1965-03-08

Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: I rise on a question of privilege stemming from a news report which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 2 on page 6. The article in question covers a political rally in that city at which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was the main speaker. I should like to quote part of that article to which I take grave exception:
"Not all problems in Canada are confined to rural people," he reminded some 75 delegates to a prairie regional seminar of the young Progressive Conservatives and the Progressive Conservative student federation.
"Who speaks up for the people in the eastern part of Montreal-this garbage can type of member we've got from there?"
As a member representing a riding on the island of Montreal I resent very sincerely the inference which can be drawn from the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I consider them a reflection not only on myself and on the Montreal members, but in the final analysis, a reflection on all members in this house and an indication of the type of sickness which is permeating the Canadian political scene. I would remind the hon. member that his remarks include the hon. member for St. Mary, who to the best of my knowledge has always fulfilled his role with dignity and honesty; and I would urge him, taking into consideration his enthusiasm at political rallies, to kindly restrict his remarks, or at least to have the courtesy to identify the member or members to whom he chooses to refer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: I am
intrigued by this question of privilege. If my memory serves me correctly, it is the newspapers of the island of Montreal which keep referring to the garbage can situation in that city. Indeed, I recall reading an editorial in one of the newspapers last Friday calling on the federal Liberal party to clean up this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If my remarks have caused harm to the hon. member for Verdun or, for that matter, to any individual member from the island of Montreal, I sincerely apologize. But I want to make it very clear that as all of us in this house know, the situation in Montreal does bring blame to us all and I would join, I hope, with the hon. member in asking that all those who are associating anywhere with the type of thing we are now experiencing in Canada should help clear it up. I would think the party to which the hon. member belongs would do better for the public if it did some clearing up in its house at the present time rather than raising questions of privilege such as the hon. member has just raised.



MR. PERRON-REPLY BY PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING STATUS OF QUEBEC

Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the fact that members of parliament have a right to know the truth about statements made in the house by the Prime Minister.
As reported on page 11972 of Hansard of March 4 the following question was asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
Mr. Speaker, the second part of my question was simply this. Does the government of the day recognize the special constitutional status of the province of Quebec?
The Prime Minister gave an answer which I personally heard, which other hon. members also heard and which would appear to have been heard by parliamentary correspondents according to the news report published by the Canadian Press. This news report was reproduced in practically every daily newspaper in the province of Quebec on Friday March 5 under the title:
Quebec has always enjoyed special status, according to Mr. Pearson.
I should also like to quote the following statement which appeared as subtitle for the article published in L'Action on March 5,1965:
Prime Minister Pearson stated yesterday that Quebec has always enjoyed a special status within the Canadian constitution.

Question of Privilege
Here is the answer given by the right hon. Prime Minister as reported in Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec has its present constitutional status inside our federal system, and the government recognizes that.
That gives a very different meaning to the reply. As hon. members and representatives of the press can see, the reply does not have the same meaning. Consequently, in order to set the record straight and to give words their proper meaning, not the one that a person might wish them to have, I would ask the Prime Minister to clarify the reply which is printed in Hansard or to state whether hon. members and parliamentary correspondents have misunderstood him when he said that Quebec has always enjoyed a special status and that constitutional amendments would always be possible if they became desirable.
Therefore, I ask this straight question: Does the government recognize a special status for the province of Quebec under the constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion this is no question of privilege and should not be raised at this time. Questions of privilege are matters affecting either members of this house individually or the house as a whole. It does seem to me that a question of this sort does not fall within those limits.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: There is another question of privilege-


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is based on the right of hon. members to know exactly the reply-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can only be one speaker at a time, and it is my privilege to decide this matter. I have decided that there is no question of privilege. The hon. member for Lapointe, on a question of privilege.

On the orders of the day:


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which is, I believe, of national interest. It stems from his answer that can be found in Hansard of March 4 last.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he recognizes that the province of Quebec has

always enjoyed a special status within Canadian confederation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to that question which I answered quite specifically the other day.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I could not ask a supplementary question earlier because you gave the floor to another member.
The Prime Minister stated a moment ago that he had nothing to add to the answer he gave on March 4 last. If he has nothing to add, I would like to put to him this specific question. Could he tell the house whether all the newspapermen and several of my colleagues misinterpreted his answer to the effect that Quebec has always enjoyed a special status within confederation?



MR. GREGOIRE-REPORTED STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR ST. DENIS

['Mr. Speaker, that has been done.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege will be of serious concern to at least two political parties in this house and some individual members.
It stems from a statement made over the week end by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and which appeared in this morning's issue of L'Evenement. It reads as follows:
There is a secret alliance between the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Diefenbaker, and the leader of the Quebec Creditistes, Mr. Real Caouette.
That is what Mr. Marcel Prud'homme, Liberal member for St. Denis in the House of Commons asserted yesterday during an interview.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Gilles Grégoire: Some say that it is true.
I wish to deny categorically that secret alliance.
Furthermore, the leader of the Conservative party is probably no more anxious about it than we are, and we are no more anxious about making an alliance with the Conservatives than with the scandal riddled party, that is, the Liberal party.
We wish to raise strong protests against such illogical and rash statements from members of the Liberal party, and we would ask them to prove their allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I tried to point out earlier that somewhat humorous, if somewhat frivolous, questions raised as matters of privilege should not be made at this time. There will be ample opportunity, I am sure, in the interesting debate this week to bring out any interesting points.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Since the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) raised a question which concerns me personally, I should like to correct his statement, because I actually said yesterday afternoon before 500 persons of the Lotbi-niere riding-


Gilles Grégoire: Before 50 persons.


Marcel Prud'homme: -that there seemed to be a tacit agreement between the Conservative party and the Ralliement Creditiste to delay the business of the house.
Judging by the work being done at present by the Ralliement Creditiste respecting the Canada pension plan, it should be noted that the only member to have sat on the committee, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron), was only present at six meetings out of 51-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I do not propose to stay here and waste the time of the house. I propose to call the order of business, which is "Presenting reports by standing and special committees".



Hon. Paul Marlin (Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the text of the special message of February 13 from the international commission for supervision and control in Viet Nam reporting on the recent air strikes against North Viet Nam and on the directly related problem of North Viet Nam's long standing and continuing aggressive interference in South Viet Nam which gave rise to the air strikes in question. This report was released this morning in London by one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord powers, the secretary of state for foreign affairs in the United Kingdom.
This message comprises a majority report by India and Poland which deals only with
Viet Nam Control Commission the air strikes in early February, a minority statement by Canada which outlines some essential background to these air strikes, and finally separate Indian and Polish statements commenting on the position taken by Canada.
While not denying the facts on which the majority report is based, the Canadian government believes it presents an over-simplified and misleading impression of the root causes of the dangerous instability in Viet Nam. To correct such an impression the Canadian delegation has appended a statement to the majority report in the hope that the special message as a whole might reflect more accurately the full scope of the problem in Viet Nam. As both the Prime Minister and I have made clear on several occasions, the factor which underlies the grave situation in that country is the determined and long standing attempt of the Hanoi regime to bring South Viet Nam under its control through the pursuit of aggressive policies.
This factor has, of course, been evident to the international commission in Viet Nam for some time. The commission's special report of June 2, 1962 presented a balanced account of the situation by drawing attention to northern violations of the Geneva agreement and also the military assistance the United States was giving South Viet Nam at the latter's request to combat northern interference. I should like to table the main text, in English and in French, of the 1962 special report, since parliament was not in session at the time of its release.
That report's conclusion that North Viet Nam had violated the Geneva agreement by aggressive policies toward South Viet Nam was based on the work of the commission's legal committee, which had examined a vast amount of material relating to allegations of armed and unarmed intervention in South Viet Nam over a number of years. In the special report the commission undertook to take action on the basis of a fuller report to be prepared by its legal committee. Faced since then with the unwillingness of our commission colleagues to act on these promises, we have decided that it was necessary to go ahead on our own to fulfil these obligations.
The most significant conclusions of this legal study have therefore been quoted in paragraph 3 of the Canadian statement of February 13. These indicate quite clearly that the so-called South Viet Nam liberation front, of which the Viet Cong are in effect the armed forces, is a creature of the ruling party of North Viet Nam, that it is their

Viet Nam Control Commission common aim to bring about the violent overthrow of the South Vietnamese administration, and that the ruling party in North Viet Nam has assisted its agents in South Viet Nam in attempting to attain this objective. I think I hardly need underline what these conclusions mean for the theory one often hears developed, that the war in South Viet Nam is essentially an internal revolt.
Both the Indian and Polish representatives on the commission have questioned the status of the extracts of the legal committee's report quoted in the Canadian statement. I cannot agree that a document which has been carefully prepared by a properly constituted committee of the commission, acting on a majority basis, in pursuance of commission instructions and on the basis of material referred to it by the commission, has no status.
The Polish representative has also questioned our right to quote from and append some recent South Vietnamese allegations, which were directed in the normal manner to the commission for consideration. The allegations concerned do not, of course, pretend to be commission conclusions. According to these complaints, however, large quantities of arms, munitions and supplies of communist origin, and large numbers of military personnel have been steadily infiltrated into South Viet Nam from the north by land and sea, and secret bases and related installations have been established by the Viet Cong with the support of North Viet Nam. To omit reference to them in current commission reports would imply that the commission had not been apprised of them or that it was totally ignoring the major complaints of one of the two parties to the Geneva agreement. The commission's silence since 1962 on the problem of subversion does not mean there has been any change for the better. On the contrary, judging by the evidence presented to the commission-and there is a large quantity of material of more recent origin now being reviewed by the commission's legal experts-it seems obvious that the hostile activities of the Hanoi regime have been steadily increasing.
Our independent observer position in Viet Nam has brought us face to face with an insidious form of aggression with which the free world has yet to devise adequate means of dealing. We have seen a new political entity emerge from colonial status only to be forced into a cruel struggle for survival against hostile pressures beyond its control.


In whatever form aggression manifests itself, it must be recognized as such and it must be stopped, not least because we cannot afford to let the practitioners of this technique come to the conclusion that it pays dividends.
This is surely the basic issue at stake in Viet Nam today, and it is of vital interest to all members of the international community. This is what we, by virtue of our membership on the international commission, have established as the lesson of the past ten years. I think it is important for all of us to have this fact clear in our minds before we go on to the next and most vital task, which is to attempt to restore peace to that troubled area. And here I must stress that I do not believe that the answer which all concerned could accept lies either in escalation and allout war or, on the other hand, surrender to communist pressures.
We are all deeply concerned with the implications for world peace, no less than for the future of the Vietnamese people of the continuation of the present situation. It contains the seeds of escalation and the dangers -all too evident to us today-of an open conflict of stark and terrifying proportions. As I have indicated on many occasions, we seek a peaceful and equitable solution, and our efforts are certainly being directed to that end. This is our immediate objective, to avoid the inevitable consequences of escalation. Clearly and firmly but without panic or alarm we must make our concern known to all-I repeat all-the direct participants in this conflict, always remembering that conditions on the ground, the actual deployment of power, will have an important influence on the willingness of the parties concerned to modify their policies. Only if all concerned are prepared to face up to their responsibilities and obligations and only if all concerned are prepared to exercise the restraint for which we and other nations have appealed can we take the next step toward the peaceful settlement which is our ultimate objective.
Finally, a satisfactory solution would be one which adequately protects and guarantees the independence of people who wish to remain independent. The 1954 Geneva agreements were designed to end war but failed to create a durable settlement and lasting peace. Canada has become acutely aware of the painful shortcomings of the 1954 settlement through more than ten years of experience in Indochina, where we have

been forced to observe the slow erosion of the terms of a cease fire agreement.
Perhaps a new and better arrangement could be achieved by some form of guaranteed neutrality, or through a stronger supervisory and policing mechanism capable of preventing aggressive interference from outside. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, this is surely an international responsibility. To discharge it, the lessons of the past indicate that there will be required an international presence involving more authority and more freedom of action than have obtained in the past, and this must be balanced by a mutual acceptance of this machinery and a readiness to co-operate in using it. It is clear that to be charged with supervision, yet to be powerless to check the slow erosion of a settlement, is not enough.
It is not easy in present circumstances to define the framework within which new and stronger mechanisms could be brought into being. While the United Nations might be considered as providing an obvious basis on which a new approach might be built up, attitudes thus far have tended to lessen the acceptability of this framework and the chances of its being successfully used. It cannot, however, be entirely excluded as one possibility. Another might well be the sort of grouping of more directly involved nations which were represented at Geneva in 1954 and 1962. At this juncture I do not believe it is as important to determine the eventual framework within which a settlement might be arranged as it is to try to ascertain whether there is any willingness and real basis for new negotiations.
The Canadian government for one intends to continue using all means at its disposal to see if the prerequisites for negotiation exist, and where possible to help create those conditions. If negotiations can be arranged- let me repeat it is our hope that conditions conducive to such negotiations will be encouraged by all possible means-our extended experience in the field in Indochina will help us to be of assistance in making concrete and practical proposals as to how the Geneva or any alternative machinery could be developed to achieve a lasting and peaceful settlement.
I may say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I have noted the comments made in the majority report by the representatives from India and Poland.
Viet Nam Control Commission


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must say at once that I feel the statement made by the minister does not provide that framework of knowledge or information which the people are asking for at this time. I say this in a spirit of desire to bring about, if possible, a bipartisan policy in connection with this matter. The statement made by the minister was too general, too ephemeral and lacked the kind of information to which the Canadian people are entitled.
I know the difficulty of the government. We found ourselves in 1962, at the time of the Cuban trouble, having to face up to our responsibilities as Canadians. Some said we should have said, in words used in 1922 in regard to the Charnak incident, "Ready, aye ready." We took the stand in 1962 that we should ask the United States, while recognizing its responsibilities to preserve this hemisphere from communism, to act with that restraint with which power that is overwhelming, can always act. To place Canada in the position-that our critics urged-that we would say, "Whatever or wherever you lead we follow," was no policy for Canada.
I say today, after listening to the statement of the hon. gentleman, that I am more convinced than ever that we should have a day set aside for debate on this subject. There are those who criticize the United States and contend that the United States in its policy will bring escalation into general war. There are others who are pressing the United States to go further than it has gone. As the world leader for freedom, the United States is in a dreadful dilemma. On the one hand, if that country proceeds in a way that will bring communist China in to a greater extent than now, and will bring about a greater interest on the part of the U.S.S.R. in the problems of Viet Nam than now, then the frightful prospect of potential war faces not only the United States but all mankind.
The United States has in recent months been conducting a series of raids against concentrations, I think some 4,800 of them. It has stepped up its assistance to South Viet Nam to meet what the minister admits is a never ending infiltration from North Viet Nam and even beyond, I would say, from the volunteer communist Chinese reinforcements. Any action in this regard will accelerate the possibility of international war. On the other hand, anyone who has been in southeast Asia recognizes the fact that evacuation by the United States at this time, in the face of an

Viet Nam Control Commission unusual infiltration and an intensification of cold war tactics by the communists, will mean that not only southeast Asia but the whole of that area will fall ultimately to these tactics.
I should have liked to hear the minister deal with the position of the United States. After all, it has assumed the responsibility, by force of circumstances, of taking the position that Great Britain took for so long in all parts of the world. The United States today is in a position analogous to that of a fly in a spider's web. It is a fearful position. The United States, if one could borrow the classical allusion, finds itself in a position, whichever stand it takes, of the danger of shipwreck on Scylla or Charybdis. I would like to hear from the minister what course it should take, because the risks become of increasing measure day by day.
What course will Canada take? What is the attitude of Canada? The minister has tabled the minority report which, after all, does not go very far. It answers some of the criticisms that are inherent in the views expressed by the Indian and Polish representatives, but it does not meet the problem that faces the United States, as I see it the most difficult one that any nation has faced in the western world over a period of nine years.
What is the United States to do? It is easy to criticize. The communists are doing that; some of their friends in other parts of the world are doing that. Last week at the meeting of the 19 communist party leaders in Moscow they agreed on one thing, the denunciation of what the United States is doing, and interpreting what is being done as a deliberate policy of expanding the war. We in Canada, regardless of our fears, cannot accept that theory. We cannot accept the threat inherent in Mr. Gromyko's words, when he said:
If the American policymakers think they will frighten anyone by their bombings of North Viet Nam, they are deeply mistaken.
What should be done? I think the house should be taken into the confidence of the government, for if what is taking place expands into the wider field of armed conflict, Canada will have a greater interest in this matter than mere membership on a commission or the issuing of a minority report.
The minority report, as I summarize it, is simply to the effect that the situation in Viet Nam is dangerously unstable, that recent
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

events and particularly the bombing raids have provided, and I quote:
-a dramatic demonstration of this continuing condition.
It goes on to say, however, that the responsibility for what is taking place is that of North Viet Nam and its unnamed allies. It is the result of-
-the deliberate and persistent pursuit of aggressive but largely covert policies by North Viet Nam directed against South Viet Nam.
What is Canada going to do? There were great generalities in the speech of the Prime Minister in New York. There was the expression on the part of the government of its desire for peace. There was no answer to the question as to whether there is any basis for settlement that will help those peoples who rely on assistance from outside to preserve them from communism.
There is nothing to indicate whether there is still any belief that the partitions of the 1954 agreement are possible to maintain. Everybody says, why not negotiate? No one is able to give any answer as to the basis for negotiation. If I understood his speech aright, the Prime Minister suggested that we should have another peace keeping force sent, such as we had in Suez, in Korea and in Cyprus. How large would that force have to be? The North Viet Nam army is very large. The South Viet Nam army has some 300,000 men, and 100,000 are being added besides the assistance that comes from the United States. There has been an escalation in the number of Americans engaged there. I believe the United States started out by thinking 300 would be enough, but now the number is up in the thousands.
What kind of a force could be set up? How large would it have to be to discharge its responsibilities in an area where there are so many armed forces? Directly across the boundary between North Viet Nam and communist China there are, I am told, eight divisions of communist troops which act as training organizations for the North Vietnamese.
I expressed the thought the other day that statements such as were made by the Prime Minister in New York should have been made here in parliament, and I repeat that they should not be made elsewhere. When one analyses what took place on reading that speech, the question arises whether it was seriously taken into consideration in the United States. Certainly there is no reference

to it in the foreign affairs section or the editorial portion of the New York Sunday Times. What is this plan? Is it simply a warmed over peace force such as we had in Suez?
We certainly want more than a framework of suggestions. How many Canadian troops did the Prime Minister assure Secretary General Thant would be available? Any? Where are these forces coming from? Are they going to be recruited now or are they going to be taken from the detachments in Cyprus and elsewhere? Did the Prime Minister, when speaking with Mr. U Thant, give any assurance that in addition to men, financial assistance was going to be provided to this peace force?
These are the questions that occur to one, and the answers can only be ascertained through the medium of debate. Did the Prime Minister receive any response to his proposal? On that score I read from a United Nations dispatch, as reproduced in the Toronto Telegram, that the Prime Minister's "peace force idea was as obsolete as a model T Ford" in the conditions that exist in Viet Nam and southeast Asia.
What reaction did Canada get from the secretary general? What discussions have been initiated and with what powers for the provision of the necessary men? Has there been any indication from either Hanoi or Peking which would give any ground for the hope that the proposal in question would even receive consideration? I hope these questions will be answered, for all we have secured to date is an addition built on the framework of the speech which the Prime Minister made in New York on Friday; and I think that speech certainly qualified as setting forth a framework. But nothing has been placed before the house to indicate what is Canada's stand.
It is a terrible problem. It is one which exercises the hearts of free men everywhere. But, sir, and I say this with great respect to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what we have received today is simply a mass of generalization without any supporting evidence to indicate that what was placed before that meeting in New York and, quite indirectly, said by the minister this afternoon, represents a practical solution to the problems facing us. Certainly the Canadian people are entitled to more than this.
I do not belong to the school which believes we should become a caboose on the United States train. I made that clear, and
Viet Nam Control Commission was criticized for doing so, when I was prime minister. On the other hand what is Canada's stand, accepting the basis of what has been said today, but the expression of a hope? I would add one more hope, namely that we shall be given an opportunity of debating the subject, of finding out what is the situation and what contribution Canada can make. France has its view. Forty and more Labour members in the United Kingdom have joined in criticism of their leader, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, for his stand supporting the United States. The communist countries are criticizing, and we expect them to.
We in the western world need greater knowledge than we have in respect to all the circumstances and plans for meeting the most fearsome prospect which the western world has faced for years. On the one hand, are millions of people-and I am not speaking of the population of South Viet Nam but of those in all southeast Asia who have stood against communism-to be left, so to speak, in the air? How long would they survive if the United States permitted itself the luxury of going back on its undertaking? On the other hand, how long will freedom survive if we in our country and other countries in the western world do not arrive at some basis of negotiation which will bring about at least an armistice in a very difficult situation?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, members of our group were very pleased to know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had decided to table the majority and minority reports of the international control supervisory commission in Viet Nam, of which Canada is a member. I would say that after listening to the remarks the minister made in tabling this document I came once again to the conclusion that he is a master of ambiguity with great eloquence in difficult circumstances.


An hon. Member:: Followed by a close second.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I think that is correct. An hon. member behind me says he was followed by a close second in the person of the leader of the official opposition. But I will give the minister credit for being a most genial and well intentioned person.
We welcome the opportunity to study these reports carefully. However, judging by the information we have been able to secure from the press to date we are surprised to

Viet Nam Control Commission learn that the minority report of the Canadian government team apparently supports the action of the United States government in Viet Nam, that is to say the intention to negotiate when it can do so from a position of strength. What does that mean? Members of this group are anxious to know when the Canadian government intends to speak up without equivocation on this issue and support those in the United States and in other western countries who oppose this hopeless and dangerous war in South Viet Nam. When shall we support the efforts of men like Senator Church, Senator McGee and Senator Wayne Morse, as well as responsible members of the press both in the United States and in other western countries?
I may say that a good many Canadians are very concerned about this situation, because they realize that this government is today supporting United States foreign policy with respect to Viet Nam and they know this has possibly become a question, now, of peace or war. I do not intend to speak at great length, but I do wish to draw the attention of the house to a statement made in the Wall Street Journal of February 8 by Mr. Philip Geyelin-yes, the Wall Street Journal
in support of peace on this occasion. It reads as follows:
Clamor for a negotiated peace was growing in congress, among key allies and even within administration councils. In this atmosphere, the latest, most brazen guerrilla blow at a U.S. installation in South Viet Nam struck many U.S. policymakers, for many different reasons, as just the sort of provocation they have been looking for.
I mentioned the stand taken by some of the senators in the United States. Their voices are growing louder every day and support for them is increasing every day. Senator Church said on one occasion:
I submit, with all deference to the state department, that there has not yet been a consistent, clear-cut definition of the American purpose.
The senator goes on to criticize United States policy in this area. So does Senator McGee, and Senator Wayne Morse has done so on a number of occasions, as have others. Then we see in the Gazette of February 19, 1965 an interesting article by Mr. Walter Lippmann entitled "Viet Nam Debate" in which he says:
Apart from the question of the morality and the gigantic risks of escalating the war, there is no sufficient reason to think that the northern communists can be bombed into submission. We must not forget that North Viet Nam has a large army-larger, it is said, than any other army on the east Asian mainland except China's. This North Vietnamese army can walk and nobody has yet

found a way of bombing that can prevent foot soldiers from walking.
Then in another place he goes on to say:
For this country to involve itself in such a war in Asia would be an act of supreme folly. While the warhawks would rejoice when it began, the people would weep before it ended. There is no tolerable alternative except a negotiated truce, and the real problem is not whether we should negotiate but whether we can.
Then in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of March 3 I find the following; the Post-Dispatch is critical of the intervention of the United States government in South Viet Nam:
The U.S. government has said that massive supplies of weapons are sent from North Viet Nam into South Viet Nam to help the Viet Cong rebels. The fact is that more than 75 per cent of the rebels' weapons are made in the U.S. and captured from the U.S.-backed troops of the Saigon government. Only a handful of Chinese weapons have been found in South Viet Nam.
The U.S. says that the Viet Cong (who actually call themselves the national liberation front), are communists. The fact is that most of the Viet Cong are not communists. They have followed communist leadership because the communists led the fight against the Japanese invaders in world war II; later, they led the fight against the French attempt at recolonization after world war II.
The Viet Cong are fighting now against the official government in Saigon because it is a dictatorship opposed by most of the people, and because it has not provided honest government or needed reforms.
The Viet Cong are fighting against the U.S. because we back the Saigon government, and because they want us out of Viet Nam.
. r^'?e Viet Cong are fighting for the independence of South Viet Nam from all foreign powers.


Mr. Byrne:: What does the N.D.P. think?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the hon. gentleman knows where the N.D.P. stands on this issue -on the side of peace. Then, Mr. Speaker, quoting from another paper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the house is very interested in the personal views of the hon. member who is speaking, rather than in a series of quotations, important as they may be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: We are here to give our personal views and the views of the parties of which we are part or represent. May I suggest to the hon. member that he state his own views and those of the party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was just quoting the views of gentlemen in the United States who support the views of the member for Kootenay West and the members of this party. I wish to refer to an incident that happened recently in Viet Nam-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -where an American officer gave money to those persons who had lost loved ones, cows, and things of that sort. They were given $20 for a cow, but if they had lost a son or daughter they got twice that amount.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can hear the remarks of appreciation which come from around the house, and perhaps he would get on with his short, precise, factual statement for which the rules provide.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to say that we know from our understanding of the situation that this money was handed to those people for the loss of loved ones, the loss of cattle and things of that sort. The American correspondent reports that there was hate on the face of every one of those in South Viet Nam who received the money. Mr. Speaker, seeing that you have rather cut my parliamentary corns I suppose I had better go on with expressing briefly our views. In any event, numerous similar complaints have been raised in the press of Great Britain and in the press of other western countries. I judge it is correct to say that this is Canada's foreign policy: Don't rock the United States boat. Don't do anything to annoy our neighbours to the south. Don't take any initiative without their prior consent. Don't do anything about the idiotic, dangerous and hopeless war in South Viet Nam.


Mr. Bigg:: Don't stab your friends in the back.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have read the interesting report of the Prime Minister's speech in the United States with respect to his discussions with U Thant. I must say, personally again, that I think the plan proposed by him was most ambiguous and very fuzzy indeed.
We believe it is reasonable that Canadian citizens should raise their voices against certain policies and actions of the government of the United States which we consider unrealistic and dangerous to the peace of Canada and the whole world. Once again we urge the Canadian government to speak out with a clear and firm voice for an immediate cease Are in the war conducted by the United States in Viet Nam. We urge the Canadian government to seek the reconvening of the 1954 Geneva conference in order to promote a negotiated settlement satisfactory to the people of Viet Nam and satisfactory to the
Viet Nam Control Commission people of the world. We believe the time is very appropriate for action in that direction. What we need is leadership in this respect, and a positive policy.
The danger that now faces mankind is that the war in Viet Nam may erupt into a world thermalnuclear war, threatening the very existence of the human race. We plead with the government to do everything possible within its power now to prevent such a calamity. After we have had the opportunity to read the two documents tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the government will provide time for this house to discuss this very urgent question. This question is of prime importance and serious concern to the people of Canada and the rest of the world.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that words of commendation and congratulation are due to the Canadian representatives on the international control commission for having had the courage to bring out the facts as they saw them, in their responsibilities as one of three members of this control commission, when the other members in their majority report obviously did not bring out all that should have been said about the situation in Viet Nam. In view of the fact that there has not been agreement in this international control commission for the last two years-and in fact, as the minister stated, there has been no report from them since June, 1962-I believe it was the only honourable thing the Canadian members of the control commission could do, even if it meant taking a stand quite at variance, in some areas, with that of the other members of the commission.
The fact that they would be willing to stand alone in order to reveal certain facts is certainly something for which we should be grateful to them. Obviously the other members of the control commission are not free agents to express the situation as they see it. I believe we should take note of that, because otherwise what has been going on in the traffic of arms and personnel from China itself, through North Viet Nam into South Viet Nam, would have been talked about officially long before this.
This is not the time for lengthy debate, and I think we should keep our remarks strictly to the subject matter that has been raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at this time. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I do believe the importance of this question is such that we must clarify it and clear away

Viet Nam Control Commission any cobwebs that may surround our thinking, which might lead us to believe that something else is taking place there other than what is actually taking place.
I would say that the entire military picture in Viet Nam today, which actually amounts to a full scale war, is such only because North Viet Nam has refused to accept the agreements that were laid down in 1954 by the Geneva agreement. If North Viet Nam was not disregarding those agreements and had not, ever since 1954, been seeking to take over South Viet Nam as a communist state, we never would have had the problem that is there today. All that is needed to have it settled is for North Viet Nam to withdraw its pressure and respect the boundary between North and South Viet Nam, and the American troops could go home; and I think they would, because I do not believe they have any interest there except to try to prevent the complete take-over of the world by communism. To say anything else is, I think, to disregard the facts of the case. Again, Mr. Speaker, if North Viet Nam would respect the 1954 agreements which the international control commission was supposed to supervise, we would not have the dangerous situation that we have now.
Second, I believe we cannot allow those who would take over the world in the name of communism to think they can obtain their objectives by the threat of force, by subversion, by infiltration, by ruthless guerrilla war, believing that those in the western world who oppose them will back down and appease. To do so would be a repetition of the events of 1938. In fact I think we are in a much more dangerous position in the world today than many of us realize, a situation which has many parallels with the situation which was developing in 1938 and the first nine months of 1939. Negotiation with and appeasement of the communists will lead us exactly where we went at that time. The hon. member for Kootenay West talked about being in support of peace. We are all in support of peace, but we will never get peace by appeasement. Any negotiation with the communists, particularly the Chinese communists, amounts to nothing less than appeasement.
Therefore we must be very careful in our condemnation of the United States. To say that we are following along like a little caboose and saying "Yes, yes" to their policies is to deny the facts of a very serious situation. While we cannot agree with all the policies of the United States, and think they 
are prone to error when they should not be, nevertheless we can be thankful that they are at least willing to stand up, when some other parts of the world are not willing to-do so, against the aggression of communism.
It is not a matter of numbers which properly settles any question or problem of morality. It has been said that the majority of arms used in South Viet Nam today are American arms. Yet in the minority report which was tabled today we read that over the past three or four years there has been a constant flow of arms and ammunition passing from China and North Viet Nam into South Viet Nam. To say that the Viet Cong are struggling for their own free government and autonomy is rather paradoxical when the fact has been brought out that about 90 per cent of the Viet Cong are not even South Vietnamese but come from North Viet Nam, and many of them come from China as well. Why has the international control commission, including our Canadian member, been kicked out of North Viet Nam? Because it stands in the way and is a threat to the military traffic and action which has been emanating from that country ever since the peace settlement was arranged in 1954.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, South Viet Nam constitutes a dangerous situation in the world today. But what happens if we do negotiate with the Chinese? Peace today cannot be attained quite so simply as that. I say that because, as far as the goal of the Chinese communists is concerned, negotiation with them would mean just about as much as their word meant when they said they would respect the international agreement which was made in 1954. Suppose we say, along with some others in the world today, that the United States should get out of South Viet Nam. What would happen? Do the communists take over the country? What about Laos and Cambodia? What about Thailand and Burma? And what about Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Australia, India? I might go a little further and ask, what about ourselves?
I urge the Canadian government to give leadership because I believe leadership is something that Canada can give. I do not think leadership necessarily means appeasement. I do not think leadership necessarily means barking at the United States, trying to lay all the blame on their doorstep, either. I believe it is time to stand up for morality and the basic things which bring about peace, namely honour, trust and confidence in each other, not only between individuals but be-

tween nations as well. One of the tragedies in this whole Viet Nam situation is simply that North Viet Nam refuses to give that respect and honour to a sister nation which has been officially recognized, South Viet Nam.
And so, Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of our party, I am grateful that our member of the control commission did see fit to make a minority report. We should like to have more information about the entire situation. We urge the government to give this information to the house as long as it does not interfere with any positive program for peace and for an honourable settlement. Again I say that Canada, if she is going to act consistently with the reputation she has established throughout the years and for which she is respected, can only maintain that reputation if she stands up for these things which are right and moral, instead of kidding ourselves into thinking that there is a short cut to any lasting peace settlement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that like other hon. members, our group would certainly like nothing better than to see peace achieved in Viet Nam.
However, the people, the army, in other words the government of North Viet Nam certainly have responsibilities in this war, since it has been proven that supplies and arms were sent through North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam, which is certainly interested in keeping up this war until victory is achieved.
On the other hand, the United States and South Viet Nam are quite prepared to bargain, as long as it is from a position of strength, having the upper hand at the start of the negotiations. Those two groups therefore want to intimidate one another through military force.
On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that the people of South Viet Nam are apparently not entirely satisfied with their present form of government, for they are having one revolution after another, one change of government after another. As a matter of fact, we can see that there is no stability within South Viet Nam, since South Vietnamese are not accepting the governments which seem to be imposed on them and which they are apparently determined to change regularly.
Under the circumstances, what stand should Canada take? Canada, as it has shown
Viet Nam Control Commission in the past, is seeking peace and, therefore, trying to find solutions to bring about peace, not by military force but through negotiation or by sending peace forces in the various countries where similar situations may exist.
As pointed out a moment ago, to be successful such a peace force would have to be large enough, perhaps too large.
A solution remains. There are countries, even powerful countries, in the western world as well as in the communist world advocating negotiations. France, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, are favouring negotiations between those two groups who would be quite willing to fight it out until total victory.
Under the circumstances I think the best stand Canada could take would be to support those countries suggesting that negotiations should be held.
It must be borne in mind, for instance, that the communist bloc is divided. In fact, Russia and red China do not appear to be able to get together on what stand to take.
Both will of course blame North Viet Nam bombardment by the United States, but it will only be to save the face of Russia. However, it must be recognized that in certain fields Russia and communist China do not agree on what stand to take.
Therefore, why not take advantage of the stand taken by France and Russia who are ready to act as go-between in the negotiations? Then, it is clear that the United States would probably have to accept negotiations inasmuch as they have not got the upper hand, military speaking. But then, there would be a chance to avoid an all-out war.
Everyone should not always be expected to negotiate from military strength or from strength, period. If the United States stick to that policy of strength, communist China will come to the assistance of North Viet Nam and if there are no negotiations Russia will come to the assistance of China. That will give rise to an all-out war.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, our group believes that Canada must support those countries asking for negotiations on the war now going on in Viet Nam. We think that at the present time Canada is not in a position to set up with other countries a peace corps that would be sufficient to bring back peace in Viet Nam. That is why we think that the best position to take today is to follow those countries who want to negotiate a cease-fire where both sides would remain on their own position. I am convinced that the United Nations can obtain such a cease-fire. Besides, Russia in the communist camp, and France in the west-

Questions
ern camp, are both advocating such negotiations with the great powers involved. Therefore, the United Nations can obtain such a cease-fire and preside over negotiations between both sides. I think it is the only chance to reach a peaceful solution in southeast Asia.



On the orders of the day:


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he has not already done so, if he will make arrangements to have distributed to members of the house copies of the report on Viet Nam which he tabled today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that has been done.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Which crown corporations have been incorporated by letters patent?
2.	In what years have the said corporations been incorporated?
3.	Were those letters patent modified subsequently and, if so (a) in what years (b) what was the purpose of the modifications?
4.	Are all such corporations subject to the Government Companies Operation Act?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: 1, 2 and 3. The following information is submitted on the basis of the most recent list of crown corporations which appeared in a pamphlet entitled "Federal Government Employment" published by the dominion bureau of statistics:
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, February 14, 1952. Supplementary letters patent dated March 16, 1962, amending the object clause. Supplementary letters patent dated June 17, 1963, reducing from $54,000,000 to $15,000,000 the paid-up capital of the corporation.
Canadian Arsenals Limited, September 20, 1945. No supplementary letters patent.
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, April 16, 1927. Supplementary letters patent dated December 10, 1954,

increasing by $1,600,000 the corporation's capital. Supplementary letters patent dated March 22, 1962, reducing by $1,639,000 the corporation's capital.
Canadian Patents and Development Limited, October 24, 1947. No supplementary letters patent.
Defence Construction (1951) Limited, May 18, 1951. No supplementary letters patent.
Park Steamship Company Limited, April 8, 1942. No supplementary letters patent.
Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, June 30, 1945. Supplementary letters patent dated September 27,	1946, increasing by
$6,000,000 the corporation's capital. Supplementary letters patent dated December 21, 1949, reducing to $11,000,000 the corporation's capital. Supplementary letters patent dated June 12, 1952, changing the name of the Eldorado Mining and Refining (1964) Limited into that of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited.
Eldorado Aviation Limited, April 23, 1953. No supplementary letters patent.
Cornwall International Bridge Company Limited, August 24,	1949. Supplementary
letters patent dated September 19, 1957, increasing the corporation's capital by the creation of 60,000 preferred shares redeemable and of a par value of $1 each at 4 per cent interest non-cumulative.
Northern Transportation Company Limited, November 27, 1947. Supplementary letters patent dated August 19, 1952, changing the name of Northern Transportation Company (1947) Limited into that of Northern Transportation Company Limited.
Polymer Corporation Limited, February 13, 1942. Supplementary letters patent dated May 16, 1952, increasing the corporation's capital by the creation of 2,999,000 additional shares of no nominal or par value and increasing the provision of $50,000 for the issuance of shares of the corporation to $45,000,000.
The Seaway International Bridge Corporation Limited, November 13, 1962. No supplementary letters patent.
4. All crown corporations incorporated under part I of the Companies Act where all capital shares issued are owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada or held in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada with the exception of shares required to enable other persons to become directors, are subject to the Government Companies Operation Act.


RELATION BETWEEN AIR POLLUTION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the relationship between air pollution and respiratory diseases in the Alberni valley, B.C. and, if so, at which institutions, and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
2.	What is the annual cost to the government of this research?
3.	Is the government conducting or planning other similar research in other parts of Canada and, if so, what are these projects?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Under the national health grants, research into the relationship between air pollution and respiratory diseases in the Alberni valley is being supported by the Department of National Health and Welfare at the University of British Columbia under the direction of Dr. D. O. Anderson, associate professor of medicine and preventive medicine, University of British Columbia. This research will be a four phase study of air pollution and respiratory diseases. For 1964-65, phase one is receiving support and consists of a demonstration of school absenteeism and respiratory function in grade 1 students at Port Alberni/Alberni and at Chilliwack.
2.	For 1964-65 $3,540 has been approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare. For 1965-66 it is anticipated that $8,740 will be approved for the continuation of phase one of this study. An amount of $25,565 may be made available by the department for the conduct of phase two of this research which will consist of a comparison of air quality and meteorology between Port Alberni/Alberni and Chilliwack.
3.	During 1964-65, support is being given for similar research and consists of the following projects:
Development of rapid, sensitive and specific methods for the determination in the atmosphere of the following:	Total polycyclic
hydrocarbons and 3, 4 benzpyrene; sulphur dioxide; ozone; nitric oxide. Under the direction of the University of Montreal.
Study of the effects of air pollution on respiratory conditions in industrial groups and their environment. Under the direction of the University of Montreal.
Clinical and laboratory studies of pneumodilation and pneumoconstriction phenomena caused by dusts, vapours and other foreign materials. Under the direction of the University of Montreal.
Questions
Studies on respiratory dynamics in small animals undergoing exposure to lung irritant gases. Under the direction of the University of Ottawa.
Study of the incidence of bronchial disease in various occupational groups and measurement of particulate material in ambient air during the working day. Under the direction of the University of Western Ontario.
Study of the ozone of polluted and unpolluted atmospheres. Under the direction of the University of Toronto.


SERVICE MILITARY COLLEGES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What is the total number of Canadian service military colleges and where are they located?
2.	How many professors teach in each of these military colleges, and how many students attend these institutions?
3.	What is the annual average cost for each student attending such military colleges?
4.	What is the number of cadet officers at present attending courses in various Canadian universities?
5.	What is the annual average cost per cadet officer for (a) tuition fees (b) all other expenditures including board, transportation, clothing, training, pay and other facilities?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. There are three Canadian service military colleges, namely: (a) The Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario,
(b)	The Royal Roads College, Victoria, British Columbia, (c) Le College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, Saint-Jean (Que.)
2.
College	Professors Cadet Officers
R.M.C.	91 and 5	518
part-time lecturers
Royal Roads	30	213
C.M.R. 67 and 4 part-	394
time lecturers
3.	$6,200.
4.	At the beginning of the current academic year there were 898 cadet officers registered in the C.O.T.C. courses of the regular forces.
5.	(a) The annual average cost for tuition fees and related expenditures per cadet officer enrolled in the R.O.T.P. of a university is $480;
(b) The annual average cost for pay, board, clothing, books and instruments for each cadet officer enrolled in the R.O.T.P. of a university is $1,377. It is not possible to determine accurately the annual average cost for military training and administration since these services are shared at different levels,

Questions
in each university, with cadet officers enrolled in other financial aid programs and with university reserve units. On the other hand, a large part of university operation costs are covered by federal, provincial and municipal grants.


NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRACTS TO VANCOUVER FIRMS
Mr. Basford: For the fiscal years ending in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, what contracts were awarded by the Department of National Defence to Dawson Construction Limited, or Dawson, Wade and Company Limited, or Dawson and Hall Limited, Vancouver, B.C., for work in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, and what are the amounts and details of any such contracts so awarded?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nil.


PURCHASE OF COASTGUARD HELICOPTER
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What is the cost of the Alouette II helicopter being purchased by the Department of Transport from Sud-Aviation S.A. of France?
2.	Were any Canadian companies given an opportunity to tender on such craft for use with the Canadian coastguard service and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. 960,350 (French francs.
2.	No. There are no Canadian companies engaged in the manufacture of helicopters Tor civil use that have the carrying capacity [DOT]of the Alouette III machine.


HYDROGRAPHIC INFORMATION, QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Within recent years, how much time was spent by the hydrographic service in determining the levels, times and movements of tides in (a) Slcidegate inlet, and (b) Queen Charlotte islands other than Skidegate inlet, and what was the cost of such studies?
2.	Did the Pacific coast tide and current tables carry a separate table for Queen Charlotte, or Skidegate inlet or any other place on the Queen Charlottes for any year since 1960 and, if so, for which such years?
3.	Is such a separate table as referred to in part 2 now listed in the Pacific coast tide and current tables and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. (a) Between 1957 and 1964, 12 weeks were spent in Skidegate inlet and (b) about eight weeks for the other
[Mr. Hellyer-1
Queen Charlotte islands surveys. The cost of the Skidegate survey was about $27,000 and the Queen Charlotte islands surveys about $4,000.
2.	Full tidal predictions for Queen Charlotte B.C. were included in our 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 Pacific coast tide and current table.
3.	No.
The Canadian hydrographic service is attempting to provide more tidal information from year to year by increasing the number of locations for which tidal currents are predicted, particularly on the Pacific coast. At the same time it is trying to prevent the publications from becoming so bulky they will be inconvenient to carry and use. To do this it is reducing the number of listings of tidal heights where suitable reference stations exist. One such listing which has been omitted in the 1965 tables is that for Queen Charlotte. The tides at Queen Charlotte are so similar to those at Prince Rupert that they can be predicted with accuracy by applying a small and relatively constant difference to the listings published for Prince Rupert.


FRENCH SPEAKING EMPLOYEES AT MINT
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Have the dies used in stamping 1965 coins been discarded?
2.	Will the new series, produced by the new presses, be identical to the first?
3.	How many French speaking Canadians work at the Canadian mint?
4.	How many of these French speaking Canadian employees earn from (a) $15,000 to $12,000 per annum (b) $12,000 to $10,000 per annum (c) $10,000 to $8,000 per annum (d) $8,000 to $6,000 per annum (e) $6,000 to $4,000 per annum (f) $4,000 to $2,000 per annum?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. No. The 1965 punches used to produce working dies for coinage will be discarded only when no longer required.
2.	Yes. There will be no change in the designs for 1965 coins.
3.	There are 151 French speaking Canadians v/orking at the Royal Canadian Mint.
4.	Earnings of the French speaking Canadians employed at the mint are as follows:
(a)	$15,000	to	$12,000	per annum	Nil(b)	$12,000	to	$10,000	<< <(	1(c)	$10,000	to	$	8,000	a a	6(d)	$ 8,000	to	$	6,000	it tt	54(e)	$ 6,000	to	$	4,000	tt tt	56(f)	$ 4,000	to	$	2,000	tt <(	34


IMPROVEMENT OF DORMITORY FACILITIES, R.M.C.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What actual steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the special committee on defence with respect to both dormitory and teaching facilities at Royal Military College, Kingston?
2.	Was not a decision announced in the last few months of 1964 of an extension and/or renewal of dormitory facilities at R.M.C. Kingston and, if so (a) have architects been engaged and plans prepared for this purpose (b) when is it anticipated that tenders may be called (c) what is the projected date for the new facilities to be available for use?
3.	What is the estimated cost of these improvements?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in three parts as follows:
1.	A study of future requirements in the facilities at R.M.C. is under way.
2.	A construction contract for a new dormitory was awarded August 21, 1964. The estimated completion date is November 1965. A consultant contract was awarded on April 24, 1964 for renovation of the dormitory known as the Stone Frigate. Tenders have been called for this work with closing date April 1, 1965.
3.	Total estimated cost, including consultant's fees is $1,689,104.95.


IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES, ROYAL ROADS AND C.M.R.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Are any improvements to dormitory and/or teaching facilities at Royal Roads and College Militaire (St. Jean) service colleges provided for in the fiscal year 1964-65 and, if so, what are the details thereof, including estimated cost, with respect to each college?
2.	If not provided for in estimates of 1964-65, are any such improvements programmed for future years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. No.
2. Future requirements are under study but decisions have not yet been taken which enable specific programming for future years.


APPEARANCES OF QUEBEC N.D.P. LEADER ON C.B.C.
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	How many times since September 1, 1964, has Mr. Robert Cliche, N.D.P. leader for the province of Quebec, appeared or been heard (a) on a C.B.C. radio program (b) on a C.B.C. television program?
2.	On what different kinds of programs did he appear?
Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised by C.B.C. that: 1. Since September 1, 1964, Mr. Robert Cliche, leader of the Quebec wing of the New Democratic party, took part in the following programs:
(a)	Radio: "Les affaires de l'Etat", November 23, 1964; "Partage du jour", February 12, 1965.
(b)	Television: "Les affaires de l'Etat", November 20, 1964; "Aujourd'hui", November 27, 1964; "Aujourd'hui", January 7, 1965; "Conference de presse", February 21, 1965.
2. "Les affaires de l'Etat" on radio and television is a series of free programs made available to federal political parties. "Partage du jour" on the radio and "Aujourd'hui" on television are information and public affairs magazines.


CANADIAN MINT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Gauthier: What is the total number of employees of the Canadian mint who earn from (a) $18,000 to $15,000 per annum (b) $15,000 to $12,000 per annum (c) $12,000 to $10,000 per annum (d) $10,000 to $8,000 per annum (e) $8,000 to $6,000 per annum (f) $6,000 to $4,000 per annum (g) $4,000 to $2,000 per annum?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The total number of employees of the Royal Canadian Mint and their current earnings per annum are as follows:
(a) $15,000-$18,000	1
(b) $12,000-$15,000	1
(c) $10,000-$12,000	1
(d) $ 8,000-$10,000	17
(e) $ 6,000-$ 8,000	103
(f) $ 4,000-$ 6,000	136
(g) $ 2,000-$ 4,000	56 315
Above listings apply to permanent employees only.
In addition, the mint employs at the present time 35 persons on a casual basis, all of whom would fall into the $2,000 to $4,000 per annum range, (category (g)), if employed for the full 12 months.


WAGES OF AIRPORT ATTENDANTS, SAGE SITE, NORTH BAY
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What is the rate of pay for airport attendants at the SAGE site in North Bay, Ontario?
2.	When was the travel allowance, paid to such airport attendants for travelling between their home and the site, discontinued?

Questions
3.	Is it the intention ol the government to reintroduce these travel allowances for airport attendants?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1, 2 and 3. The Department of National Defence does not employ airport attendants at the SAGE site in North Bay, Ontario.


MUNICIPAL LOAN FUND
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total amount borrowed in 1964 under the municipal loan fund?
2.	What is the breakdown from a provincial point of view and how many applications were received and how many approved from each province?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The total amount of loans committed by the municipal development and loan board in the calendar year 1964 was $200,921,482.
2. As given in table below:
Loan commitments in 1964-by province
Number of	Number of	Totalapplications	loans	loanProvince	received	approved	amount app'Newfoundland	36	35	$ 4,211,083Nova Scotia	25	23	4,226,818Prince Edward Island	2	2	55,856New Brunswick	35	33	6,491^792Quebec	250	249	66,763,100Ontario	244	241	55,972,729Manitoba	37	37	9,681,300Saskatchewan	309	299	17,761,856Alberta	49	49	8,528,255British Columbia	117	113	27,228,693Total	1,104	1,083	$200,921,482


FERRY SERVICE, GRAND MANAN ISLAND- N.B. MAINLAND
Mr. Bell: With respect to the new proposed ferry service between Grand Manan island and the mainland of New Brunswick, was a full investigation conducted and, if so (a) when (b) by whom (c) who was consulted (d) what were the terms of reference (e) were alternative routes considered and, if so, what were they (f) will there be a greater cost for supplies to the residents of Grand Manan island (g) were tourist aspects considered and, if so, what effect is anticipated (h) what are the total costs of the new proposed service?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian maritime commission advise as follows:
Yes, (a) in June 1958 and April 1960.
(b)	By an interdepartmental group consisting of representatives of the department of transport, public works, and the Canadian maritime commission.
(c)	Minister of lands and mines, province of New Brunswick; members of legislative assembly; deputy minister, trade and industry, province of New Brunswick; director of the New Brunswick travel bureau; deputy

minister of public works, province of New Brunswick; local representative of the Department of Fisheries; secretary and members of Grand Manan board of trade; merchants and other interested parties on the island of Grand Manan.
(d)	In June 1958, to study:
1.	The steamship service and the improvements requested.
2.	The possible effect of an improved service on the reconstruction of the wharf facilities at North Head and to present a report with recommendation.
In April 1960:
1.	To review and bring up to date the 1958 report, with emphasis on traffic volume and potential.
2.	To consider the practical alternatives to the present vessel, wharves and routes at such time as it becomes necessary to replace the Grand Manan III.
3.	To obtain preliminary cost estimates of the various alternatives.
(e)	Yes.
1.	North Head, Grand Manan to St. Andrews.
2.	North Head to Saint John.

3.	A combination of 1 and 2.
4.	North Head to L'Etang.
5.	North Head to Black's Harbour.
(f)	Depends on many circumstances, whether trucked to island and delivered to consignees, whether shipped loose on board, whether general increases in costs arise and other governing circumstances.
(g)	Yes, it is considered that tourist traffic will increase slowly at commencement of the new service, but with improvement and increase in island facilities, increase should be more rapid.
(h)	An annual federal subsidy of $259,000 for a period of 20 years. Subject to recapture clause. Estimated cost of new terminals $1,392,500. Provincial subsidy $50,000 annually. Assistance under the ship construction assistance regulations which is open to all new vessels $696,950.


FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT, AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL, CAPLAN, QUE.
Mr. Bechard: Is the federal government contributing, under the agreement on technical and professional training between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada and providing for the sharing with that province of expenditures incurred by the latter toward technical and professional training, to the construction of the Gasp<5 regional agricultural school being built at Caplan, in the county of Bonaventure and, if so, what is the amount of this contribution?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes. The federal government has agreed to reimburse the province 75 per cent of the cost of building the school of agriculture at Caplan in the county of Bonaventure; the federal share is estimated to be $543,750.


SUBSIDIES TO MINES PAYING DIVIDENDS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Is there a number of mines collecting a subsidy from the government when they are paying dividends to their shareholders and, if so, how many mines are there, what are the names, and what is the amount of subsidy and the reason?


William Moore Benidickson: A number of Canadian gold mines are provided with financial assistance each year under the terms of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. In 1963, the latest year for which information is almost completed, 42 of the 50 operating Canadian lode gold mines received assistance.
The profits realized by a company which owns and operates a gold mine are not taken into consideration when the amount of assistance payable to the mine is calculated
Questions
under the provisions of the act. Calculation of the assistance payable to a gold mine is based on the average cost of production per ounce of gold and the number of ounces of gold produced each calendar year.
Of the 42 companies operating lode gold mines which received assistance, there were 17 which paid dividends. The companies and the approximate amounts of assistance received, for the latest company fiscal year available, are as follows: 1. Aunor Gold Mines Ltd. (1963), $486,362; 2. Bralorne Pioneer Mines Ltd. (1963), $396,629; 3. Dome Mines Ltd. (1963), $865,000; 4. Hallnor Mines Ltd. (1963), 184,579; 5. Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. (1963), $1,879,102; 6. Kerr Addison Mines Ltd. (1963), $250,000; 7. Lamaque Gold Mines Ltd. (1962), $840,706; 8. Macassa Gold Mines Ltd. (1963), $161,261; 9. Madsen Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd. (1963), $454,000; 10. McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd. (1963), $1,340,000; 11. Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd. (1963), $422,599; 12. Preston Mines Ltd. (1963), $410,002; 13. Renabie Mines Ltd. (1963), $282,009; 14. Sigma Mines (Quebec) Ltd. (1963), $421,000; 15. Sullivan Consolidated Mines Ltd. (1964), $433,353; 16. Teck-Hughes Gold Mines Ltd. (1962), $255,652; 17. Consolidated Discovery Yellowknife Mines Ltd. (1963), $246,917.
Eight of the gold mines operated by the 17 companies listed above recorded losses in the latest fiscal year for which returns are available. Three of the remainder had mine profits under $35,000 for the year. Six of the 17 companies received sufficient income from sources other than their gold mines to meet or more than meet the amount of dividends.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Is it necessary for municipalities to have provincial approval of winter works projects in order to benefit under the program?
2.	Does administration of winter works fall exclusively within provincial jurisdiction?
3.	Does the federal government carry out any supervision of any sort over winter works in the provinces?
4.	What relationship exists between the federal government and the provinces in connection with the winter works program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. The municipal winter works incentive program is established in terms of an offer to the governments of the provinces to provide benefits to municipalities under the terms of the program and is administered in detail by the governments of the provinces.

Questions
3.	In addition to provincial approval, all municipal winter works incentive projects must be accepted by the federal government.
4.	The provincial governments, acting on behalf of their municipalities, deal with the federal government in matters relating to the administration of the municipal winter works incentive program.


INTERNATIONAL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Is Canada a shareholder of the international bank for reconstruction and development (I.B.R.D.) and, if so, what is the extent of its participation in that institution?
2.	As of December 31, 1964, did this bank declare a net profit of ?67,000,000 and, if so, did Canada share in the profits and in what currency was the bank transfer made?
3.	Were the contributions of member countries made in their respective currency or in American dollars?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Canada is a member of the international bank for reconstruction and development. The Canadian subscription to this organization equals $750 million (U.S.) of which 90 per cent consists of a general guarantee of the obligations of the I.B.R.D.
2.	No. The I.B.R.D. reported a net income of U.S. $97,455,851 for the year July 1, 1963-June 30, 1964. To date no disposition of funds from net income to member countries has been made. However, in 1964, of the $97 million net income, $50 million was transferred by way of grant to the international development association and the remainder was transferred, in accordance with past practice, to the supplemental reserve against losses on loans and guarantees made by the bank.
3.	One per cent of a member's subscription is paid in gold or U.S. dollars and 9 per cent in the member's currency. The balance of a member's subscription is subject to call only when required to meet obligations of the I.B.R.D.


HEAVY WATER PLANTS
Mr. Souiham: 1.	What is the estimated completion date of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, N.S.?
2.	What is the estimated completion date of the heavy water plant at Estevan, Saskatchewan?
3.	What is the estimated cost of each of these plants?
4.	What share of the cost of construction of the plants will be provided in each case by the

provincial government, federal government and the successful tendering company?
5.	What is the estimated annual production of these plants?
6.	What is the estimated consumption by Canada of this production and what amount will be marketed in foreign countries?
7.	What foreign countries have indicated a demand for heavy water from Canada and in what amounts?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1. Not known; deliveries are required to commence on July 31, 1966.
2.	Not known; the commencement date for deliveries will depend on the date upon which A.E.C.L. endorses the manufacturing process intended to be used, but will in any event be not later than 31 months after the latter date.
3.	Any information regarding estimated costs of plants within the knowledge of the government is of a preliminary nature only, being that contained in proposals submitted. It is not considered in the interests of those who submitted proposals to disclose such information.
4.	By the federal government nil. The federal government is not a party to cost sharing agreements, if any, between the provincial governments and the companies involved.
5.	Deuterium of Canada Limited, 200 tons per annum; Western Deuterium Company Ltd., 300 tons per annum.
6.	The bulk of the first five years' production will be required for known Canadian consumption. An accurate assessment of domestic requirements cannot be made at this time since the commitment of new power plants depends in large part on provincial utilities. Amounts not required for domestic consumption will be released for sale abroad.
7.	The inquiries received from foreign potential customers must be considered confidential until a sale is concluded.


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS TO AND FROM CHINA AND RUSSIA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the amount, in dollars, of Canadian exports to the People's Republic of China in 1964, and the amount, in dollars, of our imports from that country in 1964?
2.	What was the amount, in dollars, of Canadian exports to the U.S.S.R. in 1964, and the amount, in dollars, of our imports from that country in 1964?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Available statistics on export and import trade with the People's Republic of China (China, communist) in 1964 are as follows:

Period	Value
covered	$'000
Domestic exports	Jan.-Dec.	136,263Re-exports	Jan.-Dee.	2Total exports	Jan.-Dee.	136,265Imports	Jan.-Oct.	7,9252. Available statistics on export and import trade with the U.S.S.R. in 1964 are as follows: Period	Valuecovered	$'000Domestic exports	Jan.-Dec.	315,942Re-exports	Jan.-Dee.	272Total exports	Jan.-Dee.	316,214Imports	Jan.-Oct.	2,171


WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS-REQUESTS FROM ALBERTA FOR EXTENSION
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour received a letter
dated February 22, 1965, from the Edmonton house builders' association requesting an extension of the deadline of March 31,	1965 for the $500
winter construction incentive program and, if so, what has been the nature of the reply?
2.	How many more requests for similar action have been received by the Minister of Labour from industries and organizations in the province of Alberta seeking such an extension on the grounds of extremely severe weather during the months of December and January?
3.	Is it the intention to grant such an extension and, if so, to what date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. The reply dated February 25 stated: "It is not intended to extend the program at this time but the matter is under review and will continue to be under observation for the next few weeks in order to determine whether an extension would be justified at that time."
2.	Two.
3.	See reply to No. 1.


NET FARM INCOME
Mr. Matheson: What is the average net realized income of Canadian farm operators from farming operations, in constant dollars, for each year commencing 1956, using the index of prices of commodities and services used by farmers, including farm living costs, for converting the net income figures to constant dollars?
Questions
$1,165,223,000;	1961,	$1,197,924,000;	1962,
$1,291,796,000; 1963, $1,186,014,000.
It should be kept in mind that these estimates represent income from farming operations and do not include any income which farmers may have realized from off-farm sources.
In order that averages may be calculated, the following information is provided.
1.	Number of farms in Canada1
On the basis of the 1956 census definition of a farm, there were 572,666 farms in Canada in 1956. For that census a farm was defined as a holding on which agricultural operations were carried out and which was:
(a)	three acres or more in size, or
(b)	from one to three acres and with the agricultural product, in the calendar year prior to the taking of the census, valued at $250 or more.
1 Numbers of farms in Newfoundland, Yukon and Northwest Territories have been omitted in this instance, because the dominion bureau of statistics does not prepare farm income estimates for these regions.
On the basis of the same definition, there were 518,250 farms in Canada in 1961. However, the definition of a farm for the 1961 census of agriculture was changed and for that census a farm was defined as a holding of one acre or more with sales of agricultural products during the 12 months preceding the taking of the census valued at $50 or more. On the basis of this definition, the number of farms in Canada amounted to 479,125.
2.	Number of farmers
From the above definition, it is apparent that there are many farms enumerated by the census which are operated by those who would be classified as other than farmers. Consequently, estimates are supplied concerning the number of farmers in Canada, as determined by the dominion bureau of statistics' labour force survey. This survey reported the following numbers of farmers in June of each of the years 1956 to 1963 inclusive: 1956, 534,000; 1957, 513,000; 1958, 478,000; 1959, 466,000; 1960, 452,000; 1961, 454,000; 1962, 415,000; 1963, 411,000.


Mitchell William Sharp: The following estimates of total realized farm net income from farming operations, in terms of constant dollars, have been prepared for Canada as prescribed in question 2,828. They are, in terms of 1956 dollars: 1956, $1,238,093,000; 1957, $1,155,365,000; 1958, $1,330,378,000;	1959,	$1,173,422,000;	1960,


PHOTOSTATS OF INCOME TAX FILE OF FORMER MINISTER
Mr. Nasserden: Were photostats of the income tax file of the former minister without portfolio supplied to any magazines or newspapers in the month of January, 1965 and, if so (a) by whom (b) to what magazines or newspapers (c) for what reasons and by whose authority?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Naiional Revenue):: No.
(a), (b), (c) N/A.


PROSECUTIONS FOR MISAPPLICATION OF INDIAN AGENCY FUNDS
Mr. Thompson: Are William A. Grant and Joseph Armishaw now being prosecuted by the government under the Criminal Code, the two men referred to in the Auditor General's report for 1964 section 47 page 19 and recently dismissed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the gross misapplication of public funds at certain Indian agencies in the Yukon during the years 1958-62?


Mr. Huberi Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes. Mr. W. E. Grant has been charged under section 92 (d) of the Financial Administration Act; Mr. O. J. Armishaw, under section 311 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Grant was suspended from duty May 18, 1963, and dismissed from the public service November 13,	1964; Mr. Armishaw was suspended
September 1, 1963.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked a number of questions during my remarks following the report by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should now like to ask the Prime Minister what response he received to his proposal to the secretary general, and did the secretary general decide, following those discussions, to canvass some of the powers to ascertain whether they would join in the proposal? I should also like to ask how many men the Prime Minister envisages would be necessary to be mobilized in order to discharge the responsibilities that would be theirs in Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I think I should point out that there were no concrete proposals made by me in New York, no more than there were any made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs today. I put forward some ideas in New York, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs put forward some ideas today. I might add that we put forward some ideas at an earlier date, which we thought might be helpful in bringing peace to southeast Asia, and especially to Viet Nam, on the basis of agreed negotiated settlement.


So far as these ideas are concerned, the discussions I had with the secretary general were of a general nature. The United Nations itself was not mentioned in connection with those ideas because, if there is to be any negotiation, it might be that the negotiation machinery will not be that of the United Nations, any more than it was in 1954. However, the United Nations could be brought into the situation if the countries directly concerned so desired. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the question in respect of any particular national commitment does not arise at this stage.
The ideas I put forward have been sent to various countries, but we have not received any comment on them as yet, except from Washington, which has expressed interest in these ideas. I think Washington has described them as perhaps useful and constructive under the circumstances.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it would be premature to talk about any particular national commitment in respect of things which would depend entirely on a form of negotiation being worked out by the countries directly and immediately concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must have had in mind some number of men which would be required to be mobilized to achieve the objective he has in mind. That is the reason I asked the question, because otherwise, I suggest, the thing would simply be fantasy.
I would therefore ask the Prime Minister if there has been any suggestion at all, based on any authentic information received from embassies in communist China or missions in North Viet Nam, to the effect that communist China or the government at Hanoi would be prepared to meet in any kind of conference for the purpose of giving consideration to the inception of negotiations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at the moment which would give me any reason to conclude what would be the attitude of communist China or the government at Hanoi toward a definite proposal for negotiations.
In so far as the first part of the question is concerned, it would be quite impossible to indicate the number of men which would be required in any particular peace keeping operation until one had been able to ascertain what would be the political agreements under which they would be supervised and controlled. If all the countries in the area were wholeheartedly in favour of a settle-

ment, including the two governments of Viet Nam, perhaps the number of men required for such a force would be relatively small. However, this would depend entirely on the kind of settlement reached.


John George Diefenbaker: What countries did the Prime Minister have in mind when he said "all the countries in the area"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should think in respect of a settlement of this kind, if it was reached, Mr. Speaker, and particularly if those who reached the settlement felt that there should be international policing, supervision and control, this might best be done-this is purely a personal opinion-by those countries in Asia and Africa which are closest to the area of danger.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Since there were many searches carried out during the week end in the Montreal area by the R.C.M.P., the Quebec provincial police and the Montreal police, since the name of a prison and the name of the mayor of a town in Montreal north were mentioned and it was also said that the house of a Montreal member of parliament was searched, would the Minister of Justice tell us the name of the member of parliament whose house was searched by the R.C.M.P. in order to find Lucien Rivard, during the week end?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer this question for the time being.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Justice know the name of this member of parliament and does he intend to tell us his name later?


Guy Favreau: I think that the answer to the last question is no, and the answer to the former is included in my first answer to the effect that I was not in a position to answer this question for the time being.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is it not a fact that anybody can at present call the police and ask them to search such and such premises without knowing who is there and that often a request of this kind is made by a joker? Is it not a fact that any home can be so visited if a complaint is lodged?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We read in today's press that last week end the Prime Minister pleaded with the United States-in fact press reports indicate he urged them-not to starve Canada of an adequate flow of United States dollars as they seek to solve their own difficulties in connection with balance of payments. Remembering the fact that we do have currently something more than a billion dollars of an imbalance in trade with the United States, I wonder if the minister could inform us whether he has had any favourable reaction from the United States government?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The Prime Minister was good enough to speak to me before he made his speech in New York. I know what he said, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I have not had any communications with the United States government since then.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce could tell us at what point are the labour negotiations involving those workers in Expo '67, and does the government agree with the contention advanced by competing unions that, willy-nilly, these employees must join a union?


Mitchell William Sharp: The negotiations between the unions, the employees and the corporation are proceeding. As soon as they are completed I intend to give a statement to the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware that at the

Inquiries of the Ministry last meeting the employees refused to have anything to do with the unions?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been keeping in touch with the course of negotiations. There were some employees who protested at the methods that had been used by the unions to notify them of the arrangements that had been made between Expo and the unions themselves in order to avoid unnecessary work stoppages during the course of the fair. These conversations and negotiations, as I have said, are still continuing and no conclusion has been reached.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it the minister's view that these employees must join a union?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would be better if I waited until I am ready to make a complete statement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In order to save time, Mr. Speaker, I have put two questions into one. I should like to refer to the minister's speech made in Richmond Hill as reported in the Toronto daily Star for Saturday, March 6. I will put the questions this way:
1.	Is the minister's flippant approach, considering there are 405,000 persons unemployed, the Liberal answer to full employment?
2.	Does the minister consider the responsibilities of the opposition with regard to the Rivard case a luxury, or was he referring to Rivard's treatment while he was in Bordeaux prison?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I do not quite understand the serious import of these two questions. I do have a standing order which says that questions should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct. I understand the hon. member is, in effect, quoting a statement in a newspaper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The questions related to a direct quotation which is to be found in the Toronto daily Star for March 6. The minister made these statements in Richmond Hill.



TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 1 the hon. member for Pictou asked about the number of


employees of the national employment service who would be working under the Minister of Labour after the transfer on April 1 of that service to the Department of Labour.
The total headquarters staff to be transferred to the department is 140, of whom 77 are employment staff and 63 are what I might call support staff, including administrative services, personnel services, technical services such as inspection, standards and methods, and public relations.



ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS LEAVING ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Finally, Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the house may I reply to a question asked last week by the hon. member for Timmins with respect to services made available to members discharged from the armed services, covering re-employment in the civilian labour force.
The discharge of members from the forces has needed and received an intensification of programs which had already been established as a result of earlier discussions between the national employment service and the forces. Facilities for counselling and aiding members of the navy, army and air force to prepare for the transition have been intensified, and the national employment service provides service counsellors with labour market and occupational information. The services provide detailed information to the national employment service about individual servicemen prior to their discharge. It is sometimes possible to provide civilian employment before the ex-serviceman receives his discharge.
In co-operation with the three services the national employment service has prepared comprehensive handbooks relating service trades and officer employment to civilian occupation, and is now preparing a series of job briefs to be supplied to service personnel on release, to help them interpret to civilian employers the value of the training and experience they have received in the service.
I wish to assure the hon. member for Timmins I am satisfied that in co-operation with each other the national employment service and the Department of National Defence are providing the best possible service to this important addition to our civilian labour force.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister advise the house by what arrangements between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the various police forces the C.B.C. was able to provide nationwide, on the spot television coverage of supposedly sudden raids on establishments in Montreal over the week end in search of Mr. Lucien Rivard?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will seek the information and reply later.


Robert Carman Coates: Is it a fact that the C.B.C.
cameramen were asked to remain hidden until the raid began? If this is a fact, can the minister indicate what precautions, if any, were taken either by the C.B.C. or the police or both to ensure that the "sudden" raids were in fact conducted without inadvertently warning the inhabitants of the establishments being raided?


Mr. Speaker:: It does strike me that in the drafting of that question the hon. member is not asking for information but giving it. Perhaps the hon. member would rephrase his question.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: The minister has stated he will make certain inquiries, and while he is making those inquiries would he ascertain whether or not instructions were given by the government to anyone on the C.B.C. connected with the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" not to make any comment on the escape of Lucien Rivard on that program last night?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will seek the information, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in relation to the summit conference that is being held at Georgetown today among certain representatives from the commonwealth Caribbean countries and about 20220-7641
Inquiries of the Ministry which there has been discussion in the house, if Canada is sending observers or representatives? Will the minister consider indicating the serious interest of Canada and the intention of assisting in the Caribbean area before these deliberations are completed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada has, by the modification which was made in its external aid program, clearly indicated its intention to give additional assistance to the Caribbean countries. With regard to the other part of the question, I may take it as notice.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which arises out of a statement he made in the house on March 2. He advised the house that he had laid a copy of the report of the maritime trustees in English on the table. In reply to a question of mine he indicated he thought it would be a good idea to table the supplementary report of Mr. Charles Millard.
At that time he made reference to the French translation or French edition of the report. Could the minister now tell us what his plans are in respect of tabling the French edition of the report, and also with respect to the tabling of the supplementary report submitted by Mr. Charles Millard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the French edition of the chairman's report is available for distribution this afternoon. In connection with the tabling of the report by Mr. Millard I should point out to the house that the provisions of the law provide for a single report to the minister from the board of trustees. For that reason I question whether the views communicated by Mr. Millard ought to be tabled in the house and given a status that the law does not give. However, I have no objection and I am sure it is possible for the report to be circulated to members of the committee when it meets the board of trustees.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The purport of my earlier
question in regard to the tabling of the supplementary report was so that members of the house would have an opportunity of studying it prior to the meeting of the industrial rela-
1208S

Inquiries of the Ministry tions committee. When I asked the minister about this matter on February 26 he said:
I think it would be a good idea, if it were the wish of hon. members, to table Mr. Millard's report.
I am not concerned with whether it is formally tabled, but would the minister not agree he could circulate copies of this report immediately to interested members, if it is now available?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider very carefully the suggestion made by my hon. friend with respect to circulation of the report.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: On a supplementary question, the minister very properly points out that the law provides for the tabling of only one report, but I am sure that when the law was put into effect members of the house never visualized there would be any differences of opinion between the maritime trustees. However, in view of the fact that Mr. Millard has submitted a minority report, and since I am advised this committee may meet this week, would it not be possible to have Mr. Millard's report circulated tomorrow among members of the standing committee so that we can look it over?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to considering that proposal. All I am trying to do is comply with the statute. I am quite certain the report will be made available and I see no advantage in holding it until the committee meets; but there was the question of tabling it in the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked on Friday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North as to whether it was not an unfair labour practice by Canadian National Railways to raise the wages of its policemen at a time when the matter was under negotiation. I would like to point out that section 15 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act provides that an employer shall not decrease rates of wages or alter any other term or condition of employment during the period commencing with the date of giving notice to bargain, and terminating with the seventh day after the report of the board of concilia-


tion has been received by the minister. In this situation the report of the board of conciliation was received on December 30, 1964, and I understand that the company increased wage rates only within the past few days.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister explain the nature of the forced leave and/or suspension of the secretary of the army benevolent fund, for which his department has final responsibility to the house?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give very much information at this stage. I have not had a report from the chairman of the fund. He was in to see me and gave me the reason why the suspension took place, but I think it would be wise for me to get full information before I make a statement in the house. Incidentally there is no question of anything being wrong with the fund and I want to make that clear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Do I take it he is actually under suspension?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is correct.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF NEW LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: A supplementary question arising out of the answer which the President of the Privy Council gave to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac to the effect that the increases would be announced exactly as stated.
I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I believe last fall he said he would bring in new legislation with regard to veterans before the end of the session. I wonder if he still intends to do this.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I think my understanding at the time was that I would attempt to do so. It will not of course be possible to do so before the end of this particular session but there is always the beginning of the new session which should not, I hope, be overlong in coming.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Could the minister tell the house whether he has finished considering the request of the Quebec minister of agriculture concerning assistance to farmers in the Abitibi and Temiscamingue regions?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are considering it.



EGGS-STEPS TO ASSIST PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continued, serious deterioration that has gripped the poultry industry, with particular reference to the production of eggs, has the government completed consideration of this matter and is the minister ready to make an announcement in this regard?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the hon. member's question a number of times. The situation is that the stabilization board supports eggs at 34 cents on the weighted average. Last year this payment amounted to two cents. This year it is running at around 7J cents because the price of eggs is down somewhat, due to the 25 per cent surplus in Canada, but eggs are supported at 34 cents per dozen for up to 4,000 dozen per producer.


Edward Nasserden: As a supplementary question, has the government any other proposal to put forward besides that outlined by the minister, to take care of this situation?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy and an announcement will be made in the usual manner.


Edward Nasserden: Is the minister trying to tell us his department intends to do nothing about this problem?


Harry William Hays: I had an opportunity of speaking to several people from the hon. member's riding recently. They were, of course, disturbed that he does not live in the riding any more.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: They feel we are doing a good deal for the egg industry. They know we are concerned about it and that something is being done as far as all agriculture is concerned.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the house whether it is true that the Fowler commission has decided to postpone the final presentation of its report?
In that case, will an interim report be submitted?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the last time I met Mr. Fowler he told me that it was his intention to submit his commission's report to the government in April.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) McIntosh: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister inform the house whether members of the Hutterite colony in western Canada pay income tax or whether they enjoy an exemption under the guise of being a religious organization?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Although I cannot give information concerning individual taxpayers, I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper, in which case I will give him all the information I can.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I understand the situation is that the members of the Hutterite colony do not pay income tax, and if this is so will the minister consider special legislation to deal with this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the most efficient way would be to put the question on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



VISIT OF WHEAT BOARD MEMBERS TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforl-Tisdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to press reports the Canadian wheat board at the present time is visiting the Soviet union. Is this being done at the invitation of the Russian government? Are the officials there to initiate more sales?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian wheat board, as it has been doing for a number of years, is following its program of visiting countries around the world, including China and countries behind the iron curtain, in a continuing effort to sell wheat. The board has been performing this function very satisfactorily and it is my hope that out of these current negotiations will come further sales by Canada.
I cannot say at the moment whether the officials are there at the invitation of the Soviet government or whether they are there on their own initiative. But I know what the purpose is.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Public Works. Is it a fact that contrary to the minister's statement to this house on Thursday, March 4 as found on page 11969 of Hansard to the effect that red ensigns would be made available to churches and museums, the minister's department now finds itself at variance with the Department of National Defence and that a policy on the disposition of red ensigns has not yet been agreed upon?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: I made it quite clear the last time I spoke that as far as giving ensigns to churches or museums is concerned, the Department of Public Works is willing to do this. But no policy has yet been set out for the distribution of red ensigns to individuals or certain other groups.


Richard Russell Southam: How was it, then, that this morning an application by myself on behalf of a United Church minister in my riding was turned down by an official of the hon.

gentleman's department on the ground that policy had not been agreed upon?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The policy has been agreed upon, but I am not sure whether it has as yet been transmitted to all our district offices.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Frontenac):: My
question is intended for the President of the Privy Council. On October 6 last he stated in the house that group "D" civil service salary increases would be announced in late winter or early spring. I should like to ask the minister when this announcement will be made.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Exactly as indicated.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman aware that some members of his cabinet are continuing the practice of making policy announcements through the defeated Liberal candidate, contrary to his public statement that political manoeuvres of this sort would be stopped?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker.


Edison John Clayton Loney: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has announced through the defeated Liberal candidate in Bruce that a contribution has been approved to help finance the construction of the new Earl R. Harris Red Cross hospital at Lion's Plead?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not call that a policy statement.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday last clause 6 of the bill was being considered with an amendment thereto by the hon. member for Beauce.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, following the debate of last Friday and certain statements made today in this chamber, I must be more explicit on some points concerning the amendment and its bearing.
In opposition to what the newspapers reported during the week end, the amendment is devised only to allow a province, which exercises its constitutional right, to legislate in the field of social security, and more particularly concerning contributory benefits, and not to allow all the provinces to legislate or to negotiate agreements with other provinces.
Therefore, while we are studying this amendment, I wish to state strongly that this bill was presented to us mostly as a measure concerning nine provinces of Canada. This is obvious if we refer to what has been said on several occasions since the house unanimously adopted the principle of this bill on first and second reading. Besides I wish to make a correction in that respect. When the resolution was presented, nine members of the Ralliement Creditistes in the house voted against it-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the amendment he moved and which is now under consideration.


Gérard Perron: That is precisely what I am doing. We claim under this amendment that Quebec, the only province which does not accept Bill No. C-136 in general, is entitled to conclude agreements with foreign states. We were often told that Quebec would have its own plan. We had nine who voted against the principle of compulsion and contributions included in this Bill No. C-138. I wish to make this correction, because it was often said that this was adopted unanimously when second reading was given in this house.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare claimed that we should proceed rapidly because this bill is very long, very complicated and concerns mostly the nine English speaking provinces of Canada.
Then, Mr. Chairman, if you refer to previous discussions, you will see that we abstained from voting in order not to delay the study of Bill No. C-136 in committee, so it could be passed in the interests of the
Canada Pension Plan
provinces who desired it. But we did not admit that this bill deprived citizens from the province of Quebec which will soon pass legislation in the field of social security.
Now that this bill has been sent back, we find that many of its sections are in complete contradiction with the Canadian constitution.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment, which you stated to be in order, is to protect the rights of Quebec. It was admitted that legislation concerning old age security, on a contributory basis, came under the provinces, but that parliament, and therefore the House of Commons, had passed an amendment to the constitution. It v/as not said, however, that this would be a contributory plan, but that its purpose was to establish in Canada a pension plan which, according to the white paper, would permit the largest possible number of Canadians to retire with security and dignity. There was no question of contribution and obligation, there was no question either of an accumulated fund totalling $7 to $8 billion for the nine provinces directly involved in the bill in question.
But who has the right to legislate in this way?
I submit that my amendment is very important. Today, the Liberal members from the province of Quebec keep quiet, and even pretend that the member for Beauce acts in collusion with the Conservative party in order to delay the passing of this bill. Those members will certainly be blamed by their constituents for having allowed once more, by the passage of this bill, the citizens of the province of Quebec and their government to be deprived of the right to enjoy fully, totally and without limitation what has been recognized by them, for many years, by the constitution.
I might add, to prove my point, that this legislation is a purely provincial one. My amendment is important. In 1941, if I remember correctly, the constitution had to be amended to enable the federal government to legislate in the field of labour security by the establishment of a contributory unemployment insurance scheme. This could be an important case in point, because the authorization we gave could also apply to Bill No. C-136.
I maintain that the federal government is incapacitated in this matter, but not from a legal point of view. I know that, under the 1941 amendment, it is authorized to negotiate agreements with the states of Maine, Vermont or any foreign states to enable

Canada Pension Plan
people from Quebec to benefit from unemployment insurance. But I maintain that we have here a case of political incapacity.
It is probably because of political interest that every year for 24 or 25 years, about 6,000, 7,000 or 8,000 people lose their right to unemployment insurance benefits because the federal government alone was authorized to legislate and to enter into agreements with foreign countries concerning the social security of workers.
That is why I maintain that the province of Quebec should be given the right to negotiate with foreign provinces concerning its pension plan. Bill No. C-136 must stipulate specifically that the province of Quebec has the right to negotiate freely. This would not create a precedent; there has already been a precedent in that matter not later than last week. In fact, France considered that, from a legal standpoint, the province of Quebec had in the field of education the exclusive right to negotiate or to enter into an agreement concerning the exchange of professors between the province of Quebec, through its minister of education, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, and France, through its representative, Mr. Fouchet.
Hence we would not create a precedent by allowing, through an amendment to Bill No. C-136, the province of Quebec to negotiate by itself.
I shall quote professors of constitutional law, concerning a strictly Canadian and not foreign political matter, in support of the validity and the importance of my amendment. Mr. Jean Yves Morin, professor of constitutional law, precisely commented on what I was telling you concerning the agreement entered into between Mr. Gerin-Lajoie and Mr. Fouchet, on behalf of France and the French government.
In accusing Mr. Morin-
The international law expert who was addressing some 50 students at a meeting convened by the international relations club of the University of Montreal urged the students to take a deeper interest in matters of Quebec international relations, the Gerin-Lajoie-Fouchet agreement being, to his mind, a precedent that should be repeated.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is departing from the matter once again when he discusses in general terms international relations between the province of Quebec and foreign countries.
I appreciate that the amendment moved by the hon. member concerns that matter in general, but I do not think he should go too far in discussing this aspect of the problem.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have brought before the committee of the whole house an amendment requesting that international agreements be concluded between the government of the province of Quebec and foreign governments concerning this pension plan.
On one hand, it is said that it is not proper for Quebec to conclude such agreements and all my colleague, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) is attempting to prove, is that such agreements were concluded in the past and to substantiate his claim he brings forward precedents to support the amendment he brought before the house.
Second, he quotes constitutional law professors to show that international agreements between the province of Quebec and other countries are possible.
What the hon. member for Beauce endeavours to do is quite simple: he tries to prove that his amendment is pertinent from a constitutional standpoint.
In my opinion, it would be normal then to let the hon. member for Beauce give this evidence before the committee, especially as some people try to deny the constitutional value of such international agreements, and that is what the hon. member for Beauce endeavours to prove today.
That is why I would ask you to give him the opportunity to prove that such agreements are consistent with the constitution, by precedents and statements of experts in constitutional law. On this side of the house he is the only one who can do it, and that is why I claim that his remarks are in order.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair already allowed the hon. member for Beauce to present arguments along those lines. Last Friday he did so at great length and he is doing so at length this afternoon, but he must nevertheless exert some self-discipline in the arguments he submits to the committee.
I would ask him to refer to the directives contained in standing order No. 59 which stipulates that in committee the discussion must strictly refer to the matter under consideration.


Gérard Perron: Then I will refer to my amendment, since I must absolutely restrict myself to that matter.
I want to point out the situation of the province of Quebec as far as Bill No. C-136 is concerned.
I am referring once more to Jean Yves Morin, a professor of constitutional law-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Keep on.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Morin deplores the problem Quebec is lacing at the present time: full capacity in the educational field, no capacity whatsoever in the international field. '
I would add:	full capacity as regards
social security legislation in the matter of benefits resulting from contributions, and no capacity whatsoever as regards international law.
And now here is the ambiguous aspect. Let us see the intricate situation in which this Bill No. C-136 once more puts the province of Quebec.
If your amendment is not accepted we shall depend entirely and exclusively on Ottawa-I have quoted precedents where the rights of the Quebec citizens were frustrated as concerns unemployment insurance, and, as a matter of fact, these people have made no claims in this respect for a couple of years.
Has the Minister of Labour some news indicating whether some agreements were concluded or will be concluded with the state of Maine to protect the forestry workers of the province of Quebec? The unemployment insurance commission has been in existence for 24 years, and the Liberal and Conservative governments succeeded to each other, and referring-*


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are presently discussing the pensions legislation and not the Unemployment Insurance Act. I once more invite him to limit his remarks to the question under consideration.


Gérard Perron: I do understand, Mr. Chairman, but I am quoting an example to bring home how we bind without noticing it, and to what degree the Liberal members from the province of Quebec are presently letting the citizens of that province bind in advance Bill No. C-136, in its present form.
I find it strange that those valiant champions of the interests of the province of Quebec, who are certainly more eloquent in public meetings-as was the case last Sunday in Lotbiniere constituency-who are then full of fire in defending the interests of the province of Quebec and its citizens, will not take their defence before the house in supporting this amendment.
This amendment is absolutely necessary. The problem relating to Quebec, regarding a 20220-765
Canada Pension Plan
right which is hers alone, was pointed out by professors of constitutional law.
And if agreements or precedents have been established, here is what Mr. Morin says: "In that case, is a precedent which should be repeated".
Also, in view of the fact that the province of Quebec has no jurisdiction whatever at the international level-a problem which also concerns in a different way the federal government-he says:
-the power to sign agreements in all fields, but the impossibility of implementing them in the provinces, when they deal with matters assigned to the latter by the constitution.
Well, we have precisely a problem which is exclusive to the province of Quebec, the exercise of a constitutional right, the right to legislate according to its needs by passing its own legislation.
A contributory pension scheme. It is a recognized fact.
An amendment was even introduced to seek authorization for its establishment.
As has already been pointed out, we did not object to the pension plan for the nine other provinces but if it is a question of defending the interests of the province of Quebec and of our fellow citizens and of protecting the constitutional prerogatives of our legislature, we will fight valiantly and will surely defend the rights which others would readily relinquish to the federal authorities.
I would not want to be malicious but I say that the special status of Quebec must not be invoked only for electoral purposes; it must be set down in our statutes, both federal and provincial.
For, if the province of Quebec, under Bill No. C-136, has the privilege of establishing its own pension plan, administering its own funds derived from contributions under the provisions of this bill, I believe that it should have full authority and powers to negotiate with any country and particularly with the countries adjacent to its own borders.
We had too much evidence of the political inefficiency-and mind you I say political inefficiency and not legal incapacity-of the government of Ottawa in guaranteeing the citizens of the province of Quebec their full rights in this matter.
That is why I am determined to fight as long as it is possible so this amendment may be understood at long last by the representatives of the other parties of the province of Quebec whose duty it is also to express their opinions-not their personal point of view, if

Canada Pension Plan
they do not wish so, but that of their con-stitutents.
I know that the population of every constituency in the province of Quebec wishes that, as we say, a plan be applied by Quebec, for Quebec and in the best interests of all Quebeckers.
Then, if the best interests of Quebeckers are to be served, in my opinion, it is high time that the importance of the amendment which I submitted to the committee be taken into consideration.
At the outset, when I introduced my amendment, I believe that I stated before the committee that none of its provisions was detrimental to the interests of the nine other provinces. That is why we did not vote on the first and second readings of this bill, in order that those who wished to take advantage or have the people of other provinces take advantage of the provisions of this bill as soon as possible, if they so desired, be not deprived thereof.
But to allow the rights of Quebec to be infringed upon, crushed or disregarded, that is another story. That is something else.
It is not enough to say that everything needed by the province of Quebec is included in this bill. I believe that we are fully justified in moving this amendment. Unlike what some people claim, we do not want to block this bill or to postpone indefinitely its passage, but we want justice for the government of the province of Quebec as well as for its citizens.
At the present time the citizens of many constituencies of the province of Quebec-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for his time has now expired.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) or to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), as they choose.
In the case of Quebec citizens going to work in the state of Maine or on the limits or borders of the province of Quebec but in another country, should Quebec, as master of its own pension plan, wish to negotiate arrangements with those other countries or with those foreign employers, who would negotiate on behalf of Quebec so as to have these Quebec employees covered by the Quebec pension plan? Can the minister answer that question?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Chairman, one must consider that the negotiations would have to be carried on with the federal government in the United States, because we would be dealing with a national social security system in the United States. In these circumstances the federal government of Canada would negotiate with the federal government of the United States. If my hon. friend would refer to clause 109, which this committee has already passed, he will see that at the request of the government of the province of Quebec the federal government may also negotiate on behalf of the government of the province of Quebec in order to include these people.


Gilles Grégoire: That is precisely the point I want to make clear. I am told that, as regards this pension plan, the federal government will be able to negotiate with the United States government on behalf of the province of Quebec. That is exactly where it remains a sword of Damocles over Quebec's head, because if, with regard to the pension plan, Ottawa should decide to impose certain conditions on Quebec before negotiating on its behalf, what will happen? Quebec will not be able to do anything.
If, on the other hand, Quebec sets up its own pension plan, why should not the government be in a position to negotiate itself those agreements concerning its own pension plan?
Mr. Chairman, we remember very well what happened in the case of the Columbia river treaty, which dealt with a natural resource under provincial jurisdiction. The federal authorities insisted on negotiating on behalf of the provincial government. What was the result? A tremendous failure for several years. That is when the federal government tried to impose its own conditions on the provincial government. Fortunately, the government of British Columbia was not too greatly impressed.
But when the situation is such that mutual friends find themselves in each place, both in Quebec city and in Ottawa, what happens? Provincial autonomy is the loser. The end result is exactly the same in the case of the pension plan. Ottawa will negotiate on behalf of Quebec those agreements concerning Quebec's pension plan. So, that social security measure is no longer under the sole jurisdiction of Quebec, since Ottawa assumes the

right, not to ask Quebec, but to negotiate with foreign countries on behalf of Quebec.
Why does the federal government insist on maintaining the situation? Why should not the federal government let Quebec keep the privilege and the right to negotiate those agreements dealing with a social security measure such as the pension plan operated by the province of Quebec, conceived by the province of Quebec for the people of Quebec and paid for by the people of Quebec?
Why does Ottawa refuse Quebec the privilege of negotiating its own agreements? Is it the intention of Ottawa to act as it did in the past?
A few moments ago the hon. member for Beauce mentioned the fact that the federal government could not enter into negotiations with the Quebec woodsmen who work in the state of Maine. This is not inability, it is ineptitude and incompetency when, after so many years, nothing has been done.
Those past examples compel and oblige us to pursue the struggle when new measures are brought before us. In the light of past experience, we must fight in order that Quebec may negotiate its own agreements, because the federal government was always inefficient and negligent in negotiating agreements on behalf of Quebec. Because the federal government cannot, did not want or neglected to do it in the past, we would like Quebec to be authorized to negotiate its own agreements in that field.
This represents a large portion of the woodsmen working in the forests of the counties of Beauce, Dorchester, Montmagny, Bona-venture, etc., and who are employed in the United States as woodsmen and fishermen during other periods of the year. They are quite numerous. Why should those citizens not enjoy the same rights and privileges as are granted the other citizens of Quebec? They do not enjoy them because Ottawa did not, and does not even at this moment, consider it its duty to negotiate such agreements.
How many questions did we not ask in this house on that matter? That is why we fear about the future. How many times have members of our group asked the Minister of Labour if those negotiations were about to be concluded? We were told: "We do not know exactly".
That was three years ago and they do not know yet. But for the future, what will happen? That is precisely what is feared, and with some reason, because past experience has proven that the federal government never went out of its way to negotiate agreements 20220-765J
Canada Pension Plan
when they only involve a group of citizens in a province, and especially when it is the province of Quebec.
I wonder why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is so bent on keeping that privilege for herself. Could not the Minister of National Health and Welfare give the provinces, under this legislation, the right to negotiate such agreements? That is what we ask for. I think it is legitimate, and I am amazed to see that other Quebec members of the Liberal party, for instance the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger), remained silent while so many of their constituents who work in the woods of Maine and do not get any unemployment insurance benefits are already affected.
Some remain silent when the time has come to demand-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member has had the floor for some ten minutes and during at least eight of those ten minutes, he discussed unemployment insurance. I appreciate that he may make reference to those other problems, by way of a comparison, but it seems to me that this system of argument has been stretched too far. Therefore, I ask him to cooperate with the Chair and with other members of the committee and to conclude his argument as concisely as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it would be a pleasure for me to send you a volume by the Theriault brothers, Jerome and Georges, two great historians who argue that the future is built on past experience. The history of the past is used to build the future. That is why we discuss what happened in the past and we try to avoid the same disasters and calamities because legislation was passed without an exhaustive consideration while if it had been closely looked into, the results would have been different.
In any case, I said and I repeat that it is a vital point to include in this Bill No. C-136 the right for certain provinces to negotiate themselves with foreign countries in regard to pension plans, especially when it concerns the citizens of Quebec who work abroad, provided that those foreign employers hire Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out a while ago, I am surprised that there should not be more Quebec Liberal members rise and make this point, since it is one of the most important-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The present remarks of the hon. member are out of order.

Canada Pension Plan


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to induce some of our colleagues opposite to join us in this struggle. I believe there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear, and that is why they remain silent.
Therefore, I am appealing for the last time to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is not going to take anything away from the Canada pension plan, it will not destroy in any way whatsoever the agreements that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will wish to conclude with the other provinces. It will take absolutely nothing away from citizens of Ontario, of the maritime provinces or of western Canada.
What surprises me most is that they do not support our claims. We do not want to take anything away from anyone. We simply seek something which we feel is rightfully ours. We merely ask that Quebec be authorized to sign agreements with other provinces, and if there is anything wrong with those agreements, the blame will fall directly on the provincial government, and not the federal government, which has absolutely no responsibility with respect to the pension scheme which will be set up in Quebec. It has often been said that Ottawa will not force its pension plan on Quebec. Consequently, the federal authorities will have no responsibility in that field; it will be none of their business. They will not have to negotiate on behalf of the province, since that will not be included in their normal duties.
Then, why not delegate that power to Quebec? Why not let Quebec handle the negotiations for such agreements?
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to kindly accept those proposals which, I am sure, would get the support of Quebec citizens in general.
Before I resume my seat, I call upon all Quebec members not to be afraid to stand up and ask for what we are seeking to get for the Quebec pension scheme.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lafontaine.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to make a few brief remarks after the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) had resumed his seat, and I can assure the house that it is not as a result of the invitation of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that I am taking part in this debate now.
[The Chairman.]
Mr. Chairman, I had always thought that the hon. members for Beauce, Lapointe and their Creditistes colleagues were as interested as the Liberal members in the provinces' autonomy, and more particularly in the autonomy of the province of Quebec, and I am wondering how it is that they, who were so much in favour of the provinces' autonomy-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I suggest the hon. member for Lafontaine restrict his remarks to the subject of the amendment now under consideration.
As I mentioned a while ago to the hon. member for Lapointe, what the other members of the committee think or say is not really pertinent to the discussion. In the circumstances, I ask the hon. member for Lafontaine to restrict his remarks to the amendment now before us.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, I will stick to the amendment under study and to what I intended to say.
The pension plan now before us entitles any province to set up its own pension plan, and if the federal government included in its bill a clause which would allow it to do some things peculiar to the provinces, I feel that it would interfere with provincial autonomy.


Lucien Plourde: That is what it does.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this government still considers-and I hope that it will continue to do so for a long time-that there must be in Canada an authority in charge of international relations with foreign countries, either in the name of Canada or in the name of some provinces.
Earlier the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) mentioned that clause 109 of Bill No. C-136 allowed a province to ask the federal government to make the necessary representations to any other foreign government, in order to negotiate agreements which might interest that province in some field, such as a pension plan.
I may be wrong, but I still believe that there must be in Canada a responsible authority as concerns other countries, in the field of international relations.
If, at a certain time, the province of Quebec wants to ask the federal government to initiate talks for the settlement of the problem mentioned in the amendment, I am convinced that this government would act as it has done in the past. Besides, I do not believe that foreign governments might be very interested in negotiating with representatives other than

those of the federal government in any field respecting international relations.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, further to the remarks made by the previous speaker, I admit that under clause 109 of Bill No. C-136 the federal authorities may negotiate on behalf of a province, if requested to do so, reciprocal agreements with other countries. But that does not mean that Quebec has to make such a request, because the bill has not been passed yet. Consequently, arguments to the effect that the provisions of clause 109 prove precisely what is provided by the amendment to clause 6 are not pertinent to the debate on the amendment I have proposed.
Furthermore, when the hon. member says that surely foreign governments will not be as anxious to negotiate with a province as they would be with the federal government, it is obvious that if the latter does not recognize nor authorize a province, under federal legislation, or does not amend clause 6, it is obvious, as I say, that the state of Maine or the American government, in fact any government, will not be too anxious to negotiate with a province.
But the amendment is so worded as to permit the province of Quebec to enter into agreements with foreign countries, freely, voluntarily and with no reluctance whatever on their part, in short, so they will not be under the impression of violating the universally recognized right to negotiate with the federal authorities in this field.
I again repeat that the Quebec pension plan is strictly under provincial jurisdiction-
Chairman: As the hon. member just said himself, he is repeating his arguments, and I would remind him that, under standing orders, he may not repeat arguments, especially when they have already been presented by the hon. member himself.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I shall not repeat my remarks, but I maintain that Bill No. C-136 is contrary to the proposed Quebec legislation concerning a contributory pension plan.
We often refer to agreements which have been entered into or to meetings which have been held. Quebec representatives have their own correspondents in Ottawa in the field of justice and in many other fields.
Mr. Chairman, we do not know exactly how matters stand, and it appears that we are not going to be informed, because our repeated questions have remained unanswered.
Canada Pension Plan
For instance, when questions were put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare she answered: we have to negotiate with the Quebec premier and that is why we do not negotiate with a member-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to ask a question. I should like him to tell the committee, since he says I do not give him answers when he asks questions, if it is not true he was his party's representative on the committee, that he attended six out of 51 meetings, and that in addition to this he asked one question on one subject and did not otherwise open his mouth to ask questions at any time?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.
I think it is absolutely unfair on the part of the minister to resort to such-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat?
I do not object to recognizing the hon. member on a question of privilege.
However, I wonder if he would not prefer letting the minister finish the question which, seemingly, she wanted to put to the hon. member who had the floor.
If the question of privilege raised by the hon. member stems from the question which the minister was about to put, I will gladly recognize him.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege is related to the question which the minister wanted to ask. First of all, the hon. lady was not asking a question but interrupting me without asking for my permission. In addition, she was making a false and malicious insinuation. Moreover-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, I would suggest that he state it because, until now, he has said nothing which would allow the Chair to conclude that there is a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege is very simple. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has sought to mislead the house and has in fact misled the house on a question which is no concern of hers. We never point out whether the hon. lady was present or absent. However, anyone who looks at the Liberal benches will notice that quite a large number of members are absent-

Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no question of privilege. Is the committee ready for the question?


Gérard Perron: I revert to the minister's question which I did not understand-I hope the hon. lady will forgive me-except the part where she insinuated that I had attended very few committee meetings.
To this, like many others, I may furnish a very good explanation, and the absence of the Liberal members from the province of Quebec probably shows-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. With the hon. member, I recognize that the question that was put to him by the minister was certainly out of order-


Gilles Grégoire: It was malevolent.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member may use another adjective, which I am unwilling to use myself. In any event, we are not considering here the proceedings in committee, we are examining a very specific point, that is an amendment put forward by the hon. member for Beauce.


Gilles Grégoire: May I point out to the minister that those who have no valid arguments resort to such tactics?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Beauce.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, this is the third time today that reference is made-this point was also discussed on former occasions-to my rather frequent absences from the sittings of the joint committee which studied this bill. It is the reason why, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to allow me to refer myself-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of privilege, I deny completely I am insinuating anything. I am making a charge that the hon. member has been derelict in his duties in attending the committee and is therefore not informed about this bill and is therefore wasting the committee's time.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would suggest to the minister that for the moment, there is no question of privilege. It seems to me we would make more progress by allowing the hon. member for Beauce to complete his remarks without interruption.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege this time, and I ask
IMr. Gregoire.]
the minister to withdraw, because she maintained in the house that I was remiss by not attending certain meetings. I ask her to withdraw, because she has no right to say I was remiss.


Lucien Lamoureux: In my opinion, there is no breach of personal privilege in the words spoken by the minister. On the strength of many precedents on that point, I do not think the hon. member can prove that the minister's words might give rise to a question of privilege.
I suggest this intervention was out of order, but that there is no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: In my opinion, when a minister of the crown says that an hon. member has failed in his duty, he is imputing motives to him. Under the rules of the house, the hon. lady has no right to do such a thing. Therefore, she should withdraw her words, because, in the first place, they are untrue, which is against the standing orders, and, second, because she is imputing motives to another hon. member, which is also against the rules of the House of Commons. For those reasons, you should ask the minister to withdraw.


Lucien Lamoureux: I must remind the house that even though a statement is incorrect, this is not a sufficient reason to insist upon a withdrawal. On the other hand, even though the minister or any other member suggests that another hon. member has failed in his duty, this does not imply necessarily that he does not prejudge his intentions.
Therefore, I do not think the minister can be forced to withdraw her remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest then that the minister is seriously failing in her duty by not supplying us with the French copy of the committee proceedings.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member can suggest it, if he wants to.


Gilles Grégoire: I assert it.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I was just asking you a little earlier to allow me to put the record straight about some statements made by the minister who insinuated-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Beauce but he will have to admit that the Chair intervened immediately when the suggestion he is taking exception to was made by the minister. That is why this discussion which refers to things that happened in committee is irrelevant.

1 would therefore ask the hon. member to forget the remarks which to him may seem derogatory but true and come back to the amendment he moved.


Gilles Grégoire: They are false.


Gérard Perron: Coming back to the amendment, my colleague from Lapointe made some sensible points that we would like to justify. At this time, we are in a very difficult position since it has often been claimed that the agreements were arrived at beforehand by the premier of Quebec and the federal authorities with regard to Bill No. C-136. It was said on several occasions that it would be legislation allowing for the application of identical, comparable and parallel plans. And yet we do not know what is contained in the bill which the Quebec government is planning to adopt. Furthermore, we do not know what were those agreements. We do not even have-and I have said it before-the report of all the evidence given to the committee which held 51 sittings. Furthermore, the house is purposely prevented from carrying on with its normal business. I think that those who interfere the most with the routine business and efficiency of the house are those who, advisedly or not, deny the members their rights.
It has so often been contended that it was direct negotiations which were carried out with the Prime Minister. Personally I contend that we have the right to safeguard the interests of the Quebec people, of our constituents, of all the Canadian people from every part of the country, as representatives of-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The matter under consideration, at the present time is not to determine whether or not it is the duty of a member to protect the interests of his province but simply to determine whether or not the amendment submitted by the hon. member himself ought to be accepted.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I am protecting the interests of my constituents, of the citizens in my province and of Canada generally.
We have been told on so many occasions that Bill No. C-136 is legislation concerning mainly and almost exclusively the nine other Canadian provinces. The evidence? Just note that practically all the Quebec members are absent-


Some hon. members:: Oh, Oh.


Gérard Perron: They are absent during the discussion but they come back as sheep to their pen when support has to be-
Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Berger:: Is this a direct reference?


Gilles Grégoire: Direct.


Lucien Lamoureux: I ask the hon. member to comply with standing order 59. He is strongly infringing upon that order.


Gérard Perron: Before closing my remarks, I must point out that the amendment deals precisely with the statement made in the house which, at least has implications throughout Canada, namely that the province of Quebec has always enjoyed a special status within confederation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Once again, the hon. member is outside the subject.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to draw a parallel with the amendment which implies, at the same time, I admit, a special status for Quebec in the exercise of an exclusively provincial right and which the Quebec legislature intends to exercise. Since those are only comparisons and examples, I feel that my remarks are in order.
The amendment refers to so many things that I feel justified in being surprised at not having more support from other Quebec members respecting this amendment, instead of hearing them suggest that the hon. member for Beauce is trying to delay passage of Bill No. C-136.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair made its ruling. The hon. member for Quebec East.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet spoken about this famous Bill No. C-136. Of course, it is simply a new tax being presented to us on a silver platter.
An attempt may also be made to gag us and to do as was done for a certain civil servant who was dismissed because he took the liberty to say that this plan was totally inapplicable-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that he is certainly making a bad start. He said, first, that he had not yet spoken about Bill No. C-136. I am not denying that fact, but he is not allowed, under standing orders, to deal with Bill No. C-136, because he may only refer to a particular amendment introduced by one of his colleagues.


Lucien Plourde: I am coming to that. But I first had to tell off the Liberals who seem to take it for granted-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I called the hon. member to order, just as I did for other members of the committee who spoke this after-

Canada Pension Plan
noon. He must not be concerned in his remarks with the stand other members of the committee might take. What the committee is interested in is the hon. member's own opinion.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, we, of the province of Quebec, have something to say when the rights of the province of Quebec are involved. We have to assert the rights of our province. Since Quebec will have its own pension scheme, it also has the right to enter into agreements with other provinces and foreign countries.
I hear mumblings in front of me. I know that Quebec Liberals are not pleased with this; they are too cowardly to rise and defend the rights of the province of Quebec as concerns this bill by supporting the amendment presented by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron).
This amendment has not been put forward for nothing. This amendment is needed to ensure that the province of Quebec may negotiate her own pension plan. At the present time, the federal government is trying to have all the clauses of Bill No. C-136 carried quickly in order that regulations may be established denying the province of Quebec its freedom to pass legislation regarding its own pension plan, because the federal parliament, in passing this bill, is more or less trying to gag the provinces.
We have no right to go against the interests of the provinces when they have decided to adopt their own pension plans.
I know that it will not be any better, because this is more of a party manoeuvre than something to help the individual.
I think we should try first to further the interests of the Canadian workers and the Canadian families, instead of thinking about party politics and partisanship.
Quebec citizens working in the United States are also entitled to be protected under this pension plan. As far as this piece of legislation is concerned, it is not up to the federal government to dictate in advance what are or what should be the purposes of the Quebec pension plan.
Personally, I am against this precious Bill No. C-136.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister.
Could the minister tell us if the province of Quebec will be entitled to negotiate with other provinces concerning Quebec citizens working in other provinces while residing in Quebec? Would the province of Quebec then
[The Chairman.]
be able to negotiate in order to bring those citizens under the Quebec pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: I answered this question very thoroughly some time ago. If the hon. member would read the report of the debate in Hansard he would see that I explained fully what would happen in the case of people resident in a particular province who worked outside that province. I would refer the hon. member to my earlier statement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was here when the minister made his speech in that connection and I remember it very well. However, he did not say whether the province of Quebec could negotiate directly with the other provinces concerning the pension plan with regard to people residing in the province of Quebec but working in another province. I would like to have an explanation from the minister on that matter about which he never said a word.


Edgar John Benson: Initially there would be absolutely no reason for the province of Quebec to negotiate with other provinces, because it is the assumption that there will be two pensions plans in Canada, the Canada pension plan and the pension plan in the province of Quebec. Should some other province opt out or move out of the plan either initially or after due notice, then, of course, Quebec would have to deal with the other province in order that we might still have an integrated pension plan for the whole of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: I have another question to put to the minister, Mr. Chairman.
The minister tells us that the province of Quebec will be able to negotiate directly with other provinces not participating in the plan or which could not participate. Supposing that the province of Quebec-


Edgar John Benson: Yes, as a matter of fact. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the answer is "Yes" to my first question.
This is my second question. Should the province of Quebec wish to include in its pension plan all residents of the province of Quebec, even those working outside the province but within Canada, would it be able to negotiate with the central government to

keep within the framework of the Quebec plan all Quebec citizens, even those working elsewhere in Canada? That is the second question I wanted to put to the minister. [Text]


Edgar John Benson: In the first place I do not understand what the hon. member means by "a citizen of Quebec". I assume all of us are citizens of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: In the second place I explained earlier the method of operation under the Canada pension plan. If Quebec is to have a comparable plan, contributions will be on the basis of employment rather than residence. I went into this in some detail when the hon. member for Beauce raised the question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to point out first of all that when I speak of "citizen", I am not necessarily referring to a country, but to an individual who, participating in public affairs, just like a citizen of the city of Montreal is at the same time a citizen of the province of Quebec and a Canadian citizen.
Now I trust that the minister will understand what I mean by the word "citizen".
I admit that the minister's pension plan, as he said, is not based on the place of residence but on the place of employment.
Let us suppose that the province of Quebec-and that is quite possible-enacts that its pension plan be based on the place of residence rather than on the place of employment; at that time the two pieces of legislation would come in conflict. Would the	federal	government	be	prepared	tonegotiate with Quebec to allow its citizens to take part in the Quebec provincial pension plan, whatever their place of employment, be it the United States, Ontario, the maritime provinces or western Canada? Would the	federal	government	be	prepared	to
negotiate with the Quebec authorities?


Edgar John Benson: This question, too, is one which I answered in some detail earlier in the debate. If Quebec chooses to have its own plan and operate it on the basis of residence rather than on the basis of employment we should not have two comparable pension plans and a great many anomalies would arise; there might be people forced to contribute to two pension plans while others would not be obliged to contribute to any at all.
Canada Pension Plan [Translation]


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the word "comparable" is used very often. Why are we not told immediately whether the premier of the province of Quebec undertook to adopt a plan identical to Bill No. C-136 and whether this pension plan will conform to all the provisions of Bill No. C-136?
Here is my question. Have the provincial authorities undertaken, on behalf of every citizen of the province of Quebec, to take advantage here and now of all the provisions of Bill No. C-136?


Lucien Lamoureux: The question goes beyond the limits of the amendment.


Gérard Perron: The amendment clearly states this. I repeat that there will be two pension plans: the Quebec plan and Bill No. C-136. That is clear. The amendment proposed to Bill No. C-136 is devised to allow the province of Quebec, in the exercise of its rights and under the present legislation which will apparently be adopted, to provide its contributors with all the benefits provided in Bill No. C-136. I submit that my question is relevant when I say that the Quebec government undertook to present a bill which will comply with this plan in its present form. If such is the case, my amendment is no more necessary, but if it is not, Quebec should be entirely free and have the rights vested in it by the constitution. In this case, I wonder why there are so many objections to the amendment I proposed to clause 6.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think that in the province of Quebec there is at the present time a resolution on the order paper of the legislature which sets out the principles of the proposed Quebec pension plan. If my hon. friend will take a look at this resolution he will see that the details it sets out make the proposed Quebec pension plan comparable in principle with this plan. We have not seen the Quebec bill which is to be introduced into the Quebec legislature, but one can safely say that it will not be identical to this legislation as there must, of course, be differences because it is under a different jurisdiction. But I think that if my hon. friend will refer to the resolution which is on the order paper of the Quebec legislature, he will find that in all basic principles the Quebec plan is comparable to this one, and so they could be integrated.

Canada Pension Plan [Translation]


Gérard Perron: The minister just mentioned certain differences; could there be this one: could a Canadian employer residing in the province of Quebec, coming under the Quebec pension plan, employ Canadian workers coming under his plan which could be deprived of benefits under the Quebec legislation from the standpoint of contributions as well as of the retirement fund?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Gérard Perron: I repeat my question. Could it happen that Canadian citizens residing in the province of Quebec coming under the provincial legislation-


Lucien Lamoureux: I think the hon. member may put a question but if the minister cannot answer it or does not choose to answer it, it is his right.


Gilles Grégoire: The minister led us to believe that he did not understand the question.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair was under the impression that the minister indicated he had already answered this question. However, if my interpretation is wrong I would be glad to hear the minister's explanation.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if my hon. friend would rephrase the question so that I could get a better purport of what he is saying. However, if I recall the question, it is exactly the thing we have been talking about for about three days here, and I should think I have answered that same question five or six times previously in connection with this bill. But perhaps I misunderstood the question and maybe it is different from questions I have answered previously, and therefore I would be pleased to hear it again.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Gérard Perron: My question is very definite and could be answered by "yes" or "no". If the minister has not answered it must be that he has misunderstood my question and I will repeat it. Could it happen that Canadian citizens residing in the province of Quebec, who might come under the Quebec legislation in connection with pensions be deprived of contributors' rights or benefits at the time of their retirement because the province of Quebec had not the necessary 
power to negotiate certain agreements in accordance with clause 6 dealing with pensionable employment.


Edgar John Benson: The answer is categorically no.


Gérard Perron: In view of the fact that the answer is a flat no, I want to give a more accurate example.
Workers in the province of Quebec, and there are many thousands of them, are employed by Quebeckers who are not at all bound by Bin No. C-136. It is a fact. They work at present in the state of Maine and if Quebec is not able to negotiate in order to apply this pension plan established under Bill No. C-136, it will prevent thousands of Quebec citizens from participating in either of those pension plans.
Therefore, I maintain that in the name of justice it would be a mistake to deprive even one citizen of the province of Quebec of this right respecting the retirement pension and social security and that we would make a mistake by not allowing the amendment I have moved.


Lucien Lamoureux: All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.

Amendment (Mr. Perron) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 79.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I-


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member on clause 7?


David Vaughan Pugh: No, Mr. Chairman; I am on clause 6. I only wish to raise one point which I have raised before; but I want to find out whether the minister has made any more research into statistics. In other words, previously I felt that the farmers as a group throughout Canada are being discriminated against, perhaps not intentionally, from the straight point of view of the statistics which have been produced. These statistics are not my own; they have been produced by the Minister of National Revenue, and no doubt since then the minister has gone more deeply into them. Using his statistics, he believes that 84 per cent of the farmers filing income tax returns would be included in the plan, al-

though it may be only 82 per cent. The national average in the plan is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 92 per cent; that is, 92 per cent of all Canadian citizens are included under the plan.
The hole I wish to plug in the argument of the minister is this. It appears that the province of Quebec has been excluded from the 84 per cent figure, and I want to know whether the minister has made any research into, not income tax figures, but figures compiled recently by the dominion bureau of statistics. These figures indicate that 450,000 people in Canada are categorized as farmers, and of that number 139,000 have gross incomes of $1,200 or less. My argument before was that very few of those 139,000 would qualify for the plan. If they did qualify they would receive only a small amount at age 65, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2, $3, or $5 a month, which to my mind is not treating them on the same basis as other Canadians.
The next category above this are farmers with incomes between $1,200 and $2,500, numbering 90,000 odd. Once again I would remind the minister that that is gross income. That is what they get on their total sales, from which must be deducted a tremendous amount all down the line.
What I am suggesting is that farmers in that category-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As the hon. member has been speaking I have been looking at pages 12034, 12035, 12036 and 12037 of Hansard, the hon. member's speech last Friday, March 5, and it seems to me that he is now repeating exactly what he said then. I would remind him that that is against the rules of the house.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I agree there has been a certain amount of repetition, but this brings me to the question I was about to ask. I had asked the minister for statistics, and the statistics he gave me were compiled from returns filed under the Income Tax Act. What I am asking him now is whether he has done any further research into returns made by the dominion bureau of statistics, which indicate that somewhere around 30 per cent to 33J per cent of all Canadian farmers will be excluded from the plan or will receive little or nothing from it at age 65.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, since this question was dealt with last Friday perhaps you will be lenient and permit me to reply to it once more. I did look up some statistics for my hon. friend, but I have no reason to
Canada Pension Plan
change the figures which I gave him last Friday. Incidentally, it is not 84 per cent of the taxpaying farmers who would be included, or farmers who submit income tax returns, but rather 84 per cent of all farmers outside Quebec.


David Vaughan Pugh: Those who submit tax returns?


Edgar John Benson: It is 84 per cent of all farmers outside Quebec who have and have not submitted tax returns who will be covered by the plan. That is our estimate.
The people in my department have compared these figures with the figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics, and I would be pleased to supply my hon. friend with a rather long memorandum which substantiates what I have said. There is one correction. We used the figure of 335,033 farmers who might come under the plan. This figure should read 322,000. I would be pleased to pass the memorandum to my hon. friend.


David Vaughan Pugh: If this memorandum is part of the argument of the minister, Mr. Chairman, then perhaps it should form part of Hansard. The minister says he has based his argument upon it. If it cannot form part of Hansard then let him read it and put it on record. Because to my mind there is a vast discrepancy between the dominion bureau of statistics figures and those now put forward by the minister, based on income tax returns of farmers.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if the committee wishes to give me permission I would be pleased to read into the record this memorandum in connection with this matter.
On Friday there was considerable discussion in the house regarding the number of farmers who might be excluded from the Canada pension plan because their earnings would be below $800. I gave a departmental estimate of 52,300 farmers who might fall below this minimum, but some members quoted figures from the dominion bureau of statistics which indicated that the number might be higher.
In particular, it was mentioned that the 1961 census reported some 127,000 farms where the gross income was below $1,200, plus another 94,000 farms with a gross between $1,200 and $2,500. We do not quarrel with these figures except to mention that they relate to specific farms and not to farmers, and that they include 80,000 farms which were classified as part time farms or residential and other small farms with gross of less than $250.

Canada Pension Plan
Our estimate is also based on the 1961 census, but we used a table relating to the labour force and within that table we used the classification "self-employed farmers" which excludes the paid farmhand and the unpaid family worker.
The 1961 census shows that there were
398.000	such farmers, of whom 76,000 were in Quebec, which leaves a maximum of 322,000 who might come under the Canada pension plan. On Friday we hurriedly calculated this figure at 335,033 and now wish to correct it to 322,000. The taxation division is currently receiving income tax returns from 215,000 of these and we therefore know their latest earnings level. It is of course difficult to judge what the income of the other 107,000 might be because a married farmer is not specifically required to file a tax return unless his income is at least over $2,100. Therefore a lot of those who do not file may still earn well over $800. Our estimate is that 30,000 of the 107,000 non-filers would have earnings below $800, and when this is added to the
22.000	who are already filing and reporting less than $800 we get a total of 52,000.
This might seem low to some hon. members, but we would point out that the 1961 census figures will be five years old in 1966 and that many of the operators of the part time farms and small residential farms covered in the census will probably have wage incomes which will help to bring them into the Canada pension plan. In other words, under the Canada pension plan the wage income gets added to the farm income, but under the census tables referred to only the gross farm income is dealt with.


David Vaughan Pugh: I thank the minister for that information and I only wish I had had it before I got to my feet. I do not think it changes my argument very much, but I will let it rest there. The only other point is this: Will the married farmers with an income of $2,100 or less have to file a return if they come under the Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, they will.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about special groups receiving special concessions, which is one of the reasons I asked the minister a question this afternoon about the Hutterites. I understand that Hut-terite corporations or religious groups receive exemptions, and I should like to know what is the situation in this connection under the plan. Do they qualify under clause 6 (e) or will they be included, say, under clause 7? If they are included, can these Hutterites,

let only a certain group of their members, come under the plan-that it to say, the group between the age brackets 55 to 67 which pays the least and receives the most?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is now dealing with a special group of people. I am not familiar offhand with exactly how that group operates, and for that reason I do not think I can be called upon to comment in the house in this regard.
I must indicate, however, that in order to participate in this plan self-employed individuals must have incomes of $800 or over. Therefore, in order to be covered by the Canada pension plan they must file a tax return indicating that income of $800 or over. Employed persons in order to qualify under this plan must have incomes in excess of $600.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could also tell me if this group of citizens is compelled to accept a social insurance number and, if so, how are they going to be required to do so in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if individuals are employed in pensionable employment they must take out a social insurance number. If individuals are self-employed and subject to the terms of the Canada pension plan, because they have incomes of $800 or over, they are required to acquire social insurance numbers. This is a question on which we also had quite a bit of discussion earlier, as hon. members will recall.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister realizes that I am concerned about this situation as a taxpayer. I know that this group of individuals accepts family allowance and old age security, to which they contribute nothing. In other words, they are accepting at least a part of my taxes and the taxes paid by my constituents. I should like to know what protection I have against a colony such as this in Canada being given the benefits of a plan such as the one proposed, without having to make contributions. If a group such as I have described is to be allowed to opt into the plan,
I should like to know what protection I have. Will the minister also tell us what other groups may be allowed to opt into the Canada pension plan, and under what conditions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the conditions of the Canada pension plan are quite clear. Self-employed individuals in order to take part in this plan must have incomes of $800 or over, and must indicate that they receive incomes to that extent in order to make contributions. Individuals other than self-em-

ployed must have salary or wage incomes in excess of $600 before they have any right to contribute under the plan, and only by having a right to contribute can they ultimately derive benefits from it, because benefits are based on contributions.


John (Jack) McIntosh: For the sake of argument, Mr. Chairman, supposing I was the head of one of these colonies and I desired that a certain group of my members should participate in this plan, I could say that this group had earned more than $800 each in a specific year. Would they automatically be covered under this plan in that event? If they did automatically become covered they would be receiving special concessions which are not available to the rest of the citizens of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my hon. friend is developing a particularly hypothetical question. For example, I could say that of my income, something in excess of $800 belonged to my wife and, therefore, she should have the right to contribute under the Canada pension plan. Of course I cannot do that under the provisions of the Canada pension plan because it relates specifically to the income of an individual, and if that individual does not report that income he or she cannot contribute under the Canada pension plan, and therefore cannot derive from it the ultimate benefits.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, this is not a hypothetical question, but rather a question, the answer to which I will have to be able to supply to my constituents when I return home to Maple Creek. My constituents I am sure will ask me whether the Hutterites, whose colonies are spreading across southern Saskatchewan and into Manitoba at this time, will be allowed to participate in this plan. I understand these people pay no income tax, but if they are to partake in this plan I assume that they should be required to pay income tax. Until today I was under the impression that they are not paying income tax, pending a decision in respect of an appeal initiated by them now before the courts. It is also my understanding that these people are not taxed as a corporation and enjoy the privileges of federal police protection, family allowances and old age security, yet pay nothing toward those costs. My constituents also enjoy those privileges but they do contribute to these costs through income tax. Surely that is not a hypothetical situation. What protection is offered in this regard to Canadian citizens?
Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to comment on matters that do not relate to the Canada pension plan while we are considering this particular bill, because if we begin to do that we may continue to debate this bill for a very long time. I can only reiterate to my hon. friend what I have said already several times, that in order to contribute to the Canada pension plan one must receive a salary or wage income in excess of $600 per year or, if self-employed, an income of $800 or over, and these incomes must be reported to the Department of National Revenue. Only at that point does an individual have a right to make contributions on income beyond those levels, and the benefits to be derived are not to be paid out of general revenue but are entirely dependant upon contributions made to the plan.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister to explain how these individuals will report these incomes to the Department of National Revenue?


Edgar John Benson: The only way contributions will be deducted at source from a person is by the employer, but he would not be required to file a form unless he was claiming a refund at the end of the year.
In respect of self-employed persons who must be covered because of incomes in excess of $800 or over, there will be a special return attached to the T-l general which they will file at the end of the year, and on which the pension plan calculations will be made.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the Income Tax Act, a person who is not taxable is not compelled to submit an income tax form. That being the case, why then would an individual submit an income tax form on the basis of earnings in the amount of $800, which would come within his exemption?


Edgar John Benson: There is a requirement under this bill to file a return even though the individual is not taxable under the Income Tax Act.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is the point to which I am referring. What other compulsions are there under this bill which might affect members of Hutterite colonies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I
should refer my hon. friend to clause 31.


Mr. Mclniosh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he is in agreement with the Minister of Labour who says that everyone will be compelled to accept a

Canada Pension Plan
social insurance number. The minister has said that is not the case if the individual does not come within the terms of this bill.


Edgar John Benson: I do not think that is what the Minister of Labour said. What he said was that only those individuals whose employment is such that they are insurable under unemployment insurance would be required to have a number. In addition, everyone in insurable employment under this act would be required to have the same number for social insurance purposes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, when I commenced my questions I stated that I was concerned about special groups receiving special concessions. Are there any other groups of individuals who will receive special concessions under this act but who will not be required to accept a number if they do not wish to accept such a number?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, all individuals covered by this act will receive the same concessions. If they are not insured under this act they will not be required to have a number under this act. If they are not required to contribute under this act, they will not be required by this act to have a number.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the minister when he suggests that everyone under this act will receive the same concessions. I have referred to many specific cases which relate to special concessions. The premier of Manitoba stated recently in that province's legislature that there were many instances in respect of which people would not receive the same concessions. He referred specifically to individuals who earn $5,000 per year, and pointed out that they would pay more into this plan than an individual who earned $20,000 per year, because of income tax rebates.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman is now dealing with something we dealt with earlier, at the time he asked me a specific question related to social insurance numbers. I attempted to answer that question to the best of my ability.


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder whether the committee would be disposed to adopt clause 6?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérard Perron: Only a few questions. It has just been repeated-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 3 9A, to report to the house that the following question will be raised at ten o'clock this evening by the hon. member for Port Arthur: Labour conditions-request for statement on effects of automation.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I want to
argue a point which was advanced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni on Friday concerning the relationship of Indian people to this bill. I refer particularly to those Indians who earn their income from employment on the reserve. I believe the answer the minister gave on Friday was fairly clear, namely that if an Indian earned income from the use of reserve lands or from working on the reserve, then he would have no opportunity to contribute to the Canada pension fund from his earnings derived in that way. However, if he had income from employment which was otherwise pensionable employment, which was outside the boundaries of the reserve, then he would be eligible the same as everyone else is.
Some years ago, the official policy of the government, which was headed by the Liberal party at the time, was to try to entice native Indian people to cease being Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, or otherwise to become enfranchised. They sought to entice them away from their position as native Indians under the Indian Act by way of discriminatory legislation. One of the methods used was the enticement of the right to vote. It was the Liberal party that said to the Indian people, you can have the right to vote in federal elections if you will give up your right to taxation exemptions on money earned on the reserve or from the use of reserve lands. Another enticement was liquor rights. The Liberal government some years ago said to the native people, you can have the right to consume liquor the same as everybody else, provided you give up your hereditary position as native Indians under the Indian Act, become enfranchised and leave the reserve. There were other en-

ticements, and there still are some enticements to the native Indian people to cease their existence as Indians under the Indian Act.
I submit this scheme is part and parcel of the same sort of discriminatory legislation. Under the bill that is before us now, if a native Indian earns his income from the use of reserve lands or from employment on the reserve-this is becoming increasingly more prevalent with the desire for economic development of the reserves-he will not be able to participate in the Canada pension scheme as other Canadians will be able to do. If he desires to participate fully in the Canada pension scheme, all he has to do is cease existence as an Indian under the Indian Act and then he will become entitled to participate, just as the non-Indian people are entitled to do.
I submit this is the same sort of disgraceful discriminatory legislation that the Liberal party put into effect not too many years ago and which they tried to use in order to entice the native people away from their natural way of living and from their situation as defined in the Indian Act. This legislation has the same objective, the same goal. At the same time on the west coast, for example, there are many Indian people who work part of the year on the reserve. Some of them have stores and others set up small businesses such as poolrooms on reserve lands. Some of them engage in logging activities, logging the timber on their own reserves. In fact one of the developments within the last four or five years, particularly within the Indian affairs branch, has been the economic development section. This section is evidence of the conscious desire of the Indian affairs branch to promote industrial development on the reserves. Many of these people spend part of the year working as loggers or in some other field on the reserve, and the other part of the year they live and work outside of the reserve, notably in the fishing industry. This means that only part of a person's income will be subject to contributions to the pension plan, inasmuch as it is an earnings related scheme. Since the Indian may work part of the time on the reserve and part of the time off the reserve, only a portion of his earnings will be applicable to the pension scheme. The portion applicable to the scheme over a period of years will be relatively small because all of his income will not be subject to contributions under the plan.
I submit the minister should look seriously at this situation, even though it may invoke
Canada Pension Plan
an amendment to two clauses. Some sort of approach should be made to make sure that legislation such as this is universally applicable. The proposal was that it would be universally applicable and that it would be completely portable, that no one would be excluded from it except by reason of his income being below a certain amount. There were certain other exclusions as well. Here, however, you have an exclusion based on racial inheritance. Surely in any legislation which the parliament of Canada enacts and which provides a benefit to the people of Canada, there should be no exclusion because of an individual's race. However this is precisely what this particular bill is doing.
What should occur, I submit, is this: Because of the unique position the native Indian people have in our society, because of the fact they have a position of pre-eminence because they were here long before anybody else, and because in all lands the so-called aboriginals have been given preferential treatment by the people who came from other lands, there should be some preferential treatment here.
But apart from this there should be complete equality of application of the law, and that is not what this bill seeks to do. By taking into account our usual desire to make sure that we treat fairly native Indians, the law should be amended to read simply that if the individual or band so desires, he or they will have the opportunity or right to opt into this plan and say, "Yes, we want to participate with other Canadians in the Canada pension fund. We want to contribute the same as other Canadians do. We want to expect the full benefits, as other Canadians do, when our time comes to receive those benefits under the plan."
If they have not already done so I urge the minister and the government to look at this from a policy point of view and make some pronouncement so that many of our Indian people who did not realize this existed -in fact no one realized it existed until the hon. member for Comox-Alberni tried to elicit some information about it-will be told that the government will change its mind and that they can expect it to deal fairly with them. The native Indian people have a hereditary right to participate or not, as they so wish.
I know there were some groans raised when I rose to speak, but this is a serious matter and I think the minister should go a little beyond what he said on Friday last when all he had to declare was that a factual situation existed. He did not go into the

Canada Pension Plan
question of the government's changing its mind with respect to that factual situation. We are entitled to some declaration of the government's intentions with respect to this matter.


Edgar John Benson: The problem raised by my hon. friend is really one to be dealt with under clause 11 or 13. The question was originally raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in the hon. member's absence and, as will be found at page 12048 of Hansard, I gave the answers to which my hon. friend has referred.
The Canada pension plan is based upon income of individuals, and income, as used in the Canada pension plan bill, is based upon income as determined under the Income Tax Act. Under that act income earned by Indians on a reserve is excluded. If we want to proceed with this legislation on the premise that income will be determined on a different basis than that set forth in the Income Tax Act, then that is an entirely different matter from what is being dealt with in this legislation. If the government in its wisdom decided to change the basis of determining income under this bill as compared with the Income Tax Act, then my hon. friends' question would be a reasonable one.
What I indicated in my answer is that income under this bill is income as determined under the Income Tax Act. This automatically excludes the income which Indians earn on a reserve, on which they enjoy the benefit of not having to pay the normal taxes which apply in the case of individuals working outside a reserve. There is no provision for including income earned by Indians on reserves for the purposes of the Canada pension plan and excluding it for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
This is the situation as it stands at present. I do not think it would be fair for me to make a statement with regard to future government policy on this matter, because the matter of income earned by Indians on a reserve is one provided for under the provisions of the Indian Act. If the government in the future decided to change the definition of income under this bill that would be a matter for government policy and, as I explained to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, though such income might still be excluded from the Income Tax Act, this could be done by the federal government acting on its own.


Frank Howard: I think we can draw a reasonably distinct difference between the two situations. The exemption provisions in the Indian Act are recognition of the special status which

Indian people have in Canada. The legislation we are considering is of a welfare nature, so-called, broad in application, excluding no one on the basis of national extraction, and is in precisely the same category as our payments under the Old Age Security Act, except one is a flat rate and one is earnings related.


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend may permit me to point out that income earned on a reserve is not included in taxable income for the purposes of O.A.S. Indians on reserves benefit from old age security, youth allowances and family allowances, all of which are paid out of general taxation revenue. This is quite a different situation from a pension plan based on contributions based on contributory earnings. As I mentioned, contributory earnings under this plan are determined as under the Income Tax Act. Any variance from this would require an amendment to this bill and a change in the principles involved in basing earnings on income under the Income Tax Act. If some government in the future decided to take such a step it would be a major one.


Frank Howard: That is almost what I was getting to, that native Indian people do not pay income tax while earning on a reserve and, as a consequence, they do not pay a percentage of income tax into the old age security fund, but they are treated equally in the matter of benefits under it. The same is true with welfare payments, old age assistance, blind persons allowances and all the other payments, and where native Indian people do not pay tax on such income it is a recognition of their hereditary position.
I understand Indians make unemployment insurance contributions from income earned on reserves, in order to participate fully in the unemployment insurance benefits, so in that situation a different approach is taken in determining what is and what is not income. They are not subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act but they do make unemployment insurance fund contributions.
I am sure one could argue each side of this case with equal facility. I am not discounting the minister's arguments except to say that they are incorrectly based. What is required from the government is simply a look at the question as to whether we should treat for the purposes of a plan such as this, which, with some exceptions in other respects, is universally applicable to all of Canada, should we look on something which is a benefit from society to itself, with the government being a sort of intermediary, in an entirely different light when considering the question of the

hereditary rights of Indians to freedom from taxation on reserves income?
I submit that the two points must be looked at differently, and once you do that you can very easily come to the conclusion that you treat income under the pension bill in a different way than under the Income Tax Act.
Either the government looked carefully at this particular question beforehand and, having done so, decided to enact legislation which is discriminatory on a racial basis, or it did not look at the question at all and is just now being confronted with the problems involved in it. The minister's answer was clear, that he and his government have no intention of altering this bill, and consequently native Indian people will receive less benefits from the Canada pension plan than other Canadians. To me that is discrimination based on race.


Edgar John Benson: I would simply like to point out that this bill is no more discriminatory toward Indians than it is toward married women, who may very well contribute to the earnings of their husbands.


Frank Howard: But married women are of a variety of races.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will agree with that; but this is no more discriminatory of Indians who have exempt income under the Income Tax Act than it is of married women who may very well contribute toward the earnings of their husbands. There is just as good an argument to be made that one should say part of a husband's earnings are attributable to his wife, and that therefore she should be allowed to contribute to the Canada pension plan and benefit from it, as there is with respect to the Indians as mentioned by my hon. friend.
However, I would point out to my hon. friend that when moving into legislation such as this, as an initial basis it would be very dangerous to move from the determination of income as it is under the Income Tax Act. The amounts people are going to have to pay into this plan depends upon their earnings, that is, their wages, if they are employed by someone else, and their self-employed earnings if they are not working for someone else. Under the Income Tax Act it has taken a good deal of time and jurisprudence in Canada to determine what is income as defined under that act.
If my hon. friend is suggesting that one should move into this legislation and say that income, for the purposes of this legislation, should be income as determined by the
Canada Pension Plan
Income Tax Act except for the exemption with respect to Indians, I would submit to my hon. friend that this is only the beginning of exceptions, and that one could argue for all sorts of things to be changed in the determination of income under this act as compared with the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to impress upon the minister that unless he is agreeable to accepting some of the amendments proposed by the opposition, he and his government will find themselves in trouble before this bill gets into operation. If the bill as now presented is passed, it will increase unemployment in Canada by one third.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon.
member kindly advise the Chair how these remarks can be related to clause 6? We are not considering the principle of the bill, but a particular clause.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We are talking about agriculture in connection with this bill, and this is the only clause regarding which I have heard agriculture talked about since the debate started. If you want to get off this bill and raise this question in some other connection, I will sit down right now. I just want to warn the minister, as I warned him the other day, that if he does not accept some of the amendments that have been proposed, and if he insists on putting through this pension bill in the form it has right now, he is going to get into trouble.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might just for a moment or two return to the question which was being discussed between the minister and the hon. member for Skeena. I must say that for some reason or another the Minister of National Revenue appears to have the matter of married women on his mind. This is the second time I have heard him advance this argument about a comparison between the status of certain people and that of married women. I say at once that I find his argument in connection with the Indian people very unconvincing. Quite frankly, I think it is a specious argument.
The minister will recall that when I asked questions on this subject on Friday, I did so purely from the point of view of getting a picture, in my mind at least, of what are the facts of the situation. I did not pursue the matter any further at that time because I recognize that this is a complex question, and up to a point I am willing to agree with the

Canada Pension Plan
minister that the question of departing from the principle of determining income as it is determined under the Income Tax Act could have its complications. But I have had an opportunity since Friday of reflecting upon the situation which the minister, quite properly, laid out in a factual way in answer to my questions. I think the point the hon. member for Skeena was trying to drive home, and which I would like to second, is that the Indian people have a peculiar status in our Canadian society. By "peculiar" I mean one that is separate and distinct from that of any other group in our society.
I would be prepared to argue that by making provision for income derived by Indians from their reserves as being pensionable income the minister would not be opening a Pandora's box that he was suggesting might be opened, because there is nobody else in Canada that has this status. I think we all recognize, without embarking upon a long speech, the reasons for that.
I am inclined to the view that the government-particularly from what the minister has said-has simply not really considered this question as a government. I for one would not expect the Minister of National Revenue to stand up here right now and make a commitment on behalf of the government, but there is one commitment I would like to have the minister make to the house. The Minister of National Revenue, because of his portfolio, has a preoccupation with income tax matters and things of that sort, but nevertheless I would like to have a commitment from him that he will take this matter up with his colleagues; that he will take it up with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the superintendent general of Indian affairs, who is charged with launching a community economic development program for the Indian people which we hope will result in the economic development on Indian reserves being a more important factor in the future.
If he will give us that commitment, or the assurance that this matter will be brought before the government for consideration, then perhaps we might be satisfied. We want him to recognize that this is a very special situation and that it is one deserving of special attention because of the obvious restriction on the ability of the Indian people to participate fully in a contributory pension plan. Here we have an opportunity of encouraging the Indian people to participate along with other Canadian citizens in a universal contributory pension plan, and by the very nature

of the restrictions that are imposed by the legislation as it is drafted, we are in effect encouraging them to shrink back, as far as this aspect of Canadian life is concerned, into their shells and not to go along with the rest of us in participating.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to mention to my hon. friend that one would be opening some sort of Pandora's box, as he mentioned, if one took this particular step of saying that something that was not treated as income under the Income Tax Act should be treated as income under this act. In particular I would refer him to section 10 of the Income Tax Act, which has a great number of exceptions which one could argue should be taken as income for the purposes of the Canada pension plan. However, I would be glad to undertake to my hon. friend to bring the particular problem involved to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This could be taken up with the people involved at the earliest opportunity when he is meeting with them to discuss the problems and of Indians generally being able to move into this plan, not on an individual basis but on an over-all basis, which I think would have to be done, in all fairness, in dealing with this particular situation. I would be very pleased to raise this question with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, just before we pass this clause I would like to say this.
I think throughout all this discussion the minister has an incorrect base from which to start considering this particular question. He persistently refers to what is classified as income under the Income Tax Act. I think if he would only confer with the hon. lady sitting next to him-whose name in the Indian tongue escapes me at the moment, but who is fairly close to the native people and spent a memorable few moments out in my own part of the country a few years ago- she will be able to explain to the minister that these are people; they are not earnings under the Income Tax Act. This is the principle upon which this question has to be looked at, namely that we are concerning ourselves with people here, a particular group of people, a group of people that by far should get prior consideration when we are dealing in this parliament with their welfare and rights.
We are dealing with people who really have received pretty scant attention in years past. This is the basis upon which we must look at this question; not from the

point of view of what is some legalistic definition of earnings under the Income Tax Act, or what is somebody else's conception of how you should draft statute law in the particular bill that is now before us. We are dealing primarily with a group of people who, as I said, deserve prior consideration and a greater amount of concern than anybody else. If the minister approaches it from this point of view, and if the government approaches it from this point of view, they will make their task very easy and will not discover this so-called Pandora's box, or whatever it is. The minister has an aptness for phraseology that is not too good sometimes, and I do not think many of the Indian people, except the female ones, that I know of will like to be termed as married women, or as the same thing as married women. They will have some reaction against that. But the minister is drawing poor comparisons when he tries to compare an individual, who has a distinct position in this nation, an individual who has a particular racial inheritance, with the broad, general category of married women.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Surely my hon. friend is not suggesting that there is anything inferior about the broad group of married women in the country.


Frank Howard: The hon. lady not being one herself, she might have a different attitude than I about this. But the fact is that the minister has drawn this distinction and has tried to compare a group of people with a distinct racial inheritance with one section of the general public which he classifies as married women. I think he is trying to compare things which are not comparable. He should be talking about native Indian people pure and simple. If the minister and the government do this, they will come to the conclusion, and I submit the correct conclusion, that all people should be treated fairly. There should be no distinction on the basis of race in an application of law such as this, which is universal or supposedly universal in application all across the nation.
By way of illustration, say one Indian earns his entire income of $5,000 over, say, a period of 10 years, reaches the age of 65 and retires. If his income is derived entirely from work on the reserve he will have a pension of $104. But another who earns half the same income, namely $2,500, from fishing-in which case he will pay twice as much as most other people because the government have already decided a while ago that they wanted to dis-
Canada Pension Plan
criminate against fishermen

and the other half of his income from logging on the reserve, and who likewise contributes for 10 years and retires at age 65, will have a pension of $52, or half that of the first person. This is inequity before the law and inequity based on race.
I would ask the minister to look at the question, not in face of the terminology of the Income Tax Act or any other act-it is not a definition of what is or is not earnings under some other law that is important here -but on the basis of a particular group of people. If he and the government sincerely start from there they will have no difficulty in producing some legislation which treats all people fairly.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would care to tell us if this particular aspect of the plan about which we are talking was thoroughly explored, and if so, why is it that some Indian people who live on reservations and who earn most of their income on the reservation have for some reason been left out? Was it decided that their earnings would be treated, for the purposes of this plan, in the same way as they are treated under the Income Tax Act? If so, I am wondering whether the reason the Indian people may not qualify was on account of the fact that it was determined that the average earnings of these people would not put them in the wage brackets which would make them taxable under this plan. I should like the minister to tell us whether this question was fully looked into when the plan was being drawn up.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in drawing up this plan it was decided that the only logical basis on which to institute a plan such as this without all sorts of definitions of "earnings", and other things which are quite unrelated to the determination of income under the Income Tax Act, was to adopt the general policy that income under this act would be the same as income as determined under the Income Tax Act. I can assure my hon. friend and also the hon. member who spoke before him that in the drafting of this legislation there was no intention to discriminate against any sort of person in Canada because of race, colour, creed or marital status. It was simply because, on the basis of legislation like this which is going to cover such a vast number of people in Canada and which has to be administered by my department, the sound and logical basis on which to base the legislation was to use the same definition of "income" as that used

Canada Pension Plan
under the Income Tax Act. This obviates taking one's income as determined under the Income Tax Act and then making all sorts of adjustments in order to arrive at the amount on which a contribution is made to the Canada pension plan. I believe the plan would become almost administratively impossible, or you might have to set up a separate administrative procedure, if you were to vary greatly from the determination of income for the purposes of this act as compared with the determination of income for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.


Robert Simpson: This may have been justified at the time the plan was drafted, but I am thinking of the future, and the not too distant future at that. At the present time, in the constituency I represent there are a goodly number of needy Indians, not many of whom would qualify for the plan, but who might be able to contribute to the plan from earnings on the reservations. However, under new plans of community development and in view of the desirability of bringing some kind of industry into the reservation areas it is to be hoped that this drastic situation will not continue for very long and that we will be able to supplement the earnings of these Indian people. Therefore I support the hon. member for Skeena in his plea that the minister take a very close look at this question. Because here is a plan which the government says is an adequate pension plan. In a few years, if these Indian people gradually reach the stage which enables them to earn a substantial income on their reservations but nothing is done to include them in the plan or to make some change whereby earnings for the purposes of this plan are not considered to be the same as earnings under the Income Tax Act, then they will be placed in a very tragic and difficult situation.
I am not maintaining that the plan is discriminatory. In fact, that was the minister's word. He said that he did not think that the plan was any more discriminatory against the Indians than it was against married women. Perhaps he can tell us whether this plan is discriminatory against married women.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a few questions for my own enlightenment. This afternoon to a question asked by one of my colleagues who wanted to know how many people among the agricultural

classes could be exempted because of the fact that they do not earn the required income under the Income Tax Act to be entitled to participate in the pension plan established under Bill No. C-136, they said, I believe, "52,000 people" according to the estimates given us by the minister. Is this correct?


Edgar John Benson: The number of people outside of Quebec who would not benefit under the Canada pension plan is 52,300, as I recall the figure, although I can look it up for my hon. friend. Incidentally, I dealt with this matter on Friday last in quite some detail.


Gérard Perron: According to actuarial forecasts of experts who examined this bill, could the minister tell us how many in the province of Quebec will be excluded from the scheme for the same reason?


Edgar John Benson: No one in Quebec is covered under the Canada pension plan.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, considering that it has been clearly stated that no Quebec resident will benefit from this bill, I should like to know what may happen, as my colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said without elaborating any further, in the case where a casual agricultural worker holds a job for a certain period of time, say in a blueberry farm in the Lake St. John area, and then moves on to another job somewhere else in Quebec.
But what would happen if a person who was employed during four weeks did not reach the 25 days required by the act to authorize contributions to the pension plan, that is, if a person harvested tobacco during 24 days in Ontario, then during 20 days harvested potatoes in New Brunswick, and then during 20 or 24 days worked in lumber camps in northern Ontario and subsequently did spring sowing in the central provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and then worked for three months in the state of Maine, in the U.S.A.? Then that person, if the contributions are based on the earnings, would have earned $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000, but could not participate in any plan due to the fact that he had not worked during a sufficient period of time for the same employer in one of the provinces where he was employed, and due also to the fact that he would not have paid any contributions, since the basis of taxable

earning is set at $600, according to the income tax form, in order that one may participate to the pension plan. What would happen to those citizens who are quite numerous? Those are not special cases, because many people in the province of Quebec work that way.
The other day the example which was given applied only to one district; and that is why the minister could easily get away with it by replying that those citizens came under the Quebec pension plan. But this is not the case of a person who comes under the Quebec pension plan but under the federal plan which provides for contributions based on earnings, on revenues, according to the income tax form. What would happen to those persons who earned $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000? They would not be eligible, neither under the federal plan, nor the provincial plan.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which we have debated rather fully. Earlier there was an amendment moved, which was defeated in the committee, concerning an individual who worked for several employers for a period of less than 25 days with an income of less than $250 from each. I explained the situation in that regard and gave the reasons for this particular provision being included in the legislation. I do not think I can add anything in that regard by reviving the discussion we have already had in respect of that amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if the province of Quebec would be entitled to set a higher amount to that established by the federal government in its pension plan? Would the province of Quebec have the right to impose an amount of $100 instead of 25 days or 15 days, if it established its own pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec has the right to bring in and pass its own legislation.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, I understand that the province of Quebec will be authorized to adopt the clauses it likes in the pension plan concerning the farmers, even if they work less than 25 days in some cases and if they earn less than $250, as required by the federal plan. In spite of all that, the provincial
Canada Pension Plan
government will be allowed to adopt all the provisions it wants under its own pension plan.

Is the answer yes?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, this does not involve the province of Quebec adopting the provisions of the Canada pension plan. The province of Quebec is going to pass its own pension plan, and if my hon. friend will look at the resolution on the order paper in the Quebec legislature he will see a general outline of the pension plan to be enacted by that province. We believe that if the province follows the detailed resolution on that order paper that plan will be a comparable pension plan.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, the question I wish to ask the minister perhaps should be dealt with under another clause, but it does have relationship to pensionable employment, and for that reason I will ask it at this time. I should preface my question by stating that this situation does not apply to my own position. If an individual is self-employed and also employed by another employer I realize he will contribute to the pension plan on the basis of both incomes, but which one will represent his contributions and which one will be refunded?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, he would first of all contribute on the basis of his employment earnings, but when he filed his pension return he would include enough of his selfemployed earnings to bring his contributions up to the maximum allowed.


Robert Simpson: What would happen if he was in the $5,000 per year bracket in respect of each source of income?


Edgar John Benson: If he was in the $5,000 bracket in respect of each, he would contribute on the basis of his employment earnings and contribute nothing on the basis of his selfemployed income.


Gérard Perron: It was established clearly
enough, I think, that the contributions were depending not on the place of residence of a citizen but rather on the place of his employment. I understand that this was already established by this clause on pensionable employment.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think I have answered this question already on many oc-

Canada Pension Plan
casions, but to repeat, it is based on the place of employment for an employee and the place of residence for a self-employed person.


Gérard Perron: This article deals with the place of employment. This means that all federal civil servants residing in the province of Quebec but who would be working anywhere outside the city of Ottawa would not come under this pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: They would contribute to the Quebec pension plan.


Gérard Perron: Then, as far as the place of employment is concerned, apart from the federal civil servants, let us consider for instance the T. Eaton Company of Canada, which has a store in Montreal and a number of branches throughout this country but whose head office is in Toronto and whose employees are often required to move to another province. Can the head office of all the chain stores which hires employees throughout Canada be considered as the place of employment?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman. The place of employment is where an individual reports for work. If he was employed in Montreal by the T. Eaton Company of Canada, as my hon. friend has suggested, he would report to work in Montreal, and therefore would be employed in Montreal and would contribute to the Quebec pension plan. If he was employed by the same company in Toronto, he would contribute to the Canada pension plan.


Gérard Perron: Another question. It has been stipulated and clearly laid down that the contribution in respect of earnings will be included in the income tax form.
Now a great many farmers from the province of Quebec as well as those I mentioned earlier, who would go to work in a province for a while and for another while, in another province, could not be subjected to the federal pension plan due to the fact they are not working for a sufficient period of time for the same employer. Should they earn enough to take part in one plan or in the other, what would happen to the employers who, themselves, would not have deducted the contribution due to the fact
EMr. Benson.]
that such employees were not recorded as contributors?


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The questions the hon. member for Beauce is now asking are not related to clause 6, which deals with pensionable employment. He is asking questions which are related to situations which might exist if a particular person was earning a certain amount of money from one place of employment and then switched to another. That subject is covered by another clause of this bill with which we will be dealing at some future time. It is not really related to clause 6 which defines categories of pensionable employment. I suggest that the hon. gentleman should confine his questions to subjects relevant to clause 6, which is now being considered.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the point raised by the hon. member is well taken. Clause 6 deals with pensionable employment. Any discussion in respect of contributions, I think, would be more appropriately dealt with during our consideration of clauses which appear later on in the bill. For that reason I suggest to the hon. member for Beauce that during our consideration of clause 6 he should relate his remarks as closely as possible to the context of that clause.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I thank the junior minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gérard Perron: -for his restatement of the question. However, I must say that I am still convinced of the relevancy of my question concerning a Canadian employee who works for various employers in Canada. In fact, one just has to refer to clause 6(2)(a) which reads as follows:
-less than $250 in cash remuneration in a year or employs the employee, on terms providing for payment of cash remuneration, for a period of less than 25 working days in a year.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I think that my questions are relevant and relate to the clause under consideration.
This being said, and if we take into consideration the numerous residents of Quebec who do not pay income tax because their earnings are not high enough to allow them to contribute to the pension plan, and due to the fact that the bill has not yet been introduced in the Quebec legislature, how can the

federal authorities impose, under Bill No. C-136, employment pensionable conditions, if this provision cannot be applied, as in the case of many residents of Quebec who nevertheless come under certain provisions of Bill No. C-136?


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I should like to indicate that the reason I did not answer my hon. friend is that this matter was discussed on Friday. An amendment was moved and voted upon by the committee.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
For at least ten minutes, on three occasions, reference was made to the amendment upon which a vote was taken this afternoon. That amendment was entirely irrelevant to the questions we asked and to the matter we are now dealing with.
I am not talking about persons going to the United States to work; I am referring to persons working within Canada. Therefore, this matter is entirely irrelevant to the amendment which was moved this afternoon.


Edgar John Benson: I was not referring to the amendment moved by my hon. friend which was voted upon this afternoon. There was an amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni which was voted upon last Friday which dealt with this particular subclause in this particular clause. It was discussed very fully at that time.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, my question does not deal with a farmer employed by somebody else or an employee working for someone else.
My question is straightforward and precise: What happens in the case of a farmer in the province of Quebec, who is self-employed but who does not earn sufficiently, that is $1,000, to be assessed, and who is not required to fill out any income tax form?
How can the minister relate the provisions of Bill No. C-136 to the contribution Quebec taxpayers may pay, especially in the case of farmers whose income does not reach $1,000?


Edgar John Benson: The limit of $1,000 has no application to this particular legislation. If a person is self-employed and earns $800 or more he must file a return under this par-
Canada Pension Plan
ticular legislation and contribute to the Canada pension plan, that is, if he resides outside of the province of Quebec. Presumably, there will be a similar provision in the Quebec pension plan.


Mr. Langlois:: I have a question with regard to this $800 which the minister just mentioned. Does that mean gross income or net income?


Edgar John Benson: This refers to clause 13, and it is net income.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 6
carry?


Raymond Langlois: It will not carry on the basis of net revenue. On the basis of gross revenue, you could cover quite a few people but on the basis of net revenue there will be many starving.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I am going to have to ask the hon. member for Megantic to relate his remarks to clause 6.


Raymond Langlois: They relate to subclause (2), paragraph (a). There is a reference to $800 and to $250, but we have not had a definite answer to our questions. The hon. member for Comox-


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This particular subclause of the bill is the one to which an amendment was moved last Friday. It was fully debated and voted upon.


Raymond Langlois: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni introduced an amendment to that particular subclause last Friday and it was voted upon. This amendment was based on what he had in mind. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, merely because there was a vote you can stop discussion on this particular part of the bill. There could be 20 amendments introduced, but that still would not change the fact that we can discuss the clause as long as we do not move a similar amendment. I respect the minister's view, but I still return to the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Beauce upon which many members have indicated their disapproval. There are still too many people who will not be covered by this pension plan. I am not talking about people in Quebec, but outside of Quebec.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the fact that there would be only a small proportion of the population not covered by the plan. I do not accept this line of reasoning. The fact that it is a small part

Canada Pension Plan
does not change the fact there are people who are not covered. I still believe this is an injustice to those people. These are the people who earn very little all their lives and who need this coverage the most. I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if his technical advisers can foresee a time in the near future when some amendments will be introduced to clause 6, subclause (2), paragraph (a) which will permit those people earning below $250 or do not work for one employer for more than 24 days, to be covered by the plan.


Edgar John Benson: I would say once again, as I said on Friday, that there is a particular clause in the bill, clause 7(l)(a) that gives the government power to vary this provision and change the definition of pensionable employment.


Raymond Langlois: Is it the intention of the government to try to find a solution to this problem in the fairly near future? I imagine there are going to be quite a few people who are going to be missed by this scheme. Probably the minister does not realize just how many will be missed-at least I hope he does not realize how many will be missed. I believe the minister will probably miss quite a few people because they will not be covered as a result of these two specifications in this clause.


Edgar John Benson: The requirements under clause 6(2)(a) were put in as the basis upon which we thought we could logically start, and then clause 7(1)(a) was added to the bill so that clause 6(2)(a) may be varied as conditions warrant in the future.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, reference was just made to a case which is claimed to be very special by some people but which I would consider of general application to many citizens in Quebec.
Reference is made to clause 7, the first subclause reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations for including in pensionable employment
(a) any employment outside Canada or partly outside Canada, being employment that would be pensionable employment if it were in Canada;
I do not believe this to be the complete answer to the question put by my fellow member for Megantie (Mr. Langlois) when he asked-


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct myself there. It should be clause

7(1) (g) to which I referred, rather than clause 7(1) (a).


Raymond Langlois: There is another detail I wanted to clarify in connection with this part. As I understand it, a provincial plan has to be comparable to the national plan which is set out in Bill No. C-136. If a person from a province that is not under this plan at the moment-there is only one now, the province of Quebec-were to move to Saskatchewan and work there, he would be under an obligation to contribute to this federal scheme as long as Saskatchewan remained under the federal plan. However, if this man worked for less than 24 days for one employer and he were switching around the country in this way, could the province of Quebec have a clause in its plan that would cover these people? Would it have to be similar to this one which refers to the 24 days or the $250 of earnings, or could the province eliminate this provision for 24 days altogether and include, for example, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni which referred to $100 of earnings from one employer for the whole year? Would that have any effect on the federal scheme, and would the federal government permit such a clause being inserted in the provincial plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, we are not passing the province of Quebec's legislation here. I would like to point out that if someone in the province of Quebec went and worked for 20 days in Ontario, in the particular employment outlined in clause 6 (2)(a), then of course he would not be contributing to the Canada pension plan.


Raymond Langlois: But a clause could be inserted in the provincial plan eliminating these 25 days and just applying the $100 earnings such as was suggested in the amendment proposed last Friday by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Could that be done without affecting the federal scheme?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think we should get into hypothetical cases. The legislation by the province of Quebec will be its own legislation. I cannot indicate to it what it should pass, any more than the province should be indicating to the government of Canada what legislation we should be passing here. I have indicated several times that the plans, based on the resolution on the Quebec order paper and the legislation before this house, will be comparable.


Raymond Langlois: You just cannot put yourself on to a one way track in this business. You say everybody else will have similar legislation but it might not be similar, and then where do you stand? I know of many things in federal schemes which the provinces have not agreed with. The minister never says what he means by similar or comparable, and I give a specific example. Would he agree with a provincial scheme which eliminated this $200 or 25 days provision? He can be assured that the Quebec provincial scheme will not be passed with a clause such as this in it, for the simple reason that there are too many people in that province who do not work 25 days with the same employer. This is the time to talk about possible objections. Would such a provincial clause affect the federal scheme, or would the federal government prevent a province such as Quebec from inserting such a clause in its scheme?


Edgar John Benson: All I can do is reiterate that we cannot dictate to the province of Quebec what kind of pension legislation they are going to pass. With respect to the schemes being comparable, based on the detailed resolution on the Quebec order paper and the legislation before this house, if these are followed then the schemes will be comparable and the benefits will be transferable as between the two. I do not believe the government can indicate in the House of Commons that it would not agree with a clause in the Quebec scheme, because the kind of legislation Quebec adopts is entirely up to it.


Raymond Langlois: I know that, but would the minister say if Quebec wants to adopt a special clause such as this the federal government would have nothing to say on it?


Edgar John Benson: I have already said that several times.


Raymond Langlois: You did not say yes or no. You say you would not object.


Edgar John Benson: I have not said I would not object. I have said the province of Quebec has the right to enact its own pension legislation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, all these
arguments about this and other clauses could be avoided if the minister would only make a statement to clarify what he means about two things.
First, he said that he has no objection to what will be included in the provincial pension plan but, on the other hand, that the 20220-766
Canada Pension Plan
plan should be comparable and portable from one province to another.
The minister should specify when the word comparable applies and when it does not. To what extent can a provincial plan have clauses which differ from those of the federal pension plan and still remain a portable plan?


John Carr Munro: On a point of order, the hon. member is talking about clause 3 which deals with definitions. He is not talking about pensionable employment which is the subject matter of clause 6. He is in breach of standing order 59(2) and I would request the Chair to bring him to order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary is well taken and the Chair would advise the hon. member for Lapointe to confine his remarks to pensionable employment and excepted employment, which are the two main points in clause 6.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall rephrase my question to the Minister of National Revenue.
The way I put my question a moment ago would have avoided discussion on all other clauses, but I will restrict my question to clause 6.
To what extent can the Quebec provincial government go in respect of clauses which differ from those of the federal plan-I am still referring to clause 6-so that the Quebec plan can still remain portable should a Quebec resident move to another province or should a citizen from another province move to the province of Quebec?
That, Mr. Chairman, is the question I would like the minister to answer.


Edgar John Benson: This is just about as hypothetical as one could get in a discussion such as this. I think what my hon. friend wants me to do is go through every clause and subclause in the bill which we have not passed already, and say if they did this or that differently the plans would not be comparable. It is impossible to do that. I have stated the province of Quebec has power to enact its own legislation. If it follows the resolution which it has on the order paper and if this bill is passed, after the filibustering by my hon. friends in the right hand corner has stopped, then perhaps one could reach a de-

Canada Pension Plan
cision as to whether or not the bills are comparable. I certainly cannot take every hypothetical situation that might arise and try to determine whether provincial legislation would still be comparable with the Canada pension plan.


Raymond Langlois: With reference to the remark about filibustering, this might be a good example to hon. members on the government side. They never get up and criticize. They just accept things. The minister says it is hypothetical but he goes on to say the plans must be comparable or similar. He uses every adjective in the dictionary but does not give a straight answer.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must ask the hon. member for Megantic to confine his remarks to the details of clause 6.


Raymond Langlois: I am doing that. I was referring to subclause (2) (a) and we still have not got an answer. The minister says this is a matter for provincial jurisdiction, that this belongs to the provincial bird, but he has cut the wings off the provincial bird and it cannot fly.
We proposed an amendment last Friday to give the provinces more jurisdiction in this matter, and some time ago I asked the minister a specific question-would this interfere with the federal plan. It is not a hypothetical question and he can ask his assistants about it. Would it interfere with the federal plan if Quebec decides to eliminate the 25 days provision and use as a basis earnings of $100? If the minister could answer yes or no that would satisfy me.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Gérard Perron: In the case where the province would do it-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The noise in the chamber is such that it does not permit the Chair to hear what is being said.


Gilles Grégoire: It is the people over there who are interrupting. That is all they can do.


Gérard Perron: In the event the province of Quebec, in exercising its freedom of action in view of the setting up of a pension plan, would decide to make contributory and pensionable a period of ten days of service for the same employer and a revenue of $10, and that the same citizen would go to work, as I said earlier, for 20 or 24 days in

the province of Ontario and the same number of days in the province of New Brunswick, what would happen to the contribution that the employer would have to pay under the federal plan and of those provinces with a plan which would not be under the provincial legislation but under the federal legislation? What would happen in the case of those workers?
Would the province compel the worker to pay 3 per cent of his income, the same as if he was self-employed? Would not complications and injustice arise in the case of this farm employee who went to work and who would earn a large share of his income elsewhere, in another province and who, under the Quebec legislation, would be compelled to participate in the Quebec pension plan, because of the difference in the clause-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must remind the hon. member for Beauce that any legislation dealing with pensions which may be passed in Quebec is not the concern of clause 6 of this bill. I would again ask the hon. member to confine himself to the details of clause 6 of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérard Perron: Maybe some of my remarks are not directly related to clause 6, but here is my question: What would happen in the case of such an employee who does go to work in the other provinces and comes under clause 6 which provides for a period of 25 days with the same employer or a consecutive annual income of $250 for the same job?
My question deals directly with clause 6, subsection (2), paragraph (a).
So I ask this question: what would happen? Would he have to pay 3 per cent because his employers, in the course of the year, during a major part of his period of employment, were not obliged to pay their share of the contributions to the Quebec pension fund, on behalf of this employee?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if the two pension plans, the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan, are to be interrelated, this point is an important one, if they are to work together in harmony. However, supposing the province of Quebec did adopt a different basis in that province, the contributions to the Canada pension plan are based on employment, so that if a person moved out of the province of Quebec, in the hypothetical

case which my hon. friend raises, and worked for 24 days in New Brunswick and 24 days in Ontario, he would not contribute for 48 days of the year.


Gérard Perron: Precisely. He will not contribute because he will have worked for three different employers during four or five months every year. It should be remembered that there are in Quebec many people who work outside the province for one employer for 20 or 22 days, for another man during a similar period and then for a third person for yet another 20 or 22 days. Consequently, that opens the door to an injustice since the worker was not required to contribute.
For instance, a man may go to work on a tobacco farm in Ontario. So as not to pay his share of the contributions, his employer may fire him on the 24th day and the neighbouring farmer will do likewise so as to trade workers actually. Consequently, even though they have worked on tobacco farms during 40 or 42 days, those men will not be allowed to participate because they did not work for the same employer and because their various employers did not pay their share of the contributions.
Has anything been done to find a solution to the problem of workers who will find themselves in such a dilemma?
tText]


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, exactly the same problem was raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and we had the same discussion on Friday. Two amendments were passed to change either the number of days or the amount of dollars, or both. Both those amendments were defeated. I do not really think I can add to what I said on Friday last.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister were right when he says those two amendments were passed. If that was the case, we would not be having this discussion.


Edgar John Benson: Pardon me; they were defeated.


Gérard Perron: The minister's answer is surely not completely acceptable to me, since he refers to the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). This amendment dealt with employees and employers of the nine provinces which will have a pension plan under Bill No. C-136 and not that of the very specific case we have just submitted. Should Quebec pass an act along the line 20220-766J
Canada Pension Plan
of the proposed amendment, it would be acceptable to the province of Quebec, but what would happen in the case of employees who would have to earn part of their annual income in another province?


Edgar John Benson: This legislation deals only with the Canada pension plan, and presumably the nine provinces outside the province of Quebec.


Raymond Langlois: There is precisely matter for speculation in the statement just made by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron).
Why not reconsider the example just given by the hon. member for Beauce, namely that an employer, in order to abstain from paying contributions, would simply dismiss his workers on the 24th day, under an agreement with his neighbour, and then would hire the latter's workers, while the neighbour would employ his own? The employees concerned would then be denied their right to a pension and the employer would not be required to pay his contributions, since he would not have employed those workers for 24 days.
Whether those concerned are from Quebec or outside Quebec, does the government intend to prevent such procedures which are likely to be followed, believe me, under such plans?
Yet, attempts will be made to speculate, and the minister knows it. I should like to know whether penalties or other methods will be provided in order to prevent such abuse. When the abuse is widespread, how does the minister intend to put a stop to it?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Raymond Langlois: How are you going to prevent
it?


Edgar John Benson: The provision of the legislation is perfectly clear. In order to require contributions to the Canada pension plan, clause 6 (2) (a) sets out that in specific employments persons must be employed for a period of 25 days and have cash remuneration of $250. The provision is clear.


Raymond Langlois: That is just it, Mr. Chairman; the provision is clear and it certainly leaves leeway and openings for speculation. If I am a tobacco grower and the hon. member for Beauce is a tobacco grower, and I want to protect my own industry and he wants to protect his, and I want to stop paying this 1.6 per cent contribution for the employee, what can happen in a case like

Canada Pension Plan
that is that I can tell the member for Beauce, "You send me your guys at the end of 24 days, and I will ship you mine". People will be working for 40 days, 50 days; but if we switch over with a group like that, the whole group will be in and not one man will be eligible for this pension business. That is the speculation that can come up. Has the minister foreseen a thing like this? This is why we ask him to eliminate this 24 days business.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have not the same opinion of employers as my hon. friend.


Raymond Langlois: The minister might not have the same opinion, but I think some employers have their eyes a little wider open than the Minister of National Revenue has at this moment. This is the sort of thing we have to foresee. We have so much speculation already in the country because of some blindfolded minister who sits on his bench-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: They might be more honest than you.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, there has been the allegation that people of the country might be more honest than myself. I don't know; that may be true. But this is just an example.


Mr. Lloyd:: On a point order-


Raymond Langlois: Therefore I say-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Halifax, on a point of order.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just been addressing the committee on this subject is, I believe, out of order. He has spoken on this subject several times. There is an established rule of the British house, and it is certainly one which we should follow, that there comes a point where dilatory practices are considered undesirable in the House of Commons and infringe upon the rights and privileges of the house to get on with its business. This is a fundamental rule; you don't need the rule book to understand this fundamental principle.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I think it is the right and privilege of members of this house to require Your Honour to see to it that a member who persists in ignoring your orders from the Chair as to relevancy should be warned that there are some remedies in this house that could be applied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, there were a lot of arguments raised on my side which are very relevant to clause 6 (1). If the hon. member can read, he should read that part of the bill. Furthermore, there is one other thing he forgot which we should respect in this house and which is in the bill of rights, and that is freedom of speech.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, in this house the right of freedom of speech certainly does not mean the destruction of the effectiveness of parliament.


Gérard Perron: In connection with the point of order. I wonder if the hon. member who took the floor was recognized by the Chair because I did not hear his name. Second, he told us about the British House of Commons; I wish to point out to him that we are in the Canadian House of Commons and not in the British House of Lords or House of Commons. Moreover, our questions are related to clause 6 and I maintain that it is the Chair's responsibility to call us to order if need be.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think that in the heat of argument the members of the committee have strayed from the point before the committee. Again I ask the indulgence of the members of the committee to confine their remarks to clause 6.


Raymond Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will try and confine my remarks to clause 6. With your permission I will repeat my example, and I hope this time the minister will answer or at least give some explanation whether he can prevent such speculation. It is all very well to pass legislation but it must be respected. Similar situations have arisen in the past which cause trouble even today. For example, I need only mention unemployment insurance. There are too many gaps and openings in this legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Raymond Langlois: If I am not allowed to bring forward examples of other legislation which has been brought in by a Liberal government in the past, then the government should formulate their legislation in a manner which ensures there are no deficiencies in it. We are considering legislation at this moment and this is one specific flaw I could put my finger on. Therefore I would ask the minister if he is still persisting in not answering whether there is any means to prevent such

Canada Pension Plan
speculation. I have referred to only one of thousands of ways this can occur throughout this bill.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, there is no way to prevent employees from moving from job to job after being in a particular occupation within the specified range listed in clause 6(2)(a), namely for less than 25 days in a year or earning less than $250. However, one thing which is very important and which my hon. friend should consider is that if an employee has 40 days work to do, the cost is only $1.80 per $100 of wages paid to the employee beyond the minimum amount. I hardly believe that employers in this country would force their employees to move from job to job just to save $1.80 in every $100 paid to their employees beyond a period of 25 days.


Raymond Langlois: If the minister had given me that answer half an hour ago perhaps we would have solved the problem. I am still not convinced but it is, at any rate, an explanation.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 7

Regulations respecting employment to be included in pensionable employment.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 7 which is consequential upon the amendment moved to clause 6, which was to make it possible to include under the plan members of the R.C.M.P. and the armed forces. It is therefore moved by the President of the Privy Council, seconded by myself:
That section 7 be amended by striking out lines 6 to 8 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"(g) any excepted employment other than employment described in paragraph (g), (i) or (j) of subsection (2) of section 6."


George James McIlraith: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 7 which I hope will be considered consequential and will pass as readily as the one which has just been moved from the other side of the house. The minister may recall that earlier in our discussion of clause 2 reference was made to the situation of the fishermen in relation to the coverage provided by the Canada pension plan. During the discussion the minister made particular reference to the provisions of clause 7. I will not go through all his remarks which were made at that time, but generally speaking he drew attention to the
fact that under clause 7 the governor in council is entitled to make regulations to permit inclusions in pensionable employment, under certain terms and conditions. This had particular reference to clause 7 (1) (c), which reads:
-any employment if it appears to the governor in council that the nature of the work performed is similar to the work performed by persons employed in pensionable employment;
My amendment arises out of the fact- this matter was touched on in the earlier discussion-that in the Unemployment Insurance Act the rather parallel provisions therein gave the governor in council the power to bring fishermen within the coverage of that act. In spite of the arguments we advanced, this power was never exercised until finally a specific amendment was introduced to the Unemployment Insurance Act which had the result of bringing fishermen, who might not be in the position of enjoying the ordinary employee-employer relationship, under the coverage of unemployment insurance.
It is arising out of that experience that I should like to move what I hope the minister will consider a consequential amendment which will clarify and make perfectly clear the situation as far as fishermen are concerned. I do so because of the fact that the minister, and following his lead the house generally, refused to accept certain amendments proposed by the hon. member for Skeena which would have changed the definition of "employee" and "employer" in the definition clause. The minister argued at the time that the situation of fishermen in all parts of the country was not exactly parallel, and that there should be some flexibility in the manner in which the act would be applied to them in relation to whether or not they should be considered as employees.
Therefore, I now move:
That clause 7 of Bill No. C-136 be amended by adding thereto a new subclause (4) as follows:
"(4) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act the governor in council may make regulations for including employment in fishing for all purposes of this act.
(b) For purposes of this subclause a fisherman may be deemed to be an employee notwithstanding that he is not an employee of any other person, and any person with whom the fisherman enters into a contractual or other commercial relationship in respect of his occupation as a fisherman may be deemed to be an employer."
This, Mr. Chairman, is a permissive piece of legislation if it is inserted into the bill, but I would construe it to have something of the same force and effect as the amendment in-

Canada Pension Plan
troduced in 1956 to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is closely similar in that it specifically authorized the governor in council to approve regulations made by the unemployment insurance commission to include employment in fishing in insurable employment. As far as I was able, I have drafted my amendment to the pension legislation in a form parallel with that which was drafted as an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, as passed by the house in 1956, for a somewhat related purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to pursue the argument on behalf of my amendment at any length because we did explore this question when we had clause 2 under consideration. However, I feel the amendment I have now proposed has been designed to meet the objections raised at the time we were considering clause 2 in respect of the early amendment we proposed, on the basis of its being too rigid. I believe this amendment allows for that flexibility which the minister has suggested is necessary, while at the same time makes clear, if this amendment passes, that the intention of parliament is that the governor in council shall give recognition to the rather special circumstances which pertain to the fishing industry in many areas, but particularly on the west coast where for practical purposes the relationship of fishermen, as independent operators, to those to whom they sell their fish, is one of employee and employer, because in a great many cases they are chartering or buying boats from these people to whom they sell their fish. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amendment should be regarded as a necessary consequential amendment to the clause as originally proposed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays, 53.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 8-Amount of employee's contribution.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in earlier discussions I had with members of the official
opposition party it was indicated that the government would move on to those clauses to which the opposition intends to propose amendments which are considered to be amendments in point of principle, with the understanding that those clauses which will require consequential amendment will be reopened. For that reason I urge upon my hon. friends to accept the suggestion that if the other clauses which we may consider are amended and by reason of which consequential amendments are required we will re-open these clauses for the purpose of the consequential amendments.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, was clause 7 passed as amended?


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 7 was passed as
amended. We are now studying clause 8.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, the official opposition proposes to move two consequential amendments to subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 8. On the understanding which the minister has expressed, that if our principal amendments to clauses 44, 46 and 48 are carried we will then revert to those clauses to which consequential amendments will have to be made, we are prepared to defer our debate in that regard at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, under section 8, the employee shall pay 1.8 per cent of his pensionable earnings for the year, and the employer shall also pay 1.8 per cent of the same amount.
On this matter, I would like to point out that this amount of 1.8 per cent or practically 2 per cent of the salary of the Canadian worker, will be deducted from his pay cheque and turned over to the federal government which will apply it to some other plan.
The worker, Mr. Chairman, already has deductions made from his salary respecting his federal income tax, his provincial income tax, his union fees, his unemployment insurance, and other deductions respecting various pension or insurance plans. And now, it is proposed that a further amount of 1.8 per cent be taken from him. At the rate things are going, before long, the Canadian worker will probably prefer to draw his pay check stub rather than the check itself. More and more is being taken out of the worker's pay

envelope. He works to earn a salary but at the end of a week, two weeks, a month or a year, deductions are made from his pay for this and for that. And here is a new plan which takes a little more from the Canadian worker, which means that his pay will be a little smaller.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the way things are going, the government is trying to take everything away from the Canadian citizens. Why not let the worker keep what he earns and see to it that he gets a pension when he is 65? It should be possible to do both, Mr. Chairman. The worker should keep what he earns. Nothing more should be taken from him, as we are planning to do under clause 8 of Bill No. C-136. But we should give him a pension just the same. The government has now decided to raise the pension to $100 a month. Let us give him that and, if necessary, let us add to it, so that everybody will have the same pension, because under a plan of this type, it is those who earn most who will be the most favoured.
_ Mr. Chairman, since the Liberals seem a bit tired and have all moved to this corner to discuss the Rivard case or something else-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -may I call it ten o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Ten o'clock.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, will the house leader indicate what the business is for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the government will submit the Canada pension plan legislation to the house again tomorrow with the hope that it will receive final consideration by the committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the minister in the house during the time this question
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is put. That is not the usual procedure. I see the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) also present. He is the hon. member who has described the minister as being the only man in the House of Commons who is not afraid of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), so it is a special thrill for me to face such a brave titan. The reason I want to get into the question I brought up on Friday is that it is even more significant-


Mr. Knowles:: Maybe he will answer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You mean that one punch may be giving the reply? We will wait and see.
The minister was quoted in Saturday's newspaper and on Monday, right after I raised the question on Friday, and if his comment is at all correct it just underlines the reason I should ask the question and why this house should expect an answer on that part of policy. If I get the gist of the minister's statement to this Liberal meeting at Newmarket, the world is in wonderful shape and things are easy. The only reason the Lucien Rivard case and matters like that come up in the House of Commons is that the opposition has not anything else to say. The economy is so great, unemployment has been solved, Hal Banks has been put in his place and all is right with the world. This is the minister's line. It is not good enough.
I want to contrast this, Mr. Speaker, with the minister's comment in the Financial Post of August 22, 1964. It started off this way:
The biggest question mark now hanging over employment and manpower is automation and technological change. These are things we cannot halt, even if we wanted to. Canada, like other countries, must take advantage of new techniques but in doing so we are determined to do everything in our power to see that, while we reap the benefits of these advances, we do not do so at the expense of the workers involved.
Then he goes on to talk about the wonderful manpower consultative service that is being set up. Well, Professor Deutsch of the Economic Council of Canada has published an annual report. He has kicked the daylights out of the manpower consultative service. I hope hon. members have read the portion of the report in which he indicates that this is an organization that is going to be operating in limbo. I think those are pretty close to his words. He indicated that while perhaps this manpower organization is an idealistic idea, it is not practical. The report is much more critical than that.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
However, I should like to turn to a recent quotation from the worthy professor. This statement appeared in the Toronto Star for January 27 and it is entitled, "Deutsch says: Don't have to put workers on shelf". I quote:
Until the point of perfection has been reached where everyone's needs and wants have been satisfied, there is no need to put people out of jobs and pay them to stay on the shelf, Dr. J. J. Deutsch of Ottawa, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, said here.
Dr. Deutsch, here to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said in an interview, "I can see no basic reason why we cannot keep expanding our production to meet unfilled needs and keep creating jobs to meet the increasing demands for production."
"Automation can increase production and make more goods available with less labour and enable us to hold our place in a competitive world market," he said.
More and more, the interpretation of Dr. Deutsch's study is being realized, and the other day the Globe and Mail of March 5 contained a story by Ronald Anderson which carries this title: "Hard-Core Theory of Jobless Levels Disputed in Study". I should like to quote part of the article:
The theory of structural unemployment-the idea that automation and other technological changes have created a hard core of unemployed-was dealt a stiff blow in a staff study released this week by the Economic Council of Canada.
The study contends there are no signs of an increase in so-called hard-core unemployment in the period since the second world war, except the increase associated with a rise in over-all unemployment.
Now, if that is true, as Mr. Anderson points out, this is more significant and it raises very many questions about this whole problem of technological change and automation, how serious the problem is, and what kind of policies we should have to meet it. My question is a fairly straightforward one to the minister: What are the government's policies in lieu of an analysis presented by the Economic Council of Canada, particularly its criticism of the manpower consultative service, particularly its criticism both in that report and in these other studies, particularly the Windsor study, which indicates that our unemployed are not really getting into the retraining and training program? It seems to me we deserve an answer from the minister longer than the three minutes he can give us.
I would make a personal observation here to underline this, Mr. Speaker. I went into the library where they are good enough to keep files on all hon. members, and I would advise the minister to go in and have a look at the very substantial file built up in connec-

tion with himself. There are lots of stories on the minister talking about the likelihood of elections, about all kinds of fancy deals, about how Cape Breton should be happy, and about what a wonderful people the maritimers are. But there is a tremendous lack of stories and comments about the minister and the policy objectives of his own department.
I would like to suggest to him that if this is a fair kind of clipping it indicates he is not living up to his responsibilities as Minister of Labour, that he is not giving us a real lead in terms of policies and the whole question of technological change and automation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am fresh from a political meeting at North York on Friday evening and I hope I can shift gears into the sober solemnity that has been requested by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).
Far be it from me to suggest, even at North York, that everything is grand, but I did point out that there had been an increasing, definite, and observable, improvement in the employment situation. I think I also pointed out that further measures of a more specialized kind are needed to deal with the problem of regional unemployment, because it is a fact that the problem of unemployment, for example in Ontario and the prairies, is of an entirely different character to the problem in eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
To come to the question of automation, I am surprised that the hon. member for Port Arthur would rely on a source, namely the report of the Economic Council of Canada, which he himself described as hollow, containing nothing new, and of very little use in analysing Canada's economic problems. I must say I shared the hon. member's view with respect to that section of the report which dealt with manpower policy in Canada, and which could have benefited hugely from a greater factual knowledge of what is actually being done in the manpower field, and which is not reflected in the report.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is what I wanted you to say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am glad I have the opportunity to make that comment tonight.
The hon. member takes me off guard because his question on Friday, which I attempted to analyse in my own mind, concerned the net effect of automation on the economy, whether it led to an absolute decline in jobs or whether the noticeable decreases in particular firms and industries were offset

by automation produced increases in employment in other industries. You can take agriculture, refining and the automobile industry and discover an absolute decline in employment, or at least that fewer men are able to produce an equivalent amount of production-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Tuesday, March 9, 1965