1965-03-01

Mr. Speaker:: Order. When I reached my office today at two o'clock there was a letter from the office of the chief electoral officer, le directeur general des elections, dated Ottawa, February 27, 1965, and it is my duty to read it to the house:
The Honourable Alan A. Macnaughton,
Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Sir:
I acknowledge receipt of the attested copy of a resolution passed by the House of Commons on Wednesday, February 24, 1965, requesting me to investigate the charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963 made by a Mr. Ormond Turner in the Vancouver Province of February 22, 1965, and in any subsequent issues thereof, and to make a full report thereon, which copy was forwarded to me by Mr. L6on J. Raymond, the Clerk of the House of Commons.
As an officer of parliament my first duty is to carry out the tasks assigned to me by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the Representation Commissioner Act and the Canada Elections Act; consequently, I respectfully submit that it is physically impossible for me to undertake and carry out the request made in the above mentioned resolution.
Yours faithfully,
N. Castonguay
Acting Chief Electoral Officer


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since I was the member who moved the motion requesting the acting chief electoral officer to carry out the investigation, which motion the house passed, I should like to say that since the chief electoral officer says that it is physically impossible-I note not legally impossible but physically impossible-for him to carry out this task 1 think we must respect his wishes in the matter. But I express the hope that the government would be prepared to appoint a judicial inquiry to look into this matter at the earliest possible moment.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the letter you have just communicated to the house from the
representation commissioner, and in response to the statement just made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I should like to say that if it would meet the wishes of the house the government is ready to appoint without delay a commissioner under the Inquiries Act who will be empowered to hold a public inquiry into the alleged irregularities; and the government would also undertake, on receipt of a report from the commissioner when he is appointed, to make that report available to the House of Commons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to welcome the statement of the Prime Minister and say that we will be very glad to have such an inquiry. It was never our thought that we should have any kind of inquiry other than a public one. Whether it is conducted by the chief electoral officer or by a judge, in either case it seems to me that there would be, as I would expect, a fair and proper investigation.



PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In order to mark an occasion dear to the hearts of all those of Welsh descent may I bring, on St. David's day, greetings which were first extended in this house by the late member for Saskatoon on March 1, 1962.
I wish to do honour to another Welshman, who wrote the immortal lines engraved over an archway in the peace tower:
All's well, for over there amongst his peers, a happy warrior sleeps.
John Ceredigion Jones, bom on the day Dewi Sant, a Welsh Canadian vagabond poet, sleeps in the forests of Algoma. Among others in his position, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) played some considerable part in unravelling the life story of this man, who contributed this immortal line to Canadian literature.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those of Welsh descent in Canada may I say to all "iechyd-da".



MR. BASFORD-REPORTED STATEMENT BY NJ3.P. LEADER

Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege

Questions
arising out of the report of an interview with the leader of the New Democratic party appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette, in which he is reported, in quotation marks, as saying:
Everyone knows that in British Columbia lumber camps voters are often registered in two lists, one at home and one at the camp.
As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I dissociate myself from the word "everyone" in that statement. I know nothing about this.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to the alleged matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I should like to hear your ruling as to whether that is a proper question of privilege because, if it is, quite frequently members of this house could rise in respect of statements made outside of this house with which they are not in agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: In respect of this particular question I am going to take it under consideration.



MR. LANGLOIS-CORRECTION IN QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member rise on a question of privilege?


Raymond Langlois: Yes, with regard to question No. 2,778 the fifth paragraph of which reads as follows:
Are the extra series minted to meet requirements exactly the same as those already struck or still to be struck by existing machines?
The words "existing machines" should not appear in this part of the question. There is a mistake here, which was brought to the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. My question referred to the new machines. I would therefore request a correction in question No. 2,778 by inserting the words "new machines" instead of "existing machines".



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Moreau.

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1 What research projects have been carried out by the defence research northern laboratory at Churchill since its inception?
2.	What universities have assisted in these projects and what were the projects in each case?
3.	What D.R.N.L. research is planned for the immediate future?
4.	Where will the magnetic and seismic laboratory being organized by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys at Churchill be located?
5.	What use is being made of S.A.C. alert building at Churchill and which department of government is responsible for maintaining this building?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence, Mines and Technical Surveys and Transport as follows:
1.	The defence research northern laboratories at Churchill have carried out defence research in the following fields: (a) entomology; (b) environmental physiology; (c) environmental psychology; (d) operational research; (e) botany; (f) geophysics; (g) physics; (h) miscellaneous investigations such as development of a portable ice drill, low temperature storage of fuels and lubricants, trials of pack rations and tentage, investigations on arctic clothing and equipment; (i) assistance and facilities were provided in support of the international geophysical year (1958) activities in the Churchill area and for the exploration of the upper atmosphere using rockets by U.S. and Canadian agencies.
2.	(a) Entomology, Universities of Alberta and Western Ontario; (b) physiology, Universities of Toronto, McGill and Laval; (c) psychology, Universities of Manitoba and Toronto; (d) geophysics, McGill University; (e) physics, University of Saskatchewan.
3.	Future plans for the defence research northern laboratory are under study.
4.	The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys magnetic observatory at Churchill consists of a non-magnetic 15' x 15' recording building to be taken over from the defence research northern laboratory of D.R.B. after July 1, 1965, and a new non-magnetic absolute building 40' x 16' which has just been completed and is now being instrumented. Both buildings are located in the military camp about 2,000 feet northwest of the centre of the old military headquarters. The seismic observatory of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys at Churchill is still in

the planning stage. There is no magnetic-seismic laboratory, as such, in Churchill or planned for Churchill.
5.	No use is being made of the S.A.C. alert building at Churchill. It is in the custody of the Department of Transport which is responsible for its maintenance.


AGREEMENTS RESPECTING MONTREAL BRIDGES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What agreements have been reached between the seaway authority or any other branch of the federal government with the national harbours board or the government of the province of Quebec or the city of Montreal relating to the alteration or reconstruction of the Jacques Cartier and Honore Mercier bridges and what is the gist of these agreements?
2.	Do any of these agreements relate to the handling of the debt of the Jacques Cartier bridge?
3.	What are the steps by which the debt of the Jacques Cartier bridge is being retired?
4.	Had the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal any responsibility for this debt and, if so, how are they meeting this responsibility?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: With respect to parts 1 and 2, the St. Lawrence seaway authority advise as follows:
1.	In 1961, the St. Lawrence seaway authority paid to the national harbours board the sum of $544,703.45 to reimburse the board for works performed by them for the account of the authority in connection with modifications to the Jacques Cartier bridge, made necessary by the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway.
With regard to the Honore Mercier bridge, negotiations are being carried on to arrive at written agreements, as part of a broader settlement, with the relevant branches of the government of the province of Quebec, with respect to the construction of the southern approaches to the bridge, made necessary by the passage at that point of the St. Lawrence seaway.
2.	In so far as the St. Lawrence seaway authority is concerned, the answer is no.
Regarding parts 3 and 4, the national harbours board advise as follows:
3.	Negotiations are under way with the Quebec provincial government for the transfer of the Jacques Cartier bridge to the province and these discussions have not yet been completed. The retirement of the bridge debt is one of the matters being negotiated.
Questions
4.	Under the Jacques Cartier bridge tripartite agreement the three parties concerned, the federal, provincial and municipal governments, were each responsible for one third of any annual operating deficit. The city of Montreal and the federal government have accounted for their share of the operating deficit, and the settlement of the province's share is one of the matters under negotiation.


USE OF DRUGS AMIN OP YRINE AND DIPYRONE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the government received reports that two drugs, aminopyrine and dipyrone, used in the treatment of fever and the relief of pain have been classified by the food and drug administration and the American medical association as being a possible cause of a fatal blood disorder?
2.	Are these drugs being used in Canada and, if so, is the Department of National Health and Welfare taking steps to restrict their use?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2.	These drugs are being used in Canada as prescription drugs.
The food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare has advised all doctors in Canada of the serious nature of the side effects which have been caused by these drugs. The directorate is taking steps to have labelling changes made on these products.


STATISTICS RESPECTING DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Matheson: 1.	What was the average monthly price paid to producers in the province of Ontario for cheese, milk, and milk for manufacturing purposes for the period May 1, 1963, to January 1, 1964, and for the period May 1, 1964 to January 1, 1965?
2.	What was the quantity and value of Canada's exports of butter, cheese, evaporated milk, and dry skim milk, for the calendar years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
3.	What were the stocks of dairy products in Canada as of January 1, 1964 and January 1, 1965, held (a) by the government (b) by the trade?
4.	What was the cost to the government for export assistance on dairy products for the year 1963 and 1964?
5.	What was the production of Cheddar cheese in the province of Ontario for the years 1963 and 1964, and what proportion of the production in each year was graded Canada first grade?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. See table page No. 11812.
2.	See table page No. 11812.
3.	Stocks of , dairy products in Canada as of January 1, 1964, and January 1, 1965 held
by

Questions
(a)	the government: ('000 lbs.)
Product	Jan. 1/64	Jan. 1/65Butter	123,258	82,665Butter oil	66,243	5,679Dry skim milk	3,883	3,762(b) the trade:	('000 lbs.)	Butter	13,211	10,642Cheddar cheese	57,705	59,773Dry skim milk	17,111	24,842Dry whole milk	2,738	3,633Evaporated milk	41,897	35,965Casein	1,551	1,5334.	Cost to the government for export assistance for 1963 and 1964:1962-63	1963-64
(fiscal years)
Cheese	$1,024,773	$ 771,415Dry skim	milk	870,000	887,754
Evaporated milk and
Dry whole milk	1,705,599	1,177,605Total	$3,600,372	$2,836,7745.	Production of Cheddar cheese in Ontario for 1963 and 1964, and proportion graded "Canada first grade":Total	Production	PerProduction Canada first grade cent ('000 lbs.)	('000 lbs.)1963	73,753	66,419	90.01964	74,620	70,972	95.11.	Average monthly price paid to producers in the province of Ontario, during the period May 1, 1963 to January 1, 1964 and May 1, 1964 to January 1, 1965:Milk forCheese	Fluid	ManufacturingPeriod	milk	milk	purposes^1* *1963 1964	1963 1964	1963 196
$ per ewt. $ per ewt. $ per cwt. $ per cwt. $ per cwt. $ per cwt.
May	
2.70	2.96	4.83	5.02	2.53	2.66June	
2.75	2.93	4.81	4.98	2.47	2.59July	
2.77	2.97	4.76	4.94	2.46	2.53August	
2.81	3.03	4.76	4.95	2.49	2.63September	
2.91	3.03	4.96	4.97	2.62	2.69October	
3.02	3.18	5.00	5.02	2.73	2.85November	
3.13	3.33	5.03	5.05	2.87	3.05December	
3.07	(2)	5.03	(2)	2.88	(2)
(') For concentration and ice cream.
<2>
Not available.
Note: As reported by the dominion bureau of statistics.
2.	Quantity and value of Canada's domestic exports of butter, cheese, evaporated milk, and dry skim milk, for the calendar years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964:
1960	1961	1962	1963	1964pQuantity	Value	Quantity Value	Quantity Value Quantity	Value Quantity	Valuecwt'000	$'000	cwt'000	$'000	cwt'000	$'000	cwt'000	$'000	cwt'000	$'000Butter	
30	$1,710	-*	$ 6	-*	$ 2	56	$1,726	365	$12,608Cheese, Cheddar	186	6,385	191	6,177	269	8,711	252	8,778	303	10,667Cheese, n.e.s	
2	109	4	167	4	179	6	264	13	495Total Cheese	188	$6,494	195	$6,344	273	$8,890	258	$9,042	316	$11,162Milk, evaporated	33	470	47	654	61	837	59	755	181	2,341
Milk powder,
skim milk	 480	4,591	531	3,489	357	2,865	556	5,179	432	5,736
* Amount too small to be expressed, p Preliminary.
Note: As reported by the dominion bureau of statistics.


TENDERS FOR OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, PIER &quot;C&quot; WAREHOUSE, PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of office accommodations in the pier "C" warehouse, Pictou, N.S.?
2.	Who were the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Bernard Prest, Pictou, $4,985.80; J. Gordon MacCara, Trenton, $6,590; R. W. Robinson, Pictou, $10,950.
3.	Bernard Prest, Pictou, N.S.


NATIONAL WELFARE COUNCIL
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What are the names of the members of the new national council of welfare, and which member is chairman?
2.	Do members of this council receive remuneration and, if so, in what amount?
3.	Will this body meet regularly and, if so, at what intervals?
4.	Will this body issue regular public reports and, if so, at what intervals?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Dr. J. W. Willard, deputy minister of welfare, Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa (chairman); Mr. R. L. Andrews, deputy minister of welfare, department of public welfare, Newfoundland; Mr. W. W. Reid, deputy minister of welfare, department of welfare and labour, Prince Edward Island; Mr. F. R. MacKinnon, deputy minister of welfare, department of public welfare, Nova Scotia; Mr. J. E. Anderson, deputy minister of welfare, department of youth and welfare, New Brunswick; Mr. Roger Marier, deputy minister of welfare, department of family and social welfare, Quebec; Mr. J. S. Band, deputy minister of welfare, department of public welfare, Ontario; Mr. K. O. MacKenzie, deputy minister of welfare, department of welfare, Manitoba; Mr. J. S. White, deputy minister of welfare, department of social welfare and rehabilitation, Saskatchewan; Mr. D. W. Rogers, deputy minister of welfare, department of public welfare, Alberta; Mr. E. R. Rickin-son, deputy minister of welfare, department of social welfare, British Columbia.
In addition to the foregoing, the following ten persons have been appointed by the governor in council for a period of three years: Reverend Dr. Leonard Hatfield, Dartmouth, N.S.; Father Andre-M. Guillemette, Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Phillip S. Fisher, Montreal,
Questions
Quebec; Miss Suzanne Desrivieres, Quebec city, P.Q.; Mr. Richard E. H. Davis, Ottawa, Ontario; Miss Bessie Touzel, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. Andrew Andras, Ottawa, Ontario; Patricia R. Desjardins, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Rev. Allan William Martin, Regina, Sask.; Mrs. Gordon S. Selman, Vancouver 13, B.C.
2.	No remuneration is paid, but reimbursement will be made of travelling and subsistence expenses incurred in attending council meetings.
3.	The council will meet in the early stages at least twice a year, though this may be reduced to one meeting a year later on.
4.	In line with the approach taken by the dominion council of health, which is the advisory body to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on health matters, the council will not issue public reports.


REDUCTION OF AIR POLLUTION, MONTREAL AND HALIFAX
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
In view of McGill University research reports, to the effect that air pollution in Montreal and Halifax cause serious lung function impairment, is the government considering action to reduce air pollution in those cities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The responsibility to reduce air pollution rests with provincial and municipal governments. The federal government will provide expert consultant and technical assistance, as well as financial assistance, within the terms of reference of existing programs such as the health grants, to the provincial governments upon request.


WELFARE AND DELINQUENCY CASES AMONG ORIENTAL IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the number and percentage of welfare cases among oriental family immigrants?
2.	What is the number and percentage of juvenile delinquents among oriental family immigrants?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the departments of citizenship and immigration and trade and commerce as follows:
1.	The immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration does keep records of moneys spent on immigrant welfare, but these records do not include information showing the recipients' nationality or origin.
2.	In 1962 there were 20 families with a juvenile delinquent or delinquents under 16

Questions
years of age in the family, which had immigrated from Asia at some time.
Information on the total number of oriental family immigrants is not available in the dominion bureau of statistics, but according to the 1961 census of Canada, there were 24,242 Asiatic families in Canada, in which both husband and wife were present at the census date and the head of the family was an Asiatic. A number of these, although of Asiatic origin, are Canadian born.


