he said: Dear sir:
Re: C.P.R. application for abandonment of rail service Warfield to Rossland.
Sorry for the delay in answering your letter of September 18 with regard to the above subject.
After considerable study city council arrived at the decision that they would not object to the removal of the majority of track within the city limits providing rail service is maintained from Warfield to the vicinity of the Rossland southerly boundary.
It is felt that in view of the renewed mining activity in this immediate area and in view of the fact that coal, flour and feed and a certain amount of oil and heavy equipment are supplied by rail the rail service should not be terminated to this city. There is 1.78 miles of mainline and 1.21 miles of sidings within the city boundaries. Council would consent to this removal.
Please advise if there is any other information you require.
As a result of the opposition of the city council, the chamber of commerce and other organizations, it was arranged that an inspector would go to Rossland to hear representations. I received another letter from C. W. Rump, secretary of the board of transport commissioners, dated November 27, 1964, in which he said:
Dear Sir:
Further to your letter dated August 10, 1964, please be advised that the board's district inspector at Saskatoon will review this matter on the ground, arriving in that area on December 1, 1964.
For your information, the municipal authorities have been advised by the inspector as to his visit for that purpose.
Railway Act
This inspector went to Rossland and representations were made on behalf of the city of Rossland which, as I have previously informed the house, is a city of 4,000 people, on behalf of the chamber of commerce, on behalf of other organizations and other persons, protesting most vigorously against the abandonment of this section of the Rossland subdivision, and rightly so. The city council, the chamber of commerce and other organizations presented very good evidence to prove that the removal of this section of the subdivision would cause a hardship to the city of Rossland.
This city is one of the highest in Canada. Large quantities of coal are moved into it for fuel every winter, large quantities of oil, and of course flour, groceries and other commodities, the basic requirements necessary for a city of 4,000 people; and now the C.P.R., having first done away with the station agent, is asking to abandon this section of the Rossland subdivision. You can imagine the protest there was against this. I received telegrams and letters from various persons and organizations.
The inspector heard the arguments, which I think were sound and valid on the basis of the circumstances that exist, and I understand he made a report to the board of transport commissioners. I also understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway has the opportunity of going over the evidence collected by the inspector in order to prepare its argument against the argument presented by the representatives of the people who are going to be affected.
I further understand that the city of Rossland and the chamber of commerce would like to know what are the arguments of the Canadian Pacific Railway against those presented by the organizations in Rossland.
In addition, I have received from the city clerk a letter dated February 10 which reads as follows:
Mr. C. W. Rump, Secretary Board of Transport Commissioners,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
I have been instructed by City Council to advise you that the City of Rossland herewith endorses the brief dated December 8, 1964 submitted to you by the Rossland Chamber of Commerce in protest against the abandonment of rail services between Warfield and Rossland.
Yours truly,
W. H. Vickers,
City Clerk.

Railway Act
This letter endorses wholeheartedly the brief prepared by the chamber of commerce after a thorough survey of the need of the city of Rossland for this type of transportation. The question is still under consideration. I have received further correspondence with regard to it and I have been informed that as a result of the continued interest taken in this subject and of the concern felt by the people I have the honour to represent, the board of transport commissioners-
The member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) laughs when I say "I have the honour to represent". I am honoured to have represented the people of Kootenay West for 20 years and I do not back down before anybody in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Fortunately the board of
transport commissioners has agreed that as the result of the great interest in this question and the concern of the residents of Rossland over the abandonment of this service, hearings are to be held in the area. At the present time various organizations in the city are preparing briefs and arguments to present to the board when it visits the area to hear the case against the abandonment of this line.
In the first instance I referred to the unfortunate lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to passenger service between Vancouver and Lethbridge. I am dealing now with lack of responsibility to the people of Canada by this attempt to abandon this section of the Rossland subdivision. It is because of these repeated experiences in my own constituency and in the constituency of the hon. member for Kootenay East, which is affected as far as the denial of passenger service is concerned just as much as we are in Kootenay West and in the south Okanagan, that I rise to express my complete support for the principle and purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk). I am sure it has been introduced as a result of his experience and as a result of the experience of his constituents with the same type of attitude on the part of the C.P.R.
That is all I have to say at this time because I know there are others who are anxious to take part in this debate and carry on. I see the hon. member for Medicine Hat leaning forward ready to rise and support our arguments, and realizing this, I give the floor to

him willingly and hope he will keep going till six o'clock.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: I hate to rob the hon. member for Medicine Hat of his opportunity to present arguments in favour of the bill, but I should like to get on the record a few arguments from the other side of the fence. I am opposed to this particular bill.
I admit that I live in eastern Canada where rail line abandonment is not the same problem as it is in the west. We think about it differently. One of the statements made in the MacPherson report struck me as being significant. The commission said there were some 8,600 miles of uneconomic railway line scattered across Canada. I tend to look at this situation from the point of view that these lines have to be paid for and that they can only be paid for either by shippers who have to bear the cost in the form of increased freight rates, or by subsidies out of public funds, resulting in increased taxation. This causes concern in the manufacturing areas of the east because anything which adds to the cost of shipping our goods tends to make us less competitive in the markets we seek outside this country. So, looking at a situation of this kind, our natural inclination is to ask: Is there any way in which we can get rid of these uneconomic factors.
I realize that in taking this attitude we must not ignore the other side of the argument. We must realize that the local public interest in the areas directly concerned should also be borne in mind and that the needs of the communities served by these lines have to be taken into consideration. The present practice is for the board of transport commissioners to try to resolve these countervailing points of view and arrive at the best possible decision in the public interest of the whole country, weighing the local needs of the community against the economic needs of the nation. The board considers the applications which are made by the railway companies and rules on them, either favourable to or against abandonment. This particular bill would prevent railway companies from returning with an application within a period of five years. The explanatory note states, in this respect-and I will quote it, if I may:
The reason for the suggested amendments is that very often a railway company whose request has been turned down will renew its application from time to time, at short intervals, in the hope that the opposition has abated or will not be so active and consequently that the board will reverse its previous decision notwithstanding the fact that the situation is unchanged since the day of the original

demand. The new application is more in the nature of an appeal, from a refusal, to the same board.
It is my information that, in fact, this does not really happen. This is one of my major objections to the bill before us. It is my understanding, having spoken to the assistant secretary to the board, that there have been very few applications within the last ten years which have been in the nature of reapplications, and that those which have been received were made after a period of a year and a half, or two years or so, when there had been some change in the situation affecting the line which made such re-applications worth considering.
I gather, also, that about a year ago the C.N.R. submitted 75 proposals for abandonment and that out of this number only two were re-applications. Of those two, one had been made two and a half years earlier and the other had been made three years earlier. In both cases changes had taken place in the factors which affected the board's original decision. I also understand that when the board turns down an application it often does so on the understanding that should certain factors vary or change substantially-traffic revenue, for example,-the railway company may bring its application back for consideration.
My objection then, to the bill is that it seeks to cure a problem which does not in fact exist. I am also much concerned, and this is my second point, with the danger of the rigidity which would be established if the suggested procedure came into effect. It is entirely possible that an application would be made for the abandonment of a line and that it would be turned down on the ground that the line was essential to a certain industry, shall we say, that was using it. If the industry that was the sole reason for the refusal of application went out of business or no longer needed that line, under this legislation the railway would still have to carry that line, which would then probably have no really useful purpose, for a period of five years. I believe this is unduly rigid and unduly restrictive, and I think it could work hardship that is not necessary, because again I come back to the point that I do not believe a problem in fact exists of repetitive reapplications.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to summarize my points thus far, I do not think there is a problem, and to apply this legislation would only add to a system rigidities that are not really necessary. Also, another major reason 20220-763
Railway Act
for not passing this specific piece of legislation is the fact that there is, as we know, a proposed bill, the subject matter of which is before the standing committee, and which will undoubtedly come forward next session, which will make major changes in the procedures for abandonment. 1 think the procedures outlined in that bill adequately deal with this complex problem of abandonment, and I do not think we could reasonably expect to pass this piece of legislation, even if it were good legislation, in view of the impending bill being brought forward next session.
As I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the estimate of the MacPherson commission was that there were some 8,600 miles of uneconomic rail lines in the country. As I have indicated, this places a burden on those who pay the freight bills and it places a burden on the taxpayers who have to finance or pay for the subsidies that are necessary to keep these lines on the ground. I think the bill to be introduced next session recognizes these problems and seeks to find a reasonable means of eliminating them, at the same time taking into account and being aware of the need to provide service to the local communities. Under the procedure that is proposed in that bill, the railways will make an application, once they themselves have decided that a line is uneconomic, for the abandonment of that line, and they will file that application. The first thing to happen then is that the board has to verify that there is in fact a loss on the line, so that the railways will not be able to present spurious figures in the hope that they can abandon a line that they do not want to keep in operation. The figures will be checked and verified. If there is no loss on the line, obviously the application is rejected out of hand. But if the line is truly uneconomic, there is a problem and it is up to the rationalization authority to then decide what to do about the problem. The authority, in looking at the problem, will decide whether or not the line should be abandoned right away, whether it should be abandoned within a period of five years or, in exceptional cases, they may decide that the line should be kept in operation for a period as long as 15 years.
In making their decision they will be taking into account a series of factors, which I will indicate briefly. I think these factors cover the problems inherent in the abandonment of a railway line. They have to take into account the alternative transportation

Railway Act
facilities available, or likely to be available, in the area. They have to take into account the period of time required for the purpose of adjusting the facilities of those organizations that are dependant on the line. They have to take into account the probable effect on other lines, or other carriers, of the abandonment of any line. They have to take into account the feasibility of maintaining the line, or any segment of it, as an operating line by changing the method of operation of the line. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they will not only look at the line from the point of view of abandoning it; they will look at it to see if it cannot be made economic and what should be done to make it economic. They will also be looking to the future transportation needs of the area served by the line.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if a line is proved to be uneconomic, the authority having looked at all the factors I have just indicated, including the possibility of making it economic, when they reach a decision with respect to abandonment they have a pretty clear picture of the needs of the community and the problem of the railroads, and they will reach a decision that will probably be the best decision that can be arrived at on the facts at hand.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be most unlikely that railways would suddenly, having had a rejection of an application, come back and try and harass the transportation authority. They have not done this in the past, and I do not think they are likely to do so when this new legislation comes into effect.
So, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks I would say again that I do not think there is a problem now. I believe the proposed bill now before us is unduly restrictive and that the new legislation, that hopefully might be passed next session, will adequately deal with the problem of the abandonment of branch lines. I therefore would reject the passing of this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the concern that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) has with respect to this matter of railway line abandonment, but I am not sure that I agree with the method he advances in Bill No. C-79 to deal with that concern and problem. In the first place, when this bill was put on the order paper back on March 20, 1964, I think there was every justification for this kind of private member's public bill to be brought to the attention of this house, be-

cause this was before Bill No. C-120 or even the resolution preceding that bill was brought before the house. Certainly there is a great deal of concern, particularly on the prairies, as to what government policy is going to be and what will be the actions of the board of transport commissioners with respect to, first of all, the applications that are before it now for railway abandonment, and what they are going to do about anticipated applications for abandonment.
So far as I am concerned-and I think this is the policy of our party-we cannot take an absolutely rigid position that there shall be no railway abandonment at all, in spite of the economic factors that may be involved in any particular line. I know, for example, that there are railway lines in western Canada now which do not haul the mail; they do not have any passenger service; they do not haul any local freight-and in fact they are hauling very little grain. We have to be realistic about this matter, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) mentioned, and if these lines are not being used we should not pay even the minimum costs necessary to keep them there or the costs specifically attributable to keeping them there. Then we have to be realistic and reasonable in giving some consideration to the fact that other means of transportation have taken over the uses and purposes for which that railway was laid down in the first place.
But one of the problems up to this time with respect to railway line abandonment is that there has been no policy. There was no policy set down by the previous government. So far there has been no policy from this government except the introduction of Bill No. C-120. If it is said that passage of Bill No. C-120 is going to completely solve this problem with regard to having a policy, I am not prepared to support that argument. I think we need to have as a national railway policy, or as part of a national railway policy, some kind of agreement on what is a minimum grid system of railways throughout the country. So far these railway abandonment applications have come in on a piecemeal basis. This cannot continue, because we may find ourselves in the situation where some of the railways which were in existence and which could be fitted into what would be a reasonable and realistic grid system will have been abandoned.
I think it is fair to say that the board of transport commissioners really have not moved very fast on granting railway abandonment applications. In fact I think there is almost a moratorium on them now. Therefore

I am not particularly concerned that there will be any wholesale abandonment until the provisions of Bill No. C-120 come into effect. I hope consideration will be given to the people who are going to suffer substantial financial losses as the result of railway line abandonment, and all these other communications disruptions which will take place. I hope that the board which is envisaged in Bill No. C-120 and which is to deal with railway rationalization will have authority to give consideration to all of these factors.
I do not want to disagree with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) over railway abandonment. Nevertheless, it seems to me that setting a five year term between applications is to pass unduly rigid legislation prior to the passage of Bill No. C-120 at the next session of parliament, a bill which we hope will solve the whole problem. So while I agree with the concern that has been expressed, as I have said, I do not believe that Bill No. C-79 does handle the problem in the way which would be acceptable to the House of Commons and to Canadians generally, in face of the provisions of Bill No. C-120.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note of Bill No. C-79 stipulates:
The purpose of this bill is to provide that if the board of transport commissioners has refused an application made by a railway company for abandoning a line of railway-
Here, I make a digression. If a company decides to abandon a line, it is because that line is not profitable or its operation is no longer useful or profitable for the users thereof.
I continue to read the explanatory note.
-or has refused leave for removing, closing or abandoning any station or divisional point that would involve the removal of employees, no subsequent applications for such approval or for such leave could be entertained by the board during the next five years.
With regard to this explanatory note to Bill No. C-79, I understand that in the riding of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), one may see such railway lines which are not profitable or which disappear precisely
Railway Act
because they are not adapted or are not-I would not say used-but conformable to the economic and social needs of our country.
The explanatory note continues:
The reason for the suggested amendments is that very often a railway company whose request has been turned down will renew its application from time to time, at short intervals, in the hope that the opposition has abated or will not be so active and consequently that the board will reverse its previous decision notwithstanding the fact that the situation is unchanged since the day of the original demand.
The new application is more in the nature of an appeal, from a refusal, to the same board.
That is the board of transport commissioners.
Neither I nor my group are opposed to all the citizens of the constituency of Marquette being treated equitably. Far from it, I will be the first to vote for any piece of legislation likely to help the citizens of Manitoba and more particularly those of the constituency of Marquette, since the bill is sponsored by the member for Marquette.
On the other hand, there is one point which we should greatly emphasize. Manitoba is not the only province in Canada; there are ten provinces, and in these ten provinces we have problems with the Department of Transport, in trying to minimize government interference in regard to transportation matters.
We think that the department or the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada is not being fair toward private enterprise or trucking operators, not only in the province of Quebec, but in all the other provinces.
With such a bill, it would be extremely difficult for the Canadian government to set up a dishonest or unfair commission or competition with regard to private enterprise.
It boils down to this-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Bill No. C-79 boils down to this.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock. [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
20220-763*
1206a
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 8, 1965