COST OF REPORT &quot;SCOTSBURN MARSH DRAINAGE SURVEY&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What was the total cost of the preparation of the report entitled "Scotsbum Marsh Drainage Survey" which was prepared by the maritime marshland rehabilitation administration, department of forestry, Amherst, Nova Scotia, dated July 1964?
2.	What was the cost of the field party which carried out the survey referred to above?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisler of Forestry):: 1.	$1,092.95.
2.	$925.30


DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL PROPERTY, SASKATOON AIRPORT
Mr. Douglas: Did the federal government, or any of its agencies, call for tenders in connection with federal property at the Saskatoon airport and, if so (a) what was the closing date for the submission of such tenders (b) what companies submitted tenders (c) what was the amount of each tender submitted (d) has there been a final decision made as to the disposition of the federal property at the Saskatoon airport?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisler of Industry):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: Yes.
Building 64-Roman Catholic chapel: (a) October 9, 1964; (b) and (c) Our Lady of CZestochowa church, Saskatoon, $16,700; Wesley United church, Quill lake, $6,251; building committee for the Anglican and United churches, Shellbrook, $1,500; Wm. Tomchuk Construction, Regina, $670;	(d)
sold to Our Lady of CZestochowa church on November 23, 1964, for removal.
Building 65-Protestant chapel: (a) September 11, 1964; (b) and (c) St. George's Anglican church, Saskatoon, $20,001; Quill lake (Wesley) United church, Quill lake, $3,251; (d) sold to St. George's Anglican church on October 22, 1964, for removal.
Married quarters: (a) November 18, 1964.
(b)	and (c) Framar Investments Limited, Winnipeg, $620,000; Boychuck Construction, Sas-
[Mr. Lamontagne.l
katoon, $506,500; Albert S. Baker, Saskatoon, $506,000; Evans Construction Co., Saskatoon, $451,000; Airport Housing Syndicate, Saskatoon, $384,250; Alpine Development Corporation, Edmonton, $365,000; McNab Development Corporation, Edmonton, $250,000; A. M. Gammell, Vernon, Ontario, $100,000; Walter Zakreski, Saskatoon, $6,000; Mrs. D. Crulman, Saskatoon, $5,000; (d) sold to Framar Investments Limited, Winnipeg, February 19, 1965.


COLOUR TELEVISION
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the early introduction of colour television in Canada and, if so, can a date be estimated for the start of colour television?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the board of broadcast governors as follows:
The board has continued to collect information on colour television but, as previously announced, no recommendation will be made until the committee on broadcasting has submitted its report to the government.


BANNING OF TELEVISION CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to adopting the British practice of banning cigarette television advertising?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the board of broadcast governors as follows:
The board of broadcast governors has held discussions with regard to cigarette advertising on television but no decisions have yet been taken.


DOPPLER SYSTEMS USED BY R.C.A.F.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Are Canadian Marconi Doppler systems being replaced as equipment in either the C130B or C130E transport aircraft of the R.C.A.F. by C.A.E. Doppler systems and, if so, what are the reasons therefor?
2.	What is the estimated cost of this modification?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


ADVERTISING FOR PROCLAMATION OF NEW FLAG
Mr. Slogan: 1. What advertising has the government done in relation to the availability and sale by the queen's printer of the proclamation of the new

Canadian flag (a) on television (b) on radio (c) in newspapers or other media?
2. What was the cost in each instance?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. (a) Two 30 second broadcasts on the national networks of the C.B.C.; (b) nil;
(c)	nil.
2. (a) $3,028; (b) nil; (c) nil.


CITIES VISITED BY FORMER MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What cities did the former minister without portfolio recently visit on his trip around the world?
2.	What was the purpose of his visit to each of these cities?
3.	What was the total cost of the trip? [Translation]


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The itinerary of the former minister without portfolio included official visits or courtesy calls to the following cities: Lagos, Lusaka, Nairobi, New Delhi, Karachi and Colombo.
2.	To Lagos and Nairobi, the former minister without portfolio made courtesy calls and in Lusaka he attended Zambia's independence celebrations. He went on to New Delhi and Karachi where he made official visits. He then proceeded to Colombo where he represented Canada at the inauguration ceremonies of an extension to the Katunayake airport, a joint Canada-Ceylon project undertaken under the Colombo plan.
3.	The full cost of the trip is not known. Expenses paid by the government for the official visits and courtesy calls made by Mr. and Mrs. Dupuis amounted to $6,990.20.


CEYLON AIRPORT-STATEMENT BY FORMER MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Mr. Marcoux: On the occasion of the inauguration of an airport in Ceylon, which airport was built under the provisions of the Colombo plan, did the former minister without portfolio announce that Canada would not insist on repayment by Ceylon and, if so, did this viewpoint reflect official government policy?


Stanley Haidasz: The former minister without portfolio explained, on the occasion of the inauguration of the Ceylon airport, that this
Questions
project had been undertaken thanks to appropriations made available by the Canadian parliament which provided an assistance program to Ceylon in the form of grants and that, therefore, there would be no repayment


RELOCATION OF ARMED FORCES UNITS, EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What is the proposed date of the relocation of units now accommodated in premises on lots 27, 28 and 29 in block 8, subdivision plan "B" Hudson's Bay reserve, Edmonton, as referred to in paragraphs (1) (4) in the answer to question No. 2,580, at page 11425, Hansard, February 17, 1965?
2.	To what location is it proposed to move the above units?
3.	What is the projected date of the declaration as surplus of the lands and premises referred to in the answers to questions numbered 2,580 and 2,581 at page 11425, Hansard, February 17, 1965?
4.	Has consideration been given to ascertaining whether any of the said lands could be made available to the Department of Public Works of Canada for additional staff or public parking for the federal public building at 107th st. and 99th ave., Edmonton?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. The 38 technical squadron RCEME (militia) is in the process of being relocated to the Prince of Wales armoury 104th street and 108th avenue, Edmonton. It is expected this move will be completed by early March.
As soon as suitable alternate accommodation can be found, the triservice recruiting unit will be relocated. No firm date can be given.
3.	No date has been determined as it will depend on the acquisition of space for the triservice recruiting unit.
4.	Not by the Department of National Defence. However, consideration may be given to this when the property is transferred to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


PIERS AND SLIPWAYS, QUEBEC CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many piers and slipways for small boats are there in (a) the constituency of Chapleau (b) the constituency of Villeneuve, and (c) the constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue?
2.	Where are such piers and slipways located in each constituency?
ITranslationi
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): 1. (a) Chapleau, 23; (b) Villeneuve, 21; (c) Pontiac-Temiscamingue, 18.

Questions
. Constituency of Chapleau	Constituency of Villeneuve	Constituency of Pontiac-TemiscamingueLac Castagnier	Baie Carriere	AngliersLac Chicobi	Bell River (Tiblement) (3)	Belleterre (Lac aux Sables)Lac Figuery	Lac Caron	Campbell's BayLac Fiedmont	Lac Duparquet	Calumet IslandLac Lois	Lac Lemoyne	Des JoachimsLac Parent	Lac Malartic	Fort CoulongeLac Pusticamica	Lac Mourier	Fort WilliamLac Quevillon	Lac Preissac (2)	KipawaLac Wokamichi	Lac Simon	Lac CaymantLa Reine	Lac Tiblemont	Lac St. AmantLa Sarre (3)	Louvicourt	La ForceMacamic	Rapide Sept	LanielOskelaneo	Remigny (Lac Barriere)	LatulippePalmarolle	Remigny (Lac des Quinze)	MoffetteParent	Riviere Malartic	Norway BayRoquemaure	Riviere Solitaire	Notre-Dame-du-NordSenneterre (a)	Rouyn (Lac Osisko)	QuyonSt. Jeanne d'Arc de Clerval Tachereau	Val d'Or (Lac Blouin)	Ville-Marie


DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION 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 Defence Production 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?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Defence Construction (1951) Limited is concerned, the answer is as follows:
May 30, 1958, Dawson & Hall Ltd., $239,641, Construction of R.C.A.S.C. garage services area, Whitehorse, Y.T.
Sept. 15, 1959, Dawson & Hall Ltd., $54,777, Construction of fixed Tacan station, Whitehorse, Y.T.
Nov. 17,	1961, Dawson & Hall Ltd.,
$819,776, construction of a warehouse, p.o.l. bulk storage building, alterations to garage, erection and finishing fire hall (building owner supplied) and services, Camp Takhini, Whitehorse, Y.T.
April 27, 1961, Dawson, Wade & Co. Ltd., $19,850, asphalt paving of Range road, Camp Takhini, Whitehorse, Y.T.
July 24, 1961, Dawson, Wade & Co. Ltd., $14,742, asphalt paving of Ortona avenue and Normandy road, Camp Takhini, Whitehorse, Y.T.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS CONTRACTS TO VANCOUVER FIRMS
Mr. Basford: For the fiscal years ending in 1958, 1959, I960, 1961 and 1962, what contracts were awarded by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources 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?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: None.


STAFF OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MINISTER EXEMPT FROM CIVIL SERVICE ACT
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What are the names, positions and salaries of all members of the staff of the Minister of Veterans Affairs exempt from the provisions of the Civil Service Act since April 22, 1963, where, and for how long have these persons been employed?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Questions
Ottawa Name	Present annual rate Position of salary	Period of serviceCurd, Mr. P. B.	Executive assistant	$12,000	15 May 63 to presentDupuis, Mr. M.	Special assistant	$10,000	7 May 63 to presentCyr, Mr. J. J. A.	Special assistant	$ 9,000	1 Sep 64 to presentCosgrove, Mrs. K. L.	Associate private secretary	$ 6,000	15 May 63 to presentPelletier, Mrs. C.	Assistant private secretary	$ 5,400	15 May 63 to presentMacdougall, Mrs. H. M. G.	Secretary to parliamentary secretary	$ 5,100	16 May 63 to presentParent, Miss M. A. M.	Clerk 4	$ 4,710	1 Aug 64 to presentTracey, Mr. C. S.	Clerk 2	$ 3,540	8 May 63 to presentChartier, Mr. R. E.	Private secretary	$ 7,500*	15 Oct 63 to 15 Jan 64Taylor, Miss D.	Private secretary	$ 7,500*	16 Jan 64 to 30 Jun 64Cere, Mrs. J. D.	Steno 3, secretary	$ 4,050*	25 Apr 63 to 13 Jul 63St. Boniface, Man. Pelletier, Mrs. R.	Secretary (part time)	$ 2,000	1 Aug 63 to present
Rate of salary at date of termination.


ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR PERSONALIZED INCOME TAX FORM
Mr. MacEwan: Has an advertising agency been hired to direct a campaign regarding the 1964 personalized income tax return and, if so (a) what is the name of the agency, and (b) what amount has been or will be paid to this agency?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: (a) The agency employed by the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, is Vickers and Benson Limited, with offices in Montreal (head office) and Toronto; (b) the promotion campaign to bring to the attention of taxpayers the direct mailing of labelled income tax returns will cost $200,000, including newspaper and radio advertising.


PURCHASE OF NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES
Mr. MacEwan: Is the government considering the purchase of nuclear powered submarines from the United Kingdom in addition to the Oberon class conventional submarine now on order from the United Kingdom and, if so, how many submarines will be purchased?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


ALEXANDRA PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. TORONTO
Mr. Scott: 1.	In what way and to what extent is the federal government involved in the Alexandra Park redevelopment project in the city of Toronto?
2.	When was the government contacted by either the government of Ontario or the government of the city of Toronto relative to this scheme?
3.	How many communications have there been between the aforementioned agencies and the federal government?
4.	At the present time is the Alexandra Park redevelopment project being held up through any action or requirement or stipulation entered by the federal government?
5.	If the said project is being held up by red tape as alleged by the mayor of the city of Toronto, is any of this red tape flowing from the federal government?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. The federal government has entered into agreement with the city of Toronto under the terms of the National Housing Act to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of acquiring and clearing designated properties in the Alexandra Park redevelopment project. The total cost is estimated to be $10,000,000.
2.	The city of Toronto applied for financial assistance on November 15, 1960. As the application was not entirely acceptable to the provincial and federal governments, an advisory committee was established to further study the redevelopment program. As a result, the city of Toronto submitted a revised application on January 21, 1964, which received approval of the governor in council on March 26, 1964.
3.	Continuous communication has been carried on since the application was approved through a co-ordinating committee made up of representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and of the governments of the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto and metropolitan Toronto.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to 4 above.

Questions


NEGOTIATIONS BY PROVINCES WITH FOREIGN STATES
Mr. Lambert: Since April 21, 1963, has the government of Canada granted to the government of any province of Canada the right or privilege of negotiating and concluding with any foreign state either independently or in conjunction with the government of Canada any agreement, accord or treaty of a commercial or cultural nature, or of whatsoever nature and, if so (a) on how many occasions, to which the provinces and what has been the nature of such agreement (b) is it contemplated that any province shall have the right to participate as an independent signatory?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) There have been two occasions:
(1)	By an exchange of letters dated December 23, 1963, and December 27, 1963, between the ambassador of France in Ottawa and the Secretary of State for External Affairs the Canadian government gave its assent to a program of exchanges and co-operation in the industrial and technical field being agreed upon between the Association pour l'organisa-tion des stages en France (ASTEF) and the ministry of youth of the province of Quebec and the University of Toronto.
(2)	By an exchange of letters dated
February 27,	1965, between the charge
d'affaires a.i. of France in Ottawa and the Secretary of State for External Affairs the Canadian government gave its assent to an entente or understanding between France and Quebec covering a program of exchanges and of co-operation in the field of education being signed by the minister of education of Quebec and the deputy minister of federal-provincial affairs of Quebec and the minister of education of France and the director general of cultural and technical affairs at the ministry of foreign affairs of France.
These two instruments relate to education and culture. They cover matters such as the exchange of professors, scholarships, research, etc., which have traditionally been the object, on the provincial plane, of informal arrangements between ministries of education and universities in the English speaking provinces and corresponding institutions in English speaking countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Generally, these countries prefer the informal nongovernmental approach to cultural relations. On the other hand, many countries of western Europe, and France in particular, prefer to place their cultural relations on a formal intergovernmental basis, wherever possible. This is a fact of international life which the

federal government cannot ignore in carrying out its international responsibilities in respect of cultural relations.
(b) No. On the international plane, the federal government represents all of Canada and under international law only sovereign states are recognized as members of the international community. One, if not the most important, attribute of this international personality accruing exclusively to the Canadian government is the power to negotiate and conclude agreements or treaties of a binding character in international law on behalf of the whole country or of any part thereof with foreign countries.
The procedure followed on the occasion of the agreements cited above between France and Quebec is a reflection of and accords with the Canadian government's status under international law and the constitutional position in Canada. Standing alone these agreements between France and Quebec could not have been regarded as agreements subject to international law.
The federal government stands ready to co-operate with any province in facilitating, in appropriate circumstances, the negotiation and conclusion in a similar manner of agreements between the provinces and foreign governments in the field of education and culture.


WILLIAM E. GRANT AND JOSEPH ARMISHAW -CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Basford: 1.	Has the Department of Justice instituted criminal proceedings (a) against one William E. Grant under the Financial Administration Act for having submitted false financial returns, and (b) against one Joseph Armishaw for having uttered forged documents?
2.	Before what court and in what judicial district have these proceedings been instituted?
3.	What is the present state of these prosecutions?
4.	Were any representations made to the Minister of Justice with respect to these cases and, if so, by whom and to what effect?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes; a charge containing six counts against Grant and a charge containing three counts against Armishaw.
2.	At Whitehorse, in the Yukon territory, before the Yukon territorial court.
3.	Both Grant and Armishaw have been committed for trial on January 22, 1965. Grant's trial before a judge and jury is scheduled to take place on April 6, 1965 and the estimated date of Armishaw's trial is April 12, 1965.

4.	Representations were made at least twice to the Minister of Justice by Mr. Erik Nielsen, M.P.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Macaluso: 1.	Is there any record of representations having been made by any person, or persons, outside the Department of Justice, to the Minister of Justice, or his office or the Department of Justice in the Buddy Lees case between July 29, 1960, when he was arrested on three charges of forgery and July 3, 1961, when the charges were withdrawn and, if so, by what person or persons, and to what effect were the representations?
2.	Did the Minister of Justice ask for and obtain advice of the appropriate officials of the Department of Justice before withdrawal of the charges?
Return tabled.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the house to discuss the unparalleled action of the Minister of Justice in endeavouring to bring about pressure on high officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or, in any event, which would have the result of so doing. On Friday, February 26 the Minister of Justice issued a statement which reads as follows:
It is to be noted that Chief Justice Dorion ruled today that certain allusions in the testimony of Deputy Commissioner Lemieux of the R.C.M.P. represented hearsay evidence and should not, therefore, be taken into account. Notwithstanding this, news reports have given circulation to those parts of the deputy commissioner's testimony. In these circumstances, the Minister of Justice issues this statement:
"The Prime Minister was not informed beforehand of the intention of the R.C.M.P. to question his parliamentary secretary, Mr. Guy Rouleau. He first spoke to Mr. Rouleau about the matter on November 24, the date on which he accepted Mr. Rouleau's resignation as his parliamentary secretary."
This statement arose, Mr. Speaker, because of certain testimony that was given before the commission. Before I deal with what that testimony was I should draw the attention of the house to the powers of the Minister of Justice, for I found my application for adjournment of the house on this basis, that what actually took place constitutes an abuse of the powers given. I would refer to the
Conduct of Justice Minister pertinent sections of the statute passed by parliament. Section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act reads as follows:
The governor in council may appoint an officer to be known as the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, under the direction of the minister, has the control and management of the force and all matters connected therewith.
That section indicates the amplitude of his powers. There are other sections to which reference could be made. Section 15 deals with the oath of office, which is in this form:
I...solemnly swear that I will faithfully, diligently and impartially execute and perform the duties required of me as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and will well and truly obey and perform all lawful orders and instructions that I receive as such, without fear, favour or affection of or toward any person.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner, assistant commissioner and other officers hold office during the pleasure of the governor in council.
Now I review what actually took place by reference to press clippings for there is no other way to secure the information. The Ottawa Journal reports that Prime Minister Pearson may be called before the Dorion commission to explain the testimony of R.C.M.P. Deputy Commissioner J. R. Lemieux that Mr. Pearson tipped his parliamentary secretary, Guy Rouleau, of R.C.M.P. plans to question Rouleau.
The power that a minister exercises over an officer was clearly set out in the evidence given by Mr. Lemieux who is reported as having said that at first Mr. Tremblay had not been satisfied of Denis' guilt, but after some discussion "I believe Mr. Tremblay changed his opinion." Regarding Mr. Favreau's view that it was a matter for internal discipline, the report goes on to state that Deputy Commissioner Lemieux said, "My minister expressed an opinion and when he expresses an opinion I have to respect it".
Now, the testimony, whether hearsay or not, was given and it was to this effect, and I read from the Ottawa Citizen:
Justice Minister Favreau said Friday night Prime Minister Pearson was not informed beforehand of the R.C.M.P.'s intention to question his parliamentary secretary, Mr. Rouleau...
Mr. Favreau, in a statement issued through the Prime Minister's office, said that Mr. Pearson first spoke to Mr. Rouleau about the matter on November 24, the day he accepted Mr. Rouleau's resignation, as parliamentary secretary. The statement was issued-
I interpolate here that this is a strange thing, that the Prime Minister should require an amanuensis to issue a statement as to what

Conduct of Justice Minister were the facts, even if such a statement were regular in any event.
The statement was issued several hours after R.C.M.P. Deputy Commissioner J. R. Lemieux told the Dorion inquiry he was told that the Prime Minister advised Mr. Rouleau last summer that he was to be questioned by the R.C.M.P.
The Montreal Star of February 27 carries a report to the same purport, and in that report are these words:
There are still several witnesses to be heard, including mountie Commissioner McClellan, Mr. Favreau and Mr. Tremblay.
Now, sir, the powers that parliament gave are great powers to be exercised in accordance with those rules of propriety which, while unwritten, have all the force of precedent. Why did the minister not allow the Prime Minister to make the statement? Why did he issue this statement? Why did he not wait until he could give evidence; for after all what he did by that statement was to challenge, by his simple ipse dixit, the sworn evidence of the deputy commissioner of the mounted police. This was a strange performance, and whether the evidence is hearsay or not this challenges the truthfulness of a high officer in the mounted police who gave his testimony under oath.
The minister's powers have to be carefully exercised. We have the Minister of Justice saying what the Prime Minister did. We remember the evidence of a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister forgot-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: And again this matter comes up.


George James McIlraith: Surely I am entitled to raise a point of order. It is interesting to hear the right hon. gentleman make an argument but I would respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 26(3). The procedure for raising a motion to adjourn the house is set out, and then the standing order says:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House.
If Mr. Speaker questions the urgency of debate with respect to the proposition made, he may invite hon. members to speak on the question of such urgency and a ruling may be made after listening to argument.


What the right hon. gentleman is doing now is this. He is getting into an argument which is very far ranging, instead of stating the simple proposition which he believes warrants the adjournment of the house so that it may proceed to discuss the matter of urgent public importance, with particular reference to urgency of debate. He is going back to matters which happened a month ago and making certain wild general allegations. I respectfully suggest he should state his question briefly, as to why the house should be asked now to debate the evidence which has been given before a royal commission, while that royal commission is still sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not debating the evidence at all.


George James McIlraith: I have not yet seen the written statement handed to you, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: With everything the hon. gentleman has said I am in full agreement. I am not debating what took place there. I am debating the right of the Minister of Justice to act in this fantastic way; to interfere by an ex parte statement made outside the house and to leave the impression that the deputy commissioner was a man without integrity and lacking in truthfulness. As to the question of urgency, it arises immediately because tomorrow, according to my information, the commissioner will be called. What position will he be in?


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I dislike having to be so persistent, but if the right hon. gentleman is going to debate the question of urgency, as he appears to be beginning to do now, he can only do so after we have had a written statement handed to the Chair in accordance with the provisions of standing order 26 and after Your Honour has taken appropriate action on that written statement. We have not yet seen that written statement and, until we have, I respectfully suggest that the right hon. gentleman has no right to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


John George Diefenbaker: I have to lay the foundation for the statement because of the unusual action taken by a member of the cabinet awkward squad. I have to lay a foundation, and on the one hand the foundation is as to urgency. The minister says that if in fact this statement was made by Mr. Lemieux,

the deputy commissioner, it is not true; and he chooses to condemn a witness who gives evidence, whether hearsay or not, by reference to what the Prime Minister would have said if he had said it.
The unusual circumstances arise because tomorrow the commissioner is to give evidence. And what a predicament he is in if he says "I told the commissioner this-" after the statement made by the one who is in charge of the mounted police with the authority I have set out. It is the gross irregularity which has taken place here.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, there is surely some sense of responsibility in this house-


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking for that on the part of the government.


George James McIlraith: And I am asking for it, too. I have some duties in this house just as the right hon. gentleman has. He has no right to abuse the rules of this house and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to see that the provisions of standing order 26(3) are observed. Until the right hon. gentleman observes that standing order and hands his written statement to you, Mr. Speaker, and you have acted on it as set out in that paragraph I ask that the right hon. gentleman remain in his seat.


John George Diefenbaker: If there were not so many interruptions I would have come to the resolution long ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is these irresponsible interventions that interfere.
Therefore I ask leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order No. 26 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the unprecedented and unjustified action of the Minister of Justice in issuing through the office of the Prime Minister a statement which appeared in the press on February 27, 1965, contradicting evidence given before the Dorion commission, thus refuting the truthfulness of the deputy commissioner and subjecting the commissioner to gross intimidation in respect of the evidence-and I say, in that connection, in respect of the evidence he is going to give, challenged as it has been in advance-and bringing into disrepute the integrity of the members of the R.C.M.P. and the force itself which operates under the direction of the minister.
Conduct of Justice Minister [Translation]


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Before the matter of urgency is discussed it is my responsibility to rise and, as calmly as possible, to point out to the house the lack of justice the former-and I insist on the word "former"-prime minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) just displayed in making the most dreadful charges involving that the Minister of Justice of this country has practically charged of perjury the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P. because after all, that is the purport of what he just said.
Mr. Speaker, not only do I accept, but I have never denied the complete good faith of Deputy Commissioner Lemieux when he made, before the Dorion commission, a statement that I never questioned, namely that he was under the impression that I had informed the Prime Minister of the probable questioning of Mr. Rouleau and that consequently the Prime Minister should have informed him that such an examination might occur.
I never questioned the good faith of Deputy Commissioner Lemieux, and I continue to believe that he was justified in having such an impression, but what I said was that his impression was not in accordance with the facts or with reality, and I think that today the Leader of the Opposition must bear the terrible responsibility of the unfair words he stated a moment ago. From the very first years that I practised the law profession, I always admired the R.C.M.P. with whom I have been working ever since and I shall never tolerate that any member of the house, no matter his function or position, should accuse me of having questioned for one moment the good faith or the fair-mindedness of a member of the R.C.M.P., under oath or not.
Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought-


Mr. Pickersgill:: This is a question of privilege.


Guy Favreau: I am speaking to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: As long as it is understood that if the hon. gentleman is going to argue the facts I shall also be able to do so. I will be very glad to do that, but the minister objected to my so doing. The question of urgency, as I was told by the hon. President of the Privy Council, is the important thing. The

Conduct of Justice Minister urgency is the fact that the commissioner gives evidence tomorrow. What will he say? [Translation]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if there has ever been in this house someone entitled to rise on a question of privilege and ask that his privilege be respected, I am undoubtedly that person, in the circumstances, especially after the odious charge made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Here is the answer to the first question.
Last Friday morning the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P. stated in good faith before the Dorion commission that he was under the impression that the Prime Minister had advised his parliamentary secretary of the fact that he would be questioned by the R.C.M.P., not long before the inquiry. As I had not informed the Prime Minister of that possible inquiry, he could not give that information to Mr. Rouleau; I merely wanted to set the records straight immediately.
My action was even more important because of the fact that the inquiry was being resumed four days later, that is tomorrow, Tuesday. Moreover, Chief Justice Dorion had found this part of the evidence illegal and had stated that it could not be taken into account, and this goes for newspapermen as well as for the Leader of the Opposition.
As newspapers, radio and television had broadcast information and comments based on evidence which did not exist legally, I thought, and 1 still believe-


Mr. Nielsen:: That is for the judge to say.


Guy Favreau: He has said it, if you have read the transcript.


Erik Nielsen: The veracity has yet to be shown.


An hon. Member:: Your veracity.


Erik Nielsen: That is not in question. [Translation]


Guy Favreau: -that it was my duty, both as a minister of the crown and as a private individual, to issue a statement so as to make the facts quite clear and to dispel any suspicions about the position of the Prime Minister in the circumstances.
I tried to get in touch with Judge Dorion in order to notify him before the deadline set for evening news, but he had already left for Quebec city.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry
[Mr. DiefenbakerJ

to interrupt the Minister of Justice, but the minister-and I have no objection to it-is now presenting argument regarding this motion. Will Your Honour rule now that the motion is allowed and that we will be permitted to discuss and debate the matter, in the same manner that the Minister of Justice is being allowed to do at the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam missed the fact that the Minister of Justice rose to assert a question of privilege involving himself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: -and is not addressing himself to the question of urgency of debate, as was done by the Leader of the Opposition in the latter part of his remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: He issued another press release today.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes more to tell the truth, and that will certainly do no harm to the opposition.
Therefore, I immediately prepared and sent him a letter containing the statement and explaining the reasons of my intervention. I intend to table a copy of this letter in the house as soon as the hearings are resumed.
If there actually remained any doubt as to the procedure followed by me, the matter could only be raised before the Dorion commission and not in this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that both the mover of the motion and the Minister of Justice have put forward a good deal of argument rather than discussing the question of urgency of debate. I think it would be just as well to allow the motion now and permit the debate to continue, because it has already raised a great many questions to which some answers are required. However,
I shall confine myself to the matter of urgency of debate until Your Honour has given a ruling. I submit that it is urgent that this matter be discussed here, now, this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Justice said in the statement which he just read to the house that Deputy Commissioner Lemieux said he was under the impression that the Prime Minister had advised his former parliamentary secretary that he would be interrogated by the R.C.M.P.; but I understand from

the newspaper reports that the person who gave that impression to the deputy commissioner was R.C.M.P. Commissioner G. B. McClellan.
If it is true-and we in the house can only go by newspaper reports; we have not access to the transcript of evidence before the Dorion commission-that the deputy commissioner has stated on the stand, under oath, that his information came from the commissioner, this takes on very serious overtones; because, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have a right to know just what are the facts here. Is Deputy Commissioner Le-mieux mistaken about the impression which he alleges he gained from the commissioner, G. B. McClellan?
The commissioner himself will be questioned with regard to this matter. By making a public statement through the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Justice has already put the commissioner in a very difficult position. He must either say that the deputy commissioner was entirely erroneous in the impression he gained, or he must make a statement which will be in direct conflict with his superior, the Minister of Justice.


Erik Nielsen: In which case he resigns.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that by issuing the statement last Friday the Minister of Justice has now opened up this whole question for discussion. The understanding in this house has been, in recent days, that the entire question before the Dorion commission was sub judice, but by intruding himself into a discussion and making a public statement contradicting a witness who has just given evidence under oath, surely-


An hon. Member:: It was not evidence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was inadmissible evidence.


Erik Nielsen: It was the minister's evidence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is said, Mr. Speaker, that it was not evidence, but the judge refused to rule it out. He said it was hearsay evidence. It will become evidence when the commissioner himself appears before the commission tomorrow and on subsequent days. Therefore the commissioner is forestalled, before he even appears as a witness, by the statement made by the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say, Mr. Speaker, that this question is urgent because never in my experience-nor, I am sure, in anyone else's experience-has a minister of justice made a
Conduct of Justice Minister statement through the prime minister's office which calls in question a statement made by the deputy commissioner and already intimidates the commissioner who is to appear on the stand in the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it is most imperative that this matter be cleared up-


An hon. Member:: He should resign.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -because either the deputy commissioner is wrong as to the impression he gained from the commissioner or the Minister of Justice is wrong when he makes the statement that the Prime Minister knew nothing about the involvement of his parliamentary secretary, and that the Prime Minister was not told by the Minister of Justice, either in the discussions of September 2, 1964 or November 22, 1964, about the activities of his parliamentary secretary. It seems to me that the Canadian people and this house have a right to have this matter clarified, and it can only be clarified if Your Honour allows the urgency of debate.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to make a few comments on the motion of the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to the effect that it is urgent for the house to adjourn in order to discuss some statements that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fa-vreau) is said to have made over the week end with respect to the Dorion commission.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this situation is rather delicate. If I go back a few months at the time when we set up that inquiry, I remember that in this house the official opposition as well as the other parties asked that the terms of reference of this inquiry commission be wide enough to cover the whole matter involved.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Prime Minister to extend the terms of reference of the Dorion commission, so that it may extend its inquiry not only to the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but to the information sources which may have existed since the beginning of this inquiry and even before, that is on the origin of the information which may have been given to some members of the House of Commons by unknown sources. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is high time that complete light be thrown on this matter.
Personally, as a member from the province of Quebec, I wish that the most complete

Conduct of Justice Minister light be thrown on this matter, and I do not want in any way to be accused of supporting any measure which would prevent light from being thrown on the matter.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that all of us, including the ministers and the leader of the official opposition, should in all decency avoid comments on that matter until the Dorion commission has completed its inquiry. I am sure that when the investigation is over and the commission's report has been tabled, the government will give the house full opportunity to discuss the report and will allow every member to express his views on the whole question. Then and only then should we have the right to discuss the inquiry if it is felt that a particular point has not been sufficiently examined or should be gone into more thoroughly.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that you should decide against the adjournment motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. That issue is not yet debated publicly and it is not here that we will learn anything new.
An official commission of inquiry has been set up and I would ask the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to take the necessary steps to have the terms of reference of the Dorion commission broadened so as to include what I have pointed out.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in a few moments you will have to decide whether the adjournment motion of the Leader of the Opposition is valid or not.
In my opinion this whole thing is due to the fact that statements are being made here and there after evidence is given by certain people before the Dorion commission. We notice an obvious contradiction between what we read about that and the statements made, in this case by the Minister of Justice. In such circumstances it seems to me the Minister of Justice should observe the most complete silence until we know exactly what the Dorion inquiry will bring out. Instead, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out a while ago, statements are being made which might exert some kind of influence on evidence to be given tomorrow, the day after or later on. If the Minister of Justice or any other minister of the crown takes the liberty of making statements, even when the Dorion inquiry is duly sitting, it is the duty of parliament to discuss that matter to find out exactly what prompted those statements from a minister of the crown, that is the Minister of Justice.


Now, this storm is certainly due to the Minister of Justice who made statements.
But the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister should know that all the Leader of the Opposition is looking for is to corner them not so much to inform public opinion but to improve his own image which is losing some of its brightness across Canada. It is just a political game.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that we should wait until the Dorion commission submits its report on the activities, the true or alleged scandals which might have occurred recently in Canada, and in our province in particular.
It seems to me that when this report is before the house then will it be the proper time to discuss all the matters it deals with, and even whether or not the Prime Minister had informed the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) or whether he has had any communications with either one, in a word, we can always discuss the whole matter at that time. Otherwise, if we discuss the matter today and get back to it later this will entail a loss of time for the House of Commons as well as a loss of money for the Canadian taxpayers.
In my opinion, we should wait for the report of the Dorion commission to consider all those questions and to see to what extent a minister, or the government, has misled us in regard to the activities of certain officials or of the administration in general.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any others who wish to assist the Chair?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is entitled to know what standard of propriety would motivate the Minister of Justice in trying to get in touch with the inquiry commissioner at the very moment when his own conduct is under consideration by that commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: And is about to give evidence.


Mr. Fairweather:: Surely if the commissioner, who by statute is responsible to the minister-it is a statutory matter-has had his position prejudiced by this ex gratia statement of the Minister of Justice, the deputy commissioner has no alternative but to resign. I think the house is entitled to a full debate on this question immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other members who wish to contribute, what the Speaker has to decide at the moment is whether there is here a prima facie case of

urgency; Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100(2). As I have said many times, "urgency" within standing order No. 26 does not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate. The question must be so pressing that public interest would suffer if it was not given immediate consideration.
In respect of citation 100(8), Beauchesne's fourth edition again, this is stated:
What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs.
It seems to me that any such sudden emergency should be sufficient to justify the setting aside of the important business of the house. Many things are important and urgent, especially following the eight weeks vacation which hon. members have recently enjoyed, but it seems to me that what has been referred to today is more in the nature of a grievance than a matter so urgent that the important business of the house should be immediately set aside so we could indulge in a long debate.
For those reasons I regret that in my opinion the urgency is not so great that the motion should be put to the house.

On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he tell us what were the circumstances under which he followed the rather extraordinary course of issuing a statement respecting the testimony of the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P., and issuing it through the Prime Minister's office? What were the circumstances that activated the minister to do this and to be, in effect, giving evidence before he went on the stand?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I first deny each and every implication of that question. Second, I think it is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of order will not be determined by the same cavalier method the minister used with officials of the R.C.M.P. I ask him, how did he come to do this extraordinary thing? He is going to give evidence this week, according to the press, yet he decided to give evidence in this way before he was actually before the commission. What an amazing thing to do.


Guy Favreau: The main reason, Mr. Speaker, was so that, as the result of a statement in the newspapers reporting evidence which had
Inquiries of the Ministry been decided by the commissioner not to be evidence and which should be disregarded, during those four days the Prime Minister of this country would not be unfairly slandered or ill judged.


John George Diefenbaker: Why then did the Prime Minister not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They have not got much to applaud these days. Why was this ex parte method adopted? Why not have the Prime Minister say what he in fact had said or done? Why was the statement made through the instrumentality of a third party, the Minister of Justice?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, prompted by a statement made today by Mr. John Kroeker, senior actuary with the Department of Insurance with particular responsibilities in the fields of unemployment insurance and evaluation of private pension plans. Mr. Kroeker's statement had reference to the Canada pension plan, and he said that at its best it is well-intentioned bungling and at its worst it is a colossal fraud of all Canadians. He said this plan is not the child of reason and liberty, but that it is a creature of propaganda and fear. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has any comment to make.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed this morning that Mr. Kroeker had held a press conference and had issued a statement respecting the proposed Canada pension plan, which I would remind all hon. members was approved unanimously in principle by this house. This action on the part of Mr. Kroeker was, of course, incompatible with his position as a civil servant.
On Thursday of last week Mr. Humphrys, superintendent of insurance, came to see me about Mr. Kroeker. Mr. Humphrys said that in his opinion, for reasons which he explained to me, Mr. Kroeker had completely destroyed his usefulness to the department. He said he planned to ask Mr. Kroeker to resign and if he failed to do so his employment should be terminated. In the normal course this would be done in the manner provided under section 60 of the Civil Service Act.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Humphrys advised me by telephone this morning that he was endeavouring to get in touch with Mr. Kroeker with the intention oi proceeding along the lines he indicated to me last week. When I came into the house I had not heard whether Mr. Humphrys had been successful in locating Mr. Kroeker.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: My question is a supplementary addressed to the minister of health and welfare. In view of the information given to the house earlier today that Mr. Kroeker had been dismissed for making public certain views he held, would the hon. lady assure the house that those federal officials who testified before the special parliamentary committee on the Canada pension plan were not operating under the same sort of threat?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I disagree with what the hon. member has said. There was no suggestion from my colleague the Minister of Finance that this man was being relieved of his responsibilities because of what he said. It was because, being a civil servant, in the course of his position he said something which was contemptuous of parliament.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED SPEECH BY TRADE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding a speech he made on Wednesday of last week, February 24, in Winnipeg. Is the newspaper report on that speech a fair comment, particularly its opening paragraph which reads as follows:
Trade and commerce minister Mitchell Sharp last night rejected demands that the government guarantee wheat prices to the farmers and subsidize exports.
May I ask the minister whether that is a fair summation of the presentation he made?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you recognize that this is a gross violation of the rules in respect of questions. My speech speaks for itself, and I cannot really comment on the interpretation placed on it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I then direct the minister's attention to several specific things he said during his speech, and I refer to the following:

It has been proposed that the price to the producer should be fixed above the market and that the wheat board should sell at a loss. It has also been proposed that exports should be subsidized.
Later in the same speech the minister said:
We. therefore, do not intend to adopt any policies that will interfere with the efficient operation of this producers' marketing agency or reduce the board's incentive to go after markets on behalf of producers.
I should like to ask the minister whether that means the government is now definitely abandoning any idea of fixing or guaranteeing minimum prices for wheat.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe my speech speaks for itself, and I might say that I tried to make it as clear as possible. It was made with the full knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister, and it does express government policy.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: My question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce really is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and is in connection with the price of wheat. It has been stated that the Saskatchewan legislature passed a resolution asking the federal government to establish a two price system. What was the reply the minister gave to the Saskatchewan government in so far as this resolution is concerned, and would the minister be prepared to table the answer he gave?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is very simple. I have not yet given a reply.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Certain press articles would indicate that Canada is one of a number of nations that have been asked to serve on a special committee to investigate the financial policies of the United Nations as they apply to those nations which are not actually sharing in the cost of the peace keeping operations of that world organization. Can the minister signify whether Canada has accepted that invitation, and indicate what Canada's policy is in regard to its participation?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, Canada has

been named by the president of the United Nations along with 32 other countries to serve on a committee to consider what steps should be taken to preserve the peace keeping machinery of the United Nations and give it the opportunity of successful operation. Canada will serve on that committee, and will seek to persuade the other members of the committee that one of the essential roles of the United Nations is that of peace keeping, operating under the principle of shared and collective responsibility. It will also seek to impress upon the other members of the committee, including the great powers, and later on the general assembly, the importance of some financial accommodation by all member states including those now in default so the United Nations can discharge its functions, as it has in the past, with respect to peace keeping.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I have just returned from a trip to western Canada and I noticed that in regard to the C.B.C. French network which, according to the English expression covers Canada from coast to coast, the "coast" stops at Winnipeg and St. Boniface.
Now, why does not the French network serve the whole population across Canada, and what is the department waiting for to serve the French Canadian ethnic group in western Canada, in Vancouver, in Victoria, in British Columbia, and give them an adequate French radio and t.v. service?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the Fowler committee recommendations on this problem as well as some others.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
When coming into the house this afternoon, I noticed that two seats were unoccupied in front of us: the one next to the hon. member 20220-748
Inquiries of the Ministry for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) and another one. Does the Prime Minister retain those vacant seats for two eventual members of his cabinet?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margarei Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Freedman commission is meeting in Moncton on Tuesday, March 2, will the minister give some assurance that the Canadian National Railways does not anticipate any run-through of the Moncton terminal? This possibility has caused concern to the running trades and other employees of the Canadian National Railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to congratulate the hon. member on adorning the house and to say to her that the Freedman commission is concerned, of course, with Nakina and Wainright. I am assured by the Canadian National that as Moncton is one of the main places on their lines there is no thought of any curtailment of activity there of the character that seems to have been feared in some quarters.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. We have just lost him, so in his absence-temporary, I hope-I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the report in the Montreal Gazette correct, to the effect that the new policy concerning the price of milk across the country will be in two main categories? First, natural milk will be subsidized and under the complete jurisdiction of the provincial governments and, second, all other milk destined for different forms of transformation will be under the jurisdiction of the federal department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has left because he, along with other members of the cabinet, is meeting a delegation from the national farmers union, and I will be following him

Inquiries of the Ministry shortly. The very important question which has been raised by the hon. member is one of those that we will be discussing this afternoon. We are giving consideration to our policy in this regard, and when a decision is reached it will be announced in the house. I hope it will not be long now.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister let us know tomorrow if there is any change as a result of the meeting this afternoon with the national farmers union?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it may take us longer than one day to give consideration to the representations we will hear this afternoon.



ARDA-PROJECTS APPROVED IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry of which I have given him notice. Will the minister tell the house how many ARDA projects to date have been approved by the present administration in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer is-and our record is quite good-that from April 8, 1963 to date 120 projects have been approved in Quebec with the federal share of the cost being $5,600,000. In Ontario 50 projects have been approved with the federal share being $2,900,000. Under the previous administration the number of projects in Quebec was 38 with the federal share being $600,000, while in Ontario the number was nil.



SIR WILFRED GRENFELL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that yesterday was the anniversary of the birthday of Sir Wilfred Grenfell and whether the government will do something to commemorate his great work in Newfoundland and Labrador?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that fact. I thought he was born on February 29, which makes it a little difficult to celebrate his birth-


day. I feel that this very great man should be honoured in an appropriate way, perhaps by the issue of a stamp.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How many Canadian personnel of the truce commission are at present stationed in North Viet Nam and what reduction, if any, in their numbers has taken place in the past three months?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, our delegation to the international supervisory commission in Viet Nam consists of about 75 Canadians, of whom up to 15 may now be in North Viet Nam. There is one Canadian doctor in Saigon with his wife and five children, and he is working there under an external aid contract. In addition there are about 125 resident Canadians, most of them missionaries, in South Viet Nam. Our delegation in Saigon maintains normal standing plans, however, for an emergency. The resident Canadian community is provided for under the plans of the British embassy in Saigon. The department, of course, is in continuous contact with our commissioner there should the need arise for removing dependants.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the minister did not understand my question. I asked how many Canadian personnel on this commission are stationed in North Viet Nam and what reduction, if any, has taken place in their numbers during the past three months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood my hon. friend. There are normally about 15, but with the removal of a number of people from the team sites this has been reduced. However, the members of the commission itself move from Saigon to Hanoi. There will be a movement this week from Saigon to Hanoi and this may increase the number by possibly three.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then do I understand that there are no Canadian personnel regularly stationed in North Viet Nam at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there is always a representative of the commission it-

self in Hanoi. There were five team sites, but these have been withdrawn. At headquarters in Hanoi there would normally be six persons.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated on June 26, 1964 that officials of the government were making an investigation into what might be the economic, social and political effects on the rest of Canada if Quebec province should become separated. Can th'e Prime Minister advise the house whether these officials have made a report? If so, will the Prime Minister provide the house with a summary of the report, or will he table it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was asked this question the other day and I replied that this examination was still going on. It is a very important and complicated matter, and we have not yet had a report.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry which is of interest to certain people across Canada. Is the printing bureau now employing staffs such as compositors and linotype operators on the English and French Hansard to fill vacancies occasioned by the retirement of employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice. Unfortunately I did not receive it in time to provide an answer, but I will do so tomorrow.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received any communication from the frozen fish trades association of New-20220-7484
Inquiries of the Ministry foundland protesting the proposed landing of catches of fish in Newfoundland ports from foreign registered trawlers? If so, what action is contemplated by his department or the government on this important matter?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the house that several telegrams have been received protesting the landing of fish by foreign trawlers. In my reply I answered those who made such representations to the effect that there was no change in the policy. No foreign trawlers would be allowed to land fish in Canada except those chartered by the Department of Fisheries for experimental purposes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries arising out of the answer he gave to a question I asked a moment ago. As I recall, he stated that no landings of fish would be made in Canadian ports by foreign-owned ships other than those engaged by the federal government to carry out experimental work. I should like the minister to inform the house what ships of foreign registry engaged in experimental work will be operating on the Atlantic coast.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Negotiations are presently under way to charter two foreign vessels, one of British registry and one of West German registry, in order to carry out experiments on the east coast alongside Canadian vessels of similar type. The department did charter last year, in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia, a Norwegian vessel to carry on experiments in whaling operations, and I believe that such experiment may be extended for another season.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister not agree that we have adequate qualified fishing trawlers under Canadian registry without going to the United Kingdom or to West Germany to secure boats which can carry on experimental work? I believe every known type of deep sea fishing is presently practised on the east coast, and I find it strange we should need to go to these foreign countries to charter ships for experimental purposes.
Would the minister say further whether this policy has been accepted by those interested in the east coast fishing industry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In reply to the hon. member I wish to confirm that such vessels will be chartered by the department in order to determine the effectiveness of a type of gear which may be altogether different from that

Inquiries of the Ministry used by Canadian trawlers. Following this experimental stage we shall decide, and so will the industry, whether further capital investment should be made in this type of vessels.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister tell the house for what period these foreign ships have been engaged? For what length of time have they been chartered?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I did not say they had been engaged. I said negotiations were now under way to charter such vessels, and it is hoped they will operate for a period of approximately nine months.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us on what date he expects to complete the transfer of the national employment service to himself as minister from the unemployment insurance commission?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the effective date is April 1, as I recollect.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Can the minister give the house any idea as to the number, if any, of additional employees who will be working directly under him in the national employment service headquarters in Ottawa?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get that information.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since several small contractors, both in western Canada and in the eastern part of the country, will not have completed by March 15 houses built under the winter works incentive program, could the minister tell us whether projects completed shortly after that date will nevertheless be recognized by his department and whether the contractors or the purchasers of those houses will benefit from the $500 which the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation grant in that respect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have not reached any decision as yet to extend the period. Usually toward the end of the period we take a hard look at the situation and see whether there are circumstances which would justify an extension.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us, for instance, whether the department will consider the fact that the work has already begun, even if it has not been completed by March 15? The minister will admit there are solid grounds for those people's claims.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We shall be glad to take under advisement the proposal made by the hon. member but it would be premature at this time to announce any decision.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General, my first to him since he assumed that portfolio. Encouraged as I am by the Prime Minister's interest in commemorating Sir Wilfred Grenfell, will the Postmaster General give consideration to commemorating Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday, admitting that we have lost the exact date, by issuing a stamp in the year which commemorates the birthday of that great statesman?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, although our program for the issue of various commemorative stamps is quite heavy, I shall look into the hon. member's suggestion and find out to what extent it could be taken into account.



INQUIRY AS TO STAMP COMMEMORATING DOMINION DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.

Since the government proposes to mark Canada day, on July 1, by the issue of a stamp depicting the new Canadian flag, does the minister also intend to mark the Queen's birthday by the issue of a stamp representing the union jack, our second flag, which symbolizes our allegiance to the crown and our adhesion to the commonwealth?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilfon South):: I	should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is there any truth in the assumption that the government is evading the federal-provincial conference on the Hall commission report in the hope that the provinces will each develop their own health plans and relieve the federal government of this responsibility?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: None whatever, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is responsible for the operation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, concerning housing starts in the month of January. It is reported that housing starts in that month dropped by some 21.4 per cent. I wonder if the minister will say whether he feels the full application of the
II	per cent sales tax would be responsible in any way for this drop.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have been asked this question, because I can assure the house there is every indication, notwithstanding the fact that housing starts may have been down in the month of January, that this will be the largest year in house building in the history of Canada. I am in the happy position also of being able to say that last year was the record year in our history. My officials in Central Mort-
Inquiries of the Ministry gage and Housing Corporation advise me that the reason housing starts may have been down slightly in the month of January -I have the figures before me-was the unusual high percentage of starts in the months of November and December to take advantage of the government's winter works incentive program.

May I supplement the answer I just gave to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. He referred to the fact that possibly the sales tax might have affected the number of housing starts in January. Consequently I feel I should advise the hon. member and the house that probably one reason for the acceleration of starts in the last two or three months of 1964 was the fact that the people concerned very properly wanted to buy their materials before December 31.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the explanation the minister gives now, because now we know why there was the increase at the end of that particular year. He mentioned the probability of this year being greater than last year, but there are other probabilities too, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
The intention, it is claimed, with the new income tax form was to simplify the taxpayer's job, but is the minister aware of the fact that in some areas in the province of Quebec income tax forms in English only are being sent to post offices in that province?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec post offices should have a supply of both French and English forms.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. During the week end I received several complaints, mainly from Tring Junction and Ste Marie Beauce where, on two different occasions, income tax forms in English only were sent over.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: I would be glad to look into the matter.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. My question is related to a national ski competition for the Canadian championship that took place in my constituency last Sunday.
By the way, I wish to extend my congratulations to Miss Nancy Greene of Vancouver and to Mr. Pommerleau of Thetford Mines, his home town, who won the national ski championship of Canada.
They invited me to ask the government to extend a more substantial assistance to amateur sports across the country so that they will not be compelled to organize bazaars and make requests of all sorts in order to be able to compete abroad.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question should be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I shall ask her this question tomorrow.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries which arises out of the tabling in the house on February 22 of the report of the federal-provincial committee on wage and price disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry. I should like to ask the minister whether the federal government and the provincial government, either individually or jointly, have initiated any consideration as to which of these recommendations, if any, should be implemented. If so, what steps have been taken by the federal government, either separately or jointly with the government of the province of British Columbia?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The report referred to matters which are quite complicated and which deserve careful

study by both the federal government and the government of British Columbia before any action is taken. This matter is now receiving such study by the Department of Fisheries, and as soon as such study is completed we shall consult with the provincial government in order to determine what action will be taken.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose on Friday last clause 54 of the bill was being considered. Clauses 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 26, 43, 44, 46, 48 and 49 were allowed to stand.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
On clause 56-Amount of widow's pension.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 56 carry?


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, should you not call clause 56 as amended in the French version? I draw your attention to the fact that there is an amendment to the French text set out in appendix D to the report.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 56 is being called as amended.


Mr. Chalierton:: 
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is substantially correct.


George Louis Chatterton: In that case, Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question. Was this intended, or was there just an oversight in allowing it to stand in this way? Was there a reason for the reduction? This would have applied, even in the original proposal, as it does in Bill No. C-136, whereby the old age security benefit would have been payable at an actuarially reduced rate at an early age. This also would have applied for those years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that this is the case only in the years 1968 and 1969. The scheme was designed to operate as it does, and there does not seem to be any way to get over this two year anomaly.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know whether I am correct in my thinking on this. It was originally intended that the widow would have available, if she so wished, the actuarially reduced old age security; is that correct?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But now she does not receive that until she becomes a certain age, and there is a reducing age scale?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was not intended in the first place that she would get it except on a reducing age scale.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But it was available on an actuarially reduced basis?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not initially. There was also a scaling down.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I have jotted down some figures to show the reduction, and unfortunately the reduction by virtue of this clause is greatest in those areas where the pension is the least and the need is greatest. For example, where the husband's pension would be $104 initially, the widow's pension would be reduced by only $1.60 a month. But when you get down to the case where the husband's pension would have been $52 a month, the reduction is from $44.50 to $31.20,
Canada Pension Plan
which is a reduction of some $13 per month. Then when you go lower down again, in the case where the husband's pension would have been only $26 a month, the widow's pension would drop, at age 65 for those two years, from $38 to $15.60, a reduction of some $23 a month. It is true that it applies in those two years only, but in view of the fact that it hits those widows who are in greatest need
1	think it should be corrected.
Am I right in saying that if we added to clause 56 (1) (b) these words, "plus a flat rate benefit calculated as provided in subclause
2	of clause 54, payable only until the widow receives a pension under the Old Age Security Act", would this not remedy the situation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it should be pointed out to my hon. friend that the old age security operates upon a different basis. Hon. members will recall that it has such things as residence qualifications, and it might conceivably be, under the circumstances which my hon. friend is suggesting, that the woman never would receive an old age security pension because of such things as residence qualification. Therefore it would not be apt to make such an amendment.


George Louis Chatterton: I get the minister's point, Mr. Chairman, and that is true. But it seems to me that the people who drafted this bill are so ingenious that surely they must be able to find a means of amending this provision to bring an end to this inequity, even though it is only for two years, even if they gave the widow an option to continue the 37J per cent plus the fiat rate, so that her pension would not be reduced. Remember, at that time she will be 65 years of age and would probably be cut off from old age assistance in any case by virtue of the small pension.
I wonder whether the minister would undertake to have her staff consider an amendment that would fill this gap, either by giving the widow the option of taking the 37J per cent plus the flat rate, or in some other way by which this inequity can be avoided. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the minister would agree to stand this clause in order to give her staff a chance to consider this problem.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the widow is treated in exactly the same way as everyone else, and this also applies to old age security. While such a widow may be getting assistance in any event from shared cost programs or other-

Canada Pension Plan
wise, this would certainly mean that for this period of a year or two she would be further dependant upon it. Under the circumstances, if the committee is so disposed I would be prepared to stand the matter in order that I may look at it this evening.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause stand?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, before the clause is allowed to stand I wonder whether the minister could answer a question briefly. I have not been able to get an answer to this problem from a reading of the clause. I am wondering about the position of a woman who is widowed, commences to draw a pension under the act and then remarries and becomes rewidowed. What is her position then in respect of the basis on which she may or may not draw a pension under the plan as it is drafted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this is
covered specifically in a subsequent clause; I am told it is clause 62. But the situation is that she is given an option of choosing which pension from which husband.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you draft that one?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 57-Amount of disabled widower's pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have two comments in connection with clause 57. First may I say that there is, again, an amendment to the French version. Further in view of the fact that clause 56 has been stood in order that a look may be taken at the case of the widow at age 65 in this year or two gap we have been talking about, should we not stand clause 57 for the same reason? Clause 57 covers a disabled widower, and again there are the two categories, a disabled widower who is not yet 65 and a disabled widower who is 65. Should this clause not be stood for the same reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I agree, Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 58 stands.


George Louis Chatterton: With regard to clause 58, Mr. Chairman, are we dealing with the-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I understand that clause 58 is one of the clauses that it was agreed would stand.
On clause 59-Application for benefit.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, at this point I wish to raise a matter in relation to subclause (1), which states that an application for benefit must be made by the individual or on his behalf. Then subclause (2) says:
-shall he made.. .through the regional, district or other office, designated by the minister, of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the region or district or for the area in which the applicant resides.
My question relates strictly to the Northwest Territories, and it is a short one. I should like to get from the hon. lady the same kind of commitment which I received from the Minister of National Revenue. Right now there is no district office of the Department of National Health and Welfare anywhere in the Northwest Territories; neither is there a district taxation office. I wonder whether the hon. lady would be good enough to make a commitment that she will have her staff examine this situation. She can imagine the kind of problems that this poses to people who live in the far northerly regions who have no local district office. I wonder whether she would agree at this point, in view of this clause which makes it essential that a person apply through his local office, to undertake to look into the possibility of setting up an office at some point in the Northwest Territories so that this will not be the only area in Canada which has no district office within its own borders.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to look into this. I am informed that we moved the office from Ottawa to Edmonton so that it would be closer and would be able to give better service. My hon. friend says that the whole purpose of having a district office anywhere is to serve the people who would be beneficiaries, and I would be happy to look into this matter and see whether it is possible to improve efficiency in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
On clause 62-"Survivor's pension'' defined.
Lucien Lamoureux: There is an amendment to this clause made by the joint committee.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I have one question regarding subclause (7), on page 48

of the bill. As I understand it, if a pensioner remarries after retiring and drawing his pension, then except in the case of disability the widow gets no pension when he dies. Am I correct in that interpretation?
The minister indicates I am. Then may I ask what is the thinking behind this provision? What prompted the particular provision which says that, under those circumstances, a widow would get no pension?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend will realize that an asset in the shape of a pension plan, either private or state, is not like stocks, or property, or anything else. It is something which carries with it at least the idea that a wife has contributed something towards the home as a member of the family as this investment is built up. In a way it is something like the principle which exists in many parts of our law that a married woman assists her husband to make his income, from which he makes his contributions. Therefore if a woman marries a man after he has become a pensioner it is considered that she has played no part in providing for his pension, either morally, ethically or in fact, and is therefore not entitled to her own pension.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. lady's argument, but I think it is a question of degree as to exactly to what extent a wife has helped her husband. For example, a man could have married at, say, age 65 and could live another ten years before dying. His widow might be considerably younger than he, and she would then have a considerable period of her life to live without pension at all, having contributed for ten years toward the home and assisting her husband. Compare that with another person who marries at, say, 55 and who pays in for ten years. Even if he pays in for only two years his widow would still get a pension for life. It seems to me there is some inequity there. I do not think the minister's argument would be valid in all cases, particularly in those cases where a pensioner dies after he has been married for some years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have heard discussion wage back and forth at several women's organizations to which I have belonged for many years, and at many legal societies, whether this is a fiction or whether it is clothed with more flesh by the taxation department and other departments which administer the law. However the principle on which this view is based is well recognized in law and simply relates to the 20220-749
Canada Pension Plan
actual period during which he has been earning income. I do hope that my hon. friend will not get me into a philosophical discussion as to whether a married woman who has lived with her husband for one year or ten years should thereby directly receive a credit in regard to a certain portion of his earnings. That has never been a part of our law in any field. While that is argued by many people I feel it is beyond the purview of this particular clause.


George Louis Chatterton: The minister, being a member of the opposite sex and sympathetic, as we all know, to these elderly people, would appreciate that a lady who gets married when her husband was, say, 65 years of age might be called upon to nurse him for ten years. Nevertheless when he dies she gets no pension whatever. I am wondering whether the minister, out of the kindness of her heart, would give this matter consideraton.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend is putting forward a situation something like a murder mystery, but I think we must also look at the other side of the coin and consider the situation if women are encouraged to marry elderly gentlemen because of the pension they receive. I do try to look after the future of my own sex, but out of the 50 officials who worked on this bill for more than two years I was the only female and was often drowned out.


George Louis Chatterton: Perhaps that is why you were drowned out in this case.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this matter was considered in the committee but I have not seen this particular point provided for. Under the proposal that the committee has brought forward about a contributor dying within one year of marriage, and in connection with the question as to whether the minister is satisfied that at the time of his marriage the contributor was in a good condition of health, I wonder what regulations, if any, defining how and when the minister is satisfied, are anticipated. Is it to be implied that every male who contemplates marriage should have some sort of special medical certificate stating a medical opinion that he is likely to survive for one year or more? I suggest that if this is the case very wide publicity should be given to the matter. Anyone can get married at a fairly young age and anticipate a fairly long life, yet for some reason or other die within a year of marriage.

Canada Pension Plan
I presume the basic idea, suggested I believe by the minister a moment ago, is that there are certain females who might be inclined to marry elderly gentlemen with the anticipation of a pension. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested that that was the hard way to earn a pension, but I think there should be some clarification regarding the other side of the coin, namely as to just what is anticipated in order to protect the pension rights of a spouse. What steps will be required by the minister so that there will not be a problem where there should not be a problem.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It will be appreciated that there is an amendment to subclause 8 of clause 62 which was made by the committee. This amendment makes two changes. The first change restricts its application to a case where the contributor dies within one year of his marriage so there is no reduction of a widow's pension where a contributor dies more than one year after the marriage.
The second change establishes a new test for the application of the rule, namely whether a contributor was in such a state of health at the time of his marriage as to justify his expecting to survive for at least one year; in other words, the expectation based on his state of health will then become critical. Whether or not the anticipation of impending death was a factor in the marriage is no longer relevant, except in relation to the question of the contributor's health at the time of his marriage. Under the amended provision it will not be necessary to consider each and every case occurring within a year. It will only come into operation where there is some positive evidence before the minister that a contributor's state of health did not in fact justify an expectation of life for more than one year.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the clause as it would be following the proposed amendment by the committee. I am still not sure in my own mind as to just what evidence of satisfactory health is to be required. In other words, if it is intended that as a matter of routine every couple prior to marriage should anticipate obtaining a certificate of health in order to ensure that in the unfortunate event the husband died before the end of the first year the widow would be eligible, this should be publicized.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this principle does not involve a positive thing, as I explained. The minister is not going to be

concerned with every case, but will be concerned with only those cases in respect of which there is evidence of poor health to the extent that there was not a normal expectancy. The minister will not be concerned with each case to find the extent to which there was normal expectancy, but will be concerned, rather, in a negative way in those cases where some evidence is brought to the minister's attention that there was poor health and an attempt to raid the pension fund by an early marriage. This will be a reversal of the usual situation.


Mr. More:: May I ask the minister where she expects that this information will come from, and could the possible source be someone who is annoyed with the individual applying for a pension?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The information could come from a divorced first wife, a doctor, a lawyer or from other siblings. We must realize, of course, that if there is a second surviving spouse there will be other individuals interested in the estate. Presumably a surviving spouse would not only inherit the pension benefits but other things, and if there is something rotten in Denmark I am sure somebody will nose it out.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am still not clear as to what evidence the minister will require in a case of this kind in order to commence an investigation. It seems to me this is the type of situation where there could be a great number of difficulties. Will the kind of evidence required by the minister be defined by regulation? I accept her suggestion as to the negative approach, and I agree that this is probably the right approach; but I feel that this is not really pointed out by the legislation. The legislation does not refer specifically to the nature of evidence which will be required by the minister before she can act upon it. What kind of evidence would give the minister the authority to disallow a pension? It seems to me that it is rather important to point this out clearly.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not anticipate that a great number of cases will be covered by this proposed legislation, but I do suggest to my hon. friend that it would not be a good thing to tie the department down tightly in this regard. There will be the odd case in respect of which the minister will have to be satisfied as to eligibility. The whole purpose of this part of the bill is to provide survivors' benefits, as well as benefits to the contributor. It is not restrictive, but rather more liberal than most legislation of this

kind. I suggest there will have to be some cogent evidence of poor health before the minister will make an inquiry, but I think it would be perhaps harmful to the individual to spell out specifically the type of evidence involved. There must be discretion so that the minister can consider the whole question and decide that if there is something wrong, an inquiry should be instituted. I might add that there will have to be sufficient evidence before a minister will interfere with the ordinary course of law.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to picture the situation as it will exist several years from now when the minister may or may not be in the position she now occupies, and I may or may not be in the position I occupy as a private member of this house. I am sure that all hon. members of this house who have had some experience will realize that often people approach members of parliament with a grievance to the effect that a minister of whatever department may be involved has taken certain arbitrary action to deprive someone of a pension. Very often quite extensive files are built up regarding particular individuals and situations as related to eligibility for pensions, whether they be pensions under veterans affairs legislation or otherwise. A great many people over the years, for one reason or another, have felt that they have been arbitrarily aggrieved by the actions of a minister or someone under the minister's responsibility. For that reason I am rather concerned about this proposal.
This question immediately occurs to me. What right of appeal does an individual have against the ruling of a minister under this clause? What documentary reference will there be to evidence upon which a decision has been made, and will this evidence be available to the individual affected? For instance, in the case of an appeal of a decision made by the department of immigration, neither the individual concerned nor the member of parliament who has been asked to look into the circumstances is entitled to the background information on which the particular ruling was based.
I agree with the minister that there will not likely be thousands of this kind of case occurring, but it is these borderline situations which are brought to the attention of members which gives me cause to feel that this is an important matter. We should have a clearcut understanding in this regard before we allow this clause as it stands to pass.
Canada Pension Plan
There is nothing basically wrong with the idea proposed by the clause, but there is a question in respect of an arbitrary decision made by a minister based on rules which, as far as I can determine, are not tied down to any legislation or set of regulations which will be brought forward. This may seem to be a small point, but for the reasons I have outlined I think it is one of some importance.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: During my brief experience in this portfolio, of less than two years, I have found that the difficulties do not arise as a result of the exercise of a minister's discretion, but rather because of the fact that the legislation involved has not provided any ministerial discretion. For that very reason this legislation was prompted. The purpose of this bill is to give people pensions, but it is not intended that people should be allowed to raid the treasury. It is not intended that in order to obtain a pension someone should be allowed to marry some nice old codger who is about to expire. Some of us might look for that sort of way out, but most of us have to work for a living.
It does seem to me that my hon. friend will agree that the type of case we are discussing will have to be pretty clearcut, and that in the event someone does try to raid the fund in this manner it will be clear not only to the minister but to any member who is approached that such is the case, and that the minister's discretion should be exercised against the individual. Mr. Chairman, I really cannot say more than that in an attempt to assure my hon. friend about this situation. Deserving widows will receive pensions; but certain individuals of my sex, who are commonly known as scheming golddiggers, will not have a chance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I assure the minister that the idea of preventing individuals from raiding the treasury is a commendable one, and I assure the minister that I believe there should be discretionary power in this regard. However, the power the minister will have as a result of this clause will be wide, and it seems to me that some right of appeal ought to be given to individuals who feel that all the factors have not been examined.
There are many cases in which the minister will have to exercise almost the judgment of a court: Was the male pensioner mentally stable or mentally reliable at the time he got married-which raises the wider question, is any male mentally responsible at the time of marriage? The question the minister will then

Canada Pension Plan
have to decide is whether this particular male was more mentally irresponsible than males generally are at such a time. It seems to me that the minister is taking on a very wide assignment. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has pointed out, I think there will be people who will still be convinced that some grievance has been done. Would the minister not put a clause somewhere, either in the regulations or in the act, to provide for some right of appeal?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to clarify the situation with regard to divorced persons. The situation is straightforward in the case of people who carry on until death doth them part, but we have to realize that a good number of marriages are dissolved. Would the minister clarify the situation with regard to the position of divorced persons? I am thinking of a couple who are divorced and the husband, who has the interest in the pension, dies and the woman from whom he is divorced is a survivor. What is her position? Does she lose all her rights because she was divorced before her husband died? Conversely, if one or both of the spouses remarries, what is the legal position?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it is analogous to the legal position generally. Once she is no longer his wife she cannot be his widow. If she was divorced during his lifetime then on his death she would not be entitled to a widow's pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take any time, even a minute or two, on this clause because we had a good deal of discussion of these deathbed marriages in the committee and the proposal now before us is one that was adopted by the joint committee unanimously. Nevertheless there is no reason why one should not take another look at it. In looking carefully at the wording we have adopted it seems to me that it does not say what the minister thinks it says. The minister says that most cases where there is a death within the year will just go through automatically and that she will not examine every case. She will only look into a case if evidence is submitted to her that there was poor health at the time of the marriage. But look at what the wording we adopted says. It says that "where a contributor dies within one year after his marriage, no survivor's pension is payable to his surviving spouse if the minister is not satisfied that the contributor was" in good health. We always get lost in these double negatives. Does that wording
[Mr. Douglas.)
not imply that the minister must be satisfied in every case? I see an expert in the field shaking his head but unfortunately he cannot speak here. I wonder whether the "not" is not in the wrong place. I think what we want is what the minister described, namely that every case is not looked at, but only those cases where there is something unusual. Does not language saying that there is no pension if the minister is not satisfied mean that the minister has to be satisfied in all cases? Should it not read that there is no pension if the minister is persuaded that the deceased was not in good health at the time of the marriage?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, following what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been saying, I must say it was that particular wording that caused me to raise the questions I did. I am happy with the kind of approach that the minister suggested but I am wondering whether it should not read, "if the minister is satisfied that the contributor was not at the time of his marriage in such a condition of health as to justify him having an expectation of surviving for at least one year thereafter". I am wondering whether the moving of the word "not" from where it appears before the word "satisfied" would not improve the wording. If it were placed later in the sentence it would make it clearer that the sense of the proposed amendment is in line with the exposition of the matter which the minister has given.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the draftsman from the Department of Justice alleges, and I must agree with him, that this is the phraseology to express the intent I have given and that to take the word "not" from in front of "satisfied" and insert it after "was" so that it would read "was not at the time of his marriage" would have the reverse effect and that the minister would have to be satisfied in each case. There would be a positive onus which would mean the minister would have to look at all cases. There would be a positive duty on the minister to satisfy himself or herself. As it is now worded, so long as the minister is not satisfied that the contributor was not in poor health at the time of his marriage the pension will be paid. In other words, if nobody does anything the pension is paid.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: If you take out the word "no" in the first line you will improve it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am assured by the draftsman that the intention of the committee has

been expressed in language that will be found in other statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the draftsman give the assurance and can she in turn give it to the house that there are other examples in our law where this kind of language is used and has this kind of effect? We are not arguing the point. We just want what the minister says to be the fact.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am told that in the Public Service Superannuation Act a similar double negative has been used.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 63-Person deemed to be surviving spouse.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have been reading this clause very carefully. It deals with the very difficult problem of common law marriages and it seems to me that the minister is going to be in much the same difficulty in interpreting this clause as it was suggested she might be in regard to the previous clause. For example, in subclause 1 (a) there is reference to unions that have resulted from marriage being prohibited by reason of a previous marriage that has not ended in divorce or annulment, and it suggests that such a union will be recognized under the pension plan. We then come to subclause 1 (b) which specifically states toward the end that the pension is paid to the survivor of the union as long as at the time of the death of the contributor neither the survivor nor the contributor was married to any other person. It seems to contradict subclause 1(a). I wonder if the minister could enlighten the committee on the interpretation of this? In other words, if there is a survivor of a marriage in which there have been irregularities, does the married survivor take precedence over the partner of the union that has been solemnized under the law?
Perhaps we could bring the problem into focus by asking if the terms of this clause correspond to the statute which applies to common law marriages under the veterans pensions regulations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that under subclause 2, in the situation mentioned, where a man is married and separated from his lawful wife and has been living with another woman for at least seven years, in those circumstances a man would be prohibited from marrying the second woman because he was still married to the first. If he were living common law with a woman and had been
Canada Pension Plan
living with her for seven years, she would in effect become the widow under this law. This is the situation under subclause 2 where the wife is not entitled to separate maintenance.
I am informed that even in the case where clause 2 is not called into play, in order to disentitle his wife under subclause 1, the man may decide on the common law wife rather than the wife being entitled to the benefit.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it from the minister's explanation that actually the decision with regard to these common law or irregular unions will in the final analysis be made by the minister, and it would be necessary for her to review all these cases?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In the strictest sense, that would not be necessary. It is expected this would be done by departmental procedure so that these cases would all come under review in the regular course. If there were any special representations made or complaints were made, they would go to the minister for special consideration.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the minister indicate if this conforms to the policy applied under the veterans pensions legislation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am so informed, yes.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I want to get some sort of commitment from the minister when we are dealing with this provision for common law unions, because this is a reasonably accurate description of most of the liaisons in the Northwest Territories. I could give the committee an hour or two of case studies, but perhaps it will suffice to say that there is an expression in the north that a common law union is only embarrassing for the first day. After that, it is accepted.
This leads me to a question under paragraph (b) which indicates that it has to be established to the satisfaction of the minister this is the case. Then it goes on to give a hint of a few of the general criteria. I should like the hon. lady to assure me she would be reasonably lax in her adherence to these criteria in deciding on the eligibility of the wife or husband, as the case may be. In particular, this clause says that at the time of death there must be no marriage partner still somewhere in the picture. In the case of strictly common law liaisons, particularly among people who are living on the land, it is a fact it is almost impossible to survive in the physical sense of the word, without a partner. This is because of the division of labour. A man simply cannot

Canada Pension Plan
live without a woman in that part of the world when he is living on the land. I do not mean this in the romantic sense of, "I cannot live without you", but in the economic sense.
I am sure the hon. lady is familiar with this situation because it is a constant problem facing her department when they remove an Indian or Eskimo patient to hospital in the south. Invariably there is an extra wife or husband at home when the person returns from his medical care. He finds in many cases that his family has been increasing while he has been gone, both in terms of children and additional wives or husbands. Similarly I would hope that where children are eligible ordinarily-I know I am speaking on the wrong clause but I think it is pertinent-that the children of this kind of liaison will be eligible when they would have been otherwise entitled.
I can foresee a problem here if the existence of what we call a marriage-"we" meaning the people in the south-would be the criterion in determining the status of the children. I, for one, cannot accept the idea that in order to establish eligibility you would have to have been living together in this way for a number of years. In that kind of country, we cannot afford to do this for a number of years. I hope that in these cases the minister can assure me she is going to be rather flexible because in that part of the country we do not have the same standards as we have in the south.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend knows that I am as soft hearted as mush, but this plan is not a means of providing for all the ladies of the night in the north. This plan is intended to be for a continuing union, whether or not it has been blessed by a licence or banns. It is not intended for the case where a man works in one part of the north, lives with a woman there and perhaps his children and then moves to another part, leaving her and picking up two or three others over a period of years. This plan is intended for the woman he holds out as his wife. He may or may not have a wife. If he has a wife and cannot therefore marry the woman with whom he is living, he falls within the terms of paragraph (a). If he does not have a wife and is living with this woman without being married to her, he falls within the terms of paragraph (b). But it is intended to be his permanent partner who shall benefit from his pension; this is what the plan is intended to do. It is not intended to provide a supple-
[Mr. Rheaume.l
mentary benefit to make up for the necessity, perhaps, of staying warmer in the north than in the south.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I mention this point because it has tremendous implications. I am not asking that anyone who spends the time of an evening with a woman should be eligible for these benefits. However, I am asking the hon. lady to accept the same kind of guidance in these delicate problems as the judge of the territorial court in the Northwest Territories has found it necessary to take when called upon to decide questions of eligibility for death benefits in the case of those covered by insurance, the custody of children and so on. I am not asking the hon. lady to underwrite licentiousness or polygamy. I am merely suggesting it would be wise if she were to be guided in these matters by the experience of the courts in the Northwest Territories, because it does appear to me that in this legislation unless there is the old wedding certificate available no pension will be paid out, unless the hon. lady gives permission. All I wanted was an assurance from her that she would be guided in the application of this somewhat harsh criterion by the factors which the judge of the Northwest Territories court weighs when giving consideration to similar matters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been listening to this discussion for some few minutes. Would it be right to say that the minister intends to administer this section of the act, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs might say, justly in the light of all the circumstances?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It would be fair to say that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
On clause 65-Return of benefit where recipient not entitled.
Jay Waldo Monteith: This clause indicates that a person who has received or obtained a benefit payment to which he is not entitled, or benefit payment in excess of the amount to which he is entitled shall forthwith return the cheque or the amount thereof, or the excess amount, as the case may be. I have no quarrel whatsoever with that.
Subclause (2) indicates that these amounts may be recovered at any time as a debt due to Her Majesty and that where the person involved is or subsequently becomes a beneficiary the amount of any such indebtedness may be deducted from any benefit payable to

him. That of course is the situation with respect to our present old age security legislation. It often happens when people are overpaid under the old age assistance regulations and when they become eligible for old age security benefits, that the federal government, on advice from the province concerned, has to recover the money. My question has to do with the provision that no time limit is applicable. Does this include the estate of somebody who has died? I know from my own experience that it was the practice to make deductions as rapidly as possible when they were due. At the same time a certain amount of consideration was given to all the circumstances, and upon occasion a very low deduction was made. I am wondering whether the same type of judgment will be used as far as reducing old age pensions or other pension benefits is concerned, or whether they will be reduced immediately. Also, can the estate be touched?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This clause, like similar clauses included in any legislation when federal payments are made, does create a debt. So if the money due is not repaid in a person's lifetime it is recoverable from the estate or else from the death benefit itself. It is not, however, recoverable out of survivors' benefits.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 66-Commencement of pension.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the government has taken a further look at this clause in the light of the decision to drop the proposal for reducing old age security benefits on an actuarial basis? Perhaps what I said a moment ago about double negatives should prompt me to put that sentence in positive form.
The government had decided that old age pensions will be payable at the full amount at 69, 68, 67, 66 and 65. When this plan was drafted and when it was discussed with us in the joint committee-I have been refreshing my memory by reading the minutes of proceedings and evidence-it was a plan which dovetailed with the actuarially reduced old age security payments. In the meantime the government has announced its decision to pay the full amount. No doubt the government is receiving the same kind of correspondence that many of us are receiving, indicative of the concern felt by people that it will take time to make this progression down to age 65. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to permitting per-
Canada Pension Plan
sons at the age of 65 to draw their retirement pensions starting in 1967 rather than having to wait until these later years. Unfortunately we are talking about ages in the sixties and years in the 1960's, and we are moving in opposite directions, so it is easy to become confused.
May I try to make my point again? In view of the concern of many people about this gap between 65 and 70 which some people feel should be met by the immediate lowering of the old age security eligible age-but I am not talking about that at the moment-has the government considered letting people draw the retirement benefit under the Canada pension plan at any time after January, 1967, provided they are 65 years of age or over, rather than having to wait a few years before 65 is the effective age?
I might try again. Has the government considered doing away with the "scaling in" provision-that is what it was called in the committee-in subclause (2) paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 66?


Edgar John Benson: This matter was considered after the change announced by the Prime Minister, and it was decided not to adjust this particular clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we be given any reasons for that decision? I recognize fully that this matter was discussed when we were in the joint committee. In fact, the record shows that I asked some of the questions and seemed reasonably satisfied with the answers. But because of the other changes which have taken place I wonder whether some changes should not have been put into effect with respect to this part of the plan as well.


Edgar John Benson: Actually, this clause as written is part of the build-up of the fund-the whole basis upon which the pension plan forecasts were made. The fact that the age has been reduced to 65 in connection with old age security does not in our view provide a reason in itself for changing this particular clause. This is a different argument than the reduction of the old age security to age 65 on a stepping-down basis. A change in this clause would materially affect the pay-out. The payout, if you did away with the phasing, would become much greater, which would affect the whole of the forecast with regard to the Canada pension plan. The old age security payments will not affect the actuarial payments with regard to the Canada pension plan at all, because they are not coming out of these funds but are coming out of old age security funds.

Canada Pension Plan


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, it is still a fact, is it not, that these two plans harmonize? Let me put it this way, that in the case of the retirement benefit under the Canada pension plan, it does not become available to anyone until 1967; but in the first year that it is available, it is available to people at age 68, which would correspond to the new plan for old age security?


Edgar John Benson: It phases in exactly as it did before, except for the first year. The only difference is that the amount has been changed, so that ultimately we will end up with $75 at age 65, instead of $51 at age 65.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the phasing in is just the same as it was before?


Edgar John Benson: It is exactly the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Old age security phases in one year at a time, starting in 1966. This benefit under the Canada pension plan phases in two years in 1967 and then one year for the next three?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 66
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
On clause 68-Persons under age 70 not retired from regular employment.
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I have a question in connection with this clause. As I understand it, clause 68 (3) provides that a person whose employment earnings for any year do not exceed 12 times his monthly exempt earnings for that year, and so on, shall be conclusively presumed to be retired from regular employment in that year; that is, the $600 initially. But I understand, also, that once he has been presumed to have been on pension, or retired, he cannot come back in again. Let us say that a person has contributed for five years only and reaches age 65, and the following year he has a poor year of earnings and earns less than $600, although he continued working so as to increase his benefits by contributing for some years after age 65. This clause would arbitrarily remove from him the right of further contributing, say the year after he turned 65, because he happened to have a poor year; is my interpretation correct?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is only correct if he applied for pension, drew it for a year and then tried to go off pension and go back to

work in order to make a further contribution, and if he had a poor year and did not make a contribution. He does not automatically get a pension; he must apply for it.


George Louis Chatterton: The fact that you have established the man to be retired does not put him on pension; he can, in a following year, start contributing again?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The fact that he has not earned enough money to be incorporated in the plan does not mean he has retired, necessarily.


George Louis Chatterton: Subclause (3) says that if he does not make $600 in that year, initially, he shall be presumed to be retired. It does not say, only if he has applied.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under this clause he has to be retired from regular employment. He is deemed to be retired even though he is making income up to $900.


George Louis Chatterton: It is $600, is it not?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, $900; 12 times $75.


George Louis Chatterton: His monthly exempt earning is $50?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, $75.


George Louis Chatterton: Yes; I am sorry. It is $900.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Therefore, if he is making $900 a year or less, he may retire if he chooses to apply and take his pension; and that will not cut down his pension in any way or make him fail the retirement test. If he does not make that much, or if he does not make $600, he is not able to contribute that year; but that does not automatically throw him into retirement and therefore unable to keep on contributing.


George Louis Chatterton: If he did not apply, he could continue to contribute in the following year?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 69
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As amended.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman. Why does this clause have to stand? This is one of those we amended in the committee.


Edgar John Benson: We were asked by the official opposition to stand this clause, Mr. Chairman.


George Louis Chatterton: It is one of those we listed to be stood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have that on a different list.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 69 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 70 agreed to.
On clause 71-When pension ceases to be payable.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, the question I am raising in regard to this clause is somewhat along the same lines as the question I raised on clause 56 and which the government agreed to stand in order that they could give it further study. Clause 71(1) (b) deals with a person who has a disability pension and goes on full pension at age 65; that is, on retirement pension. If he had become disabled he would be on a pension composed of 75 per cent of his retirement pension plus a flat rate of $25. When he turns 65, according to clause 71 he goes on retirement pension. In many cases, particularly in the case of those in the lower income brackets, the 75 per cent plus the flat rate $25 is more than his retirement pension. So he would take a reduction, under clause 71. I will give you an example. Where his average salary had been $3,000 a year, his retirement pension would be $750 a year. But his disability pension-that is, the 75 per cent of his retirement pension plus the $25 flat rate -would be $860.50, which is a difference of $110.50.
It may well be said that at age 65 he has to contribute for at least five years before he gets a disability pension, so he cannot draw disability pension until 1971, at which time the $75 old age security would become available, but only if he has met the residence requirements of the Old Age Security Act. If he is one of those unfortunates who does not meet the residence requirements of the Old Age Security Act, he suffers a reduction of pension because he has turned 65, and the reduction is even greater in cases where the salary is low; in other words, where the need is greatest. For example, in the case of a man whose pension is based on a salary of $2,000, the retirement pension would be $500; but his disability pension would be $675. So when he turns age 65 his pension is reduced by $175 a year.
I wonder whether the minister would consider taking another look at this clause to see if this inequity can be eliminated for
Canada Pension Plan
those who do not qualify for the old age security pension.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am told that there are certain anomalies which appear by virtue of the two part plan, but again I will look into the matter with the other question, and with the committee's co-operation this will have to stand, or at least be put off at this stage.


George Louis Chatterton: No doubt the officials will consider this matter, but it seems to me there is a further inequity in that it is possible for a person at a yoi nger age, having contributed for five years and received a disability pension, even though he has been in Canada for only five years, to draw that pension. The minister having said she will take a look at this I will let the matter stand.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The test is not where he lives. The test is that he has contributed for five years.
While I am dealing with clause 71 and the disability pension, at the end of the discussion on Friday the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was inquiring about the amount of disability pension payable under the Canada pension plan and the benefit provisions for the disabled under the public service superannuation plan. I mentioned that the disability pension payable to eligible contributors is a $25 flat rate pension plus 75 per cent of what the retirement pension would have been had the contributor reached age 65. I pointed out that the reduction of the pension during the 10 year transition period did not apply to the disability pension and supplementary benefits. In the case of an elderly contributor who was also a civil servant, he would get both the Canada pension plan disability and the public service superannuation benefit.
It seems to me on rereading Hansard that I left the impression that the public service superannuation benefit would not be integrated but that the Canada pension plan disability pension would be paid on top of the public service superannuation benefit. But the disability pension payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act is simply the retirement pension payable at an early age due to disability; consequently it will be integrated by the same method as will the retirement pension. All of the other supplementary benefits, such as widows', orphans* and death benefits, will not be integrated.
The details of the proposed method of integration were given to the house by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and appear at page 10235 of Hansard, and

Canada Pension Plan
on page 578 of the report of the proceedings of the joint committee. The Minister of Finance, when he introduces amendments to the public service superannuation plan legislation, will give the full details of the adjustments provided for in that legislation; but it did seem to me, after looking over what I said on Friday, that I had left a wrong impression with the committee, for which I apologize.


George Louis Chatterton: I take it from what the minister says that the disability benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act will be integrated with the C.P.P. disability pension?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, but not the other survivors' benefits.


George Louis Chatterton: The minister could not give us any details as to how this is approached? Has she any kind of formula as yet?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In exactly the same way as the retirement pension.


George Louis Chatterton: In the case of the retirement pension, in the first place any pension entitlement which a civil servant has up to January 1, 1966 remains exactly the same under the Public Service Superannuation Act. From there on his earnings up to $5,000 are calculated at 1.3 per cent, and earnings over $5,000 at the usual 2 per cent. How does that affect the disability pension? I cannot quite figure it out.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With respect to the retirement benefit, that is equal to 2 per cent of the contributor's average salary for his six best consecutive years multiplied by the number of years service up to a maximum of 35. He may take his full pension at age 60. His retirement pension under the superannuation plan will be integrated with the retirement benefit under the C.P.P. in the following way. One part of superannuation plan pension will be calculated at the rate of 1.3 per cent instead of 2 per cent, as the hon. member says, that part being the portion of the contributor's salary below the ceiling of the Canada pension plan. This will be done for each year of service after the Canada pension plan commences. The other part of the superannuation pension is based on salary over and above the earnings ceiling of the Canada pension plan and will be calculated at present at the rate of 2 per cent of earnings for each year of service.
With respect to disability benefits, if a contributor has to retire before age 60 owing to

disability, he may choose a superannuation pension calculated in the same way as his retirement pension, namely, 2 per cent for each year of service multiplied by his average salary over the best six consecutive years.
With respect to the integration of disability pensions, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance made the following statement on November 18 last, as reported at page 10235:
The method by which the superannuation pension benefits are calculated in the case of ordinary retirement would be applied immediately in the case of a disability retirement where the disabled person was entitled to disability benefits both under the Canada pension plan and the Public Service Superannuation Act. In other words, a person becoming disabled would be dealt with in the same manner as a person reaching age 65.
I hope that answers my hon. friend.


George Louis Chatterton: I fully understand the calculation of the retirement pension under the two plans. Let us say that a civil servant had had 30 years service, and then became disabled. He can claim his P.S.S.A. pension at 60 per cent of his average best six years salary. Let us say he contributed five years to the Canada pension plan before becoming disabled. Does this person draw 75 per cent of his average earnings over the five years he contributed to the Canada pension plan plus the flat rate of $25 in addition to 60 per cent of his Public Service Superannuation Act pension? That is what I am not clear about.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He gets the full amount of the Canada pension plan, but it is the benefit under the P.S.S.A. that is reduced, just as the retirement benefit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether any calculation has been made as to how much money the provinces will be saved by the tendency for disabled persons to come under the provisions of the disability sections of this legislation and also under old age security at age 65. I might ask whether my premise is correct, that there will be a saving to the provinces, and if so whether there has been any calculation as to what the amount might be.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There will be some figures on this when we come to old age security; but by virtue of the fact that it will be five years before disability pensions can come into effect there will likely be some changes to the legislation and no calculations have yet been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is anticipated that after the five year period there will be a move in that direction, disabled persons being covered to a large extent under this legislation rather than under the Disabled Persons Act? As I recall the answers given to the committee, they were to the effect that the Disabled Persons Act would still be required for people who could not qualify under this legislation. Is that correct?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is for those who had never been contributors and could not be contributors, yes.


Mr. Patterson:: May I just ask one question on clause 70 for clarification purposes?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I was wondering why payments would not be made until the fourth month following the month in which the applicant became disabled. Why does it not apply to a person immediately upon his becoming disabled?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is the waiting period which is customary in this kind of public statute. The waiting period in the United States is six months, but we felt that a three months waiting period would be sufficient.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 71 carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, it was agreed that 71 would stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that clause 71 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 72 agreed to.
On clause 73-Commencement of pension.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, this clause deals specifically with the commencement of a pension, but I should like to ask this question. A widow who has no dependants and whose husband died when she was under the age of 35 would not receive a pension, whereas if she was between the ages of 35 and 45 she would receive a reduced pension. As I understand the proposal, a widow aged 37 at the time of her husband's death would receive a reduced pension, but if she was 35 years of age when her husband died she would not receive a pension, and would not receive a pension at the time she reached age 37. Can the minister explain why, when this applies in the first place to a widow aged 37 at the
Canada Pension Plan
time of her husband's death, it does not, by the same argument, apply to a widow aged 35 at the time of her husband's death when she reaches age 37? Should she not then be entitled to a pension on the same grounds?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is a general principle of this legislation and of other similar legislation that the time limit in respect of rights must be crystallized and related to the age of the widow and number of children she has at the time of her husband's death. It would be virtually impossible to apply these rights to individuals who are not eligible because of their ages, or because they have no dependant children, as set out by the terms of the clause.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, if that is the only argument in this regard it seems to me this is not a favourable approach. This scheme is so fantastically complicated now that one more complication would not make much difference. The same test is applied in respect of whether or not there are dependants involved. If at the time of a husband's death there are dependants, a widow is entitled to a pension even though she is under 35, but as soon as those dependants are no longer dependant the pension is stopped if the widow is under age 45.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend is aware that most women of 35 years of age are able to obtain some sort of employment. The most expensive benefits in the whole plan are those benefits for survivors. This proposal was drafted on the basis that a woman aged 35 at the time of her husband's death with no dependants would be able to obtain employment and contribute toward her own subsequent pension.
It is perhaps a change in our social approach that women are expected to stand on their own feet financially and make provision for the future in the same way as men. This is a principle which has been followed not only in this country, but indeed in respect of what is often called the most comprehensive scheme in the world, that which is in existence in Sweden. That scheme is based on a 15 year sliding scale between the ages of 35 and 50. In that scheme there is a scaling down of the amount of benefits payable to widows, on the basis of the same philosophy that they are usually young enough and healthy enough, with skills still fresh enough, that they can go back to the labour market and earn livings without the assistance of public funds by virtue of survivor benefits. I might say that

Canada Pension Plan
the United States scheme has no such benefit at all.


George Louis Chatterton: I do not find any fault with this proposed benefit, but it seems to be rather inconsistent in that in the one case a widow of 37 years of age at the time of her husband's death would receive a pension, but a widow under age 35 at the time of her husband's death would not receive a pension, and neither would she receive it when she attained the age of 37. That is the only inconsistency which seems to exist as far as this clause is concerned. Since the bill seems to recognize that there is an earning ability between ages 35 and 45, this principle should apply whether or not the individual was between the ages of 35 and 45 at the time of the death of the husband.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 74, 75 and 76 agreed to.
The Depuly Chairman: The Chair understands that clauses 77, 78 and 79 are to stand.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 80 and 81 agreed to.
On clause 82-Payment of benefits in accordance with agreement with province.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments in regard to clause 82. This clause provides for an agreement between the federal government and a province in the case of dual contribution in order to cover those people who have made part of their contributions toward the pension plan in a province that has not opted out, and part of their contributions toward the pension plan after the province opted out. The point I wish to make is that such an agreement, as was indicated by the evidence before the committee, does not provide that the benefits paid in an opted out province shall be the same as the benefits payable in the rest of Canada. The agreement merely provides that such an agreement reached under the provisions of this clause shall continue to apply while the benefits are similar. I think this fact should be drawn to the attention of all hon. members.
Incidentally, these agreements are only effective after this bill has become law and following the passage of legislation by the opting out provinces.
As I suggest, the agreements do not require that the benefits payable in an opted out province are the same as those payable in the rest of Canada, but merely that when
[Miss LaMarsh.)
these benefits are similar the agreements become practical and effective.
I only wanted to demonstrate some of the difficulties which might arise in the future when an opted out province, within its constitutional right, amends its own plan in so far as benefits and contributions are concerned. This could be done for specific economic reasons within the province. An agreement signed under clause 82 would have no practical value.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has said is quite correct. The recipients would be receiving two cheques. This is exactly the same point the hon. member made before the committee, and I should like to repeat to him what he mentioned to me the other day, that unless people raise questions such as this perhaps we should not expound on what has already been written.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 83-Appeal to minister.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the sequence of appeal, it is to the minister, followed by a reconsideration by the minister and a decision. This is followed by an appeal of that decision to the review committee, and then finally to the pension appeals board. I am assuming that is the sequence of appeal.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is correct. There is first an appeal to the minister and, second, from the decision of the minister to the review committee, and then from the review committee to the pension appeals board, whose decision is final and binding. These procedures are fairly similar to those in Bill C-75 and are modelled somewhat along the lines of the appeal procedure in the United States old age security legislation. They are designed to give us a simple, expeditious and inexpensive disposition of decisions relating to matters under the act which affect individuals. The regulations will subsequently set forth detailed procedures respecting appeals.
There is also provision whereby a provincial pension plan may provide that the pension appeals board has jurisdiction to consider and render a decision on an appeal under a provincial plan. If that provision is implemented by the provincial plan this will result in uniformity of final decisions when the appeal is with respect to the Canada pension plan or a provincial plan, where the provisions and the circumstances are the same. We would

hope it would tie two or more such plans together at the top so that you will have the same decisions with respect to benefits, contribution rates, eligibility and so on and all decisions will be uniform right across the country.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If a tribunal is appointed under the Old Age Security Act to review a case, does a majority of two out of three carry the decision?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
On clause 86

Authority to determine questions of law or fact.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Clause 86 provides that a review committee and the pension appeals board shall have the authority to determine any question of law or fact. I am not a lawyer but I presume they will have the power to determine the facts of the case with regard to whether or not somebody received so much money and whether or not the figures on their sheet in the office of the Department of National Health and Welfare or that of the Department of National Revenue, whichever it may be, are correct. I assume this committee will determine these particular matters of fact?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, that is correct. The only thing is that on the question of age there can only be an appeal to the review committee. There are no legal principles involved and therefore a question of age can only be taken as far as the review committee and not beyond to the pension appeals board.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Subclause (3) of clause 86 provides:
Notwithstanding anything in this part, no appeal lies to the pension appeals board from a decision of a review committee as to the age of any applicant or beneficiary.
I do not know whether I understand exactly what that means. Is it as to age only?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The minister says that someone is 64 and they say they are 65. They may appeal that to review committee and the review committee has the final say on the question of age.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 87, 88 and 89 agreed to.
Canada Pension Plan
On clause 90-Presumption as to death of contributor or beneficiary.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would not try to rush.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I should mention to the hon. member that clauses 87 and 88 had already been carried so actually the Chair called only two clauses.


Mr.   Barnell@: Would the minister explain briefly the effect of subclause (2) of clause 90? From my reading of it I am not quite clear whether it means that if a person in fact did not die what is provided for in subclause (1) is null and void.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is right. If he shows up again and he is not dead, then the certificate the minister has given is cancelled, but you do not go back and try to collect any money that has been paid. It is not refundable. The purpose is simply to confirm the fact. After all, a person cannot have a continuing certificate that he is dead if he is walking around.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I could not quite follow the purport of the minister's answer. If a person is presumed to have died and is later discovered not to have died, does this mean that the effect of the certificate issued is thereby null and void?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is what I could not understand.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is null and void for the future, but you do not go back and try to collect all the money you have paid as the result of deeming him to be dead. If Mr. A is deemed to be dead and his wife gets certain benefits, and then Mr. A turns up alive you cancel the certificate but you do not go back and try to collect from Mrs. A what she has received by way of benefits.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am glad to have that explanation because I was thinking it was the other way around. If Mr. A had died he would not be able to collect certain benefits, but if Mr. A had been presumed to be dead and was later found to be alive I was wondering whether he would be entitled to the benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had not been presumed to be dead.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If he had been presumed to be dead and had left no survivors there would be no benefits payable to him that he would need to worry about, but it he shows up again

Canada Pension Plan
and is not dead he goes on until he is 65 and gets his pension.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And if his widow or orphaned children have collected any benefits no attempt would be made to cause them to reimburse the department for what they have received?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are these years when Mr. A was dead counted against his dropout years?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 91 stands.
Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to.
On clause 94-Administration of act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one little question, Mr. Chairman. I am thinking of the public at large who will learn that quite a few departments are involved in the administration of this legislation. In fact, in these two or three clauses we have references to the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue, the comptroller of the treasury and the unemployment insurance commission. Is it a fact that so far as the public at large is concerned the main department our people will be dealing with will be the Department of National Health and Welfare, and will there be a special division in addition to the present old age and family allowances division, or will the administration of the Canada pension plan be taken over by some division we now have?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: So far as the public are concerned, on the ogre side it will be the Department of National Revenue in which they will be interested, but on the good fairy side it will be my department. It is not anticipated that there will be a new section. The administration will be handled along with old age security.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if the division will be renamed? It seems to me that the tasks involved in administering the Canada pension plan will be much more complicated than those involved in administering old age security and family allowances.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps when my hon. friend has very little to do during the long vacations between sessions, he will be able to think up a suitable name for the expanded department. If he does, we will be glad to

consider it as one more of his contributions to the Canada pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the good fairy for her kind words.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has any consideration been given to splitting the department into two, health as one and welfare as the other, and having two departments?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, sir, not while I am here. If I may borrow a phrase from Mr. Churchill, I did not take this portfolio in order to preside over its dissolution.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
On clause 97-Record of earnings.
George Louis Chatterton: This clause requires that the minister shall cause to be established records of earnings, and the information must be such that the amount of benefit must be established at the time of retirement. Do these records have to be kept on the basis of the monthly contributions of the individual?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I could answer this question. Initially, the record of contributions and earnings will be established by the Department of National Revenue. At the end of the year, we will turn them over to health and welfare.
Now, something else that happens is that the Department of National Revenue ordinarily does not keep monthly records of these contributions. If we follow the same sort of scheme as we follow for the submission of an employee's tax deductions under the T-4 system, an employer pays the lump sum monthly but at the end of the year the T-4 supplemental breaks this information down. There should be two new sections on the T-4, one to indicate for each employee his contributory earnings and the other the pension plan contributions. Then, this will be picked out at the end of the year and the information turned over to the Department of National Health and Welfare.


George Louis Chatterton: There is a provision
whereby a person has up to four years in which to question his contributions. If more than four years have elapsed he would not have the right to question his contributions. Would you not be required, in any event, in order to meet that provision of a four year lapse to keep the records by the month?


Edgar John Benson: No, I really do not think so. You are thinking of a person contributing for part of the year, perhaps, and then within the four year period deciding he wanted to pick it up. One part of the T-4 supplemental shows the number of months an employee worked, so his pension record would go over to health and welfare, including the number of months he was employed. He could apply for information concerning that particular number of months he was employed by a particular employer. If a person were employed by two or three people during the year, this would show on the record that would be produced for him, that he worked three months for one company and nine months for another company.


George Louis Chatterton: These records then of earnings and contributions of an individual will have to be kept for a long period of time, possibly 47 years. They would have to be kept also separately by provinces, in case some province in the future opted out?


Edgar John Benson: We would have to show the source of the contributions by provinces, and also the record of each individual by provinces. The information could be broken down if a province moved out in the future. The record will be kept in two places. It will be kept in the electronic brain of the computer and also on written records, showing the contributions, the date and the total for each employee. The details will then go to national health and welfare.


George Louis Chatterton: Of course, there is going to be a great deal of confusion, not necessarily for the staff but in the minds of the people. From a practical point of view, these records have to be kept for possibly 47 years, some in the brain of the computer. Let us suppose that there is a fire in the building where the computer is, what will happen to this information?


Edgar John Benson: There will be a duplicate of it because there will be records prepared each year. We will have the individual records, and then national revenue will hand this information over to health and welfare. This will be separate from the information we have. We will have the information on magnetic tape for the whole period, so if all the tapes were destroyed there would be a record up to the last year in health and welfare. Then, we would pick up the T-4's for the current year. We hope we will never be in a position where everything is destroyed, but there are always copies of the T-4's because the employer keeps copies of the T-4's.
Canada Pension Plan


George Louis Chatterton: The time may come when you may wish those were destroyed.


Edgar John Benson: Incidentally, I might point out that there will be duplicate tapes as well.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I presume this will automatically mean the government forms, the individual T-4 forms, will have at least one more or perhaps two more copies.


Edgar John Benson: No more copies; they will have two more little squares, one showing the contributor's earnings and one showing his pension plan contribution. This information will all come to national revenue, and then national revenue will supply it to health and welfare. There will be no more copies of the T-4.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 98-Application for statement of earnings and request for reconsideration.
George Louis Chatterton: Clause 98 allows a person, once in every 12 months, to get some record from the minister. Let us say he is approaching the period where he has to decide whether or not he should retire. Can he ask the minister for information on his pensionable earnings up to date according to the indices up to the time of the year in which he makes his request?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, he has no right to demand such information. The unadjusted figures are the ones he has the right to demand. The computation could be made by the individual by applying the pension index to bring it up to date. He has no right to demand that the department make this computation for him until the time he retires.


George Louis Chatterton: You have given him this right under this clause so he can dispute any figure that might be given. However, in so far as using this figure to estimate his retirement pension is concerned, it would be absolutely useless because he would have no idea of the escalation that would be applied.


Edgar John Benson: I am advised that national health would be prepared to assist him in making such a computation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


An hon. Member:: Call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would meet our convenience by reading out a list of the clauses that have been allowed to stand thus far, so we can check our records and see if we all agree?

Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: The clauses allowed to stand at this point are: 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 26, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 69, 71, 77, 78, 79 and 91.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee rose on clause 98.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose at six o'clock, clause 98 was under consideration. Shall clause 98 carry?


Edgar John Benson: Before we proceed with clause 98 there are two things I should like to say. First, in my explanation this afternoon of the number of copies of magnetic tapes which are floating around I made an error or two which will be corrected tomorrow. However, I can assure the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich we shall have ample records and that no one need worry about losing his pension record in Canada.
My second point really concerns the business of the committee. The official opposition has indicated that it has six substantive amendments together with a number of consequential amendments. During the dinner hour I consulted with the hon. member for Perth, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Villeneuve. The government is willing to agree that once we have moved through the first three parts of the bill and have come to part IV we shall go back and deal with the bill clause by clause, that is, with those clauses which have been stood, and move the government amendments on the understanding that if the substantive amendments to be moved by the official opposition and by the other parties later on should carry, we would be ready to re-open the clauses which had been passed in order to deal with consequential amendments which might arise out of those substantive amendments. In this way we might avoid dealing with a great many amendments which might not really be pertinent if the subsequent substantive amendments were to be defeated.


Robert Norman Thompson: Did I understand the minister to say that this would be done at the end of part III, before consideration was given to part IV?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, that is the understanding. The agreement originally was that we would move part III and deal with all the points to the end of part III, and then deal with the resolution which is a necessary precedent to dealing with part IV.


George Louis Chatterton: But we will not discuss the resolution, now, until we have dealt with parts I to III including all the amendments?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, that is the understanding. We would do that; then we would deal with the resolution preceding part IV and at the end of part IV we would revert to clause 1 which would have to be dealt with at that time. That would be the end of the bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to the procedure suggested by the Minister of National Revenue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 99-Entry in record of earnings presumed to be accurate.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the minister care to tell us the effects of the amendment to clause 99? I am sorry, but I do not have my report of the committee's proceedings.


Edgar John Benson: This is in the report, schedule D, and relates to entries in the record of earnings. Clause 99(1) states that any entry in the record of earnings relating to a contribution shall be presumed to be accurate after four years have elapsed from the end of the year to which the entry relates. However, since the information required to be shown in the record of earnings also includes information relating to the earnings of a contributor, it is considered desirable that section 99(1) should be extended to refer expressly to entries relating to earnings.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 100, 101 and 102 agreed to.
On clause 103-Agreement respecting assignment of social insurance numbers.
George Louis Chatterton: I think this clause provides for the making of an agreement between the federal government and any province opting out as far as social insurance numbers are concerned. I presume this merely gives power to enter into any such agreement, the agreement to follow the present bill becoming statutory and a similar bill becoming statutory in the provincial legislature. I take it there is an understanding with,

say, Quebec, that if this bill goes through, and if Quebec passes its own bill, they will agree to do this.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, that is correct.


Mr. Enns:: I did not hear the reply. Was the minister saying that everyone would be registered even though a province was opting out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Oh yes, Mr. Chairman. The reason I am replying to this question is that the unemployment insurance commission has already undertaken very substantial registration. In fact more than six million persons have been registered through the commission for social insurance numbers. About a million of those persons have registered voluntarily and it is understood that the social insurance numbers which have already been issued will be made available to the province of Quebec. I understand that discussions have already opened to this end and there is an understanding that these numbers will be available for their plan.


Siegfried John Enns: If the contributions will not be going to the federal treasury is it still mandatory for residents of Quebec to take a social insurance number?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary, for identification purposes, for every person to have a number. The number data will be made available to the province of Quebec for identification purposes.


Siegfried John Enns: In other words, Mr. Chairman, this is a service of an administrative aspect provided by the federal government for the benefit of the province of Quebec, which really is not otherwise part of the plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we have already registered, for unemployment insurance purposes, a very large number of persons in the province of Quebec. A very large number of persons have registered, as they have in other parts of Canada. I understand that from 80 per cent to 90 per cent of persons who may be eligible for the Canada pension plan have already registered; so that it makes sense to use the same system.


Siegfried John Enns: One more question, please, Mr. Chairman. I wish to advise the minister that I am among those who have registered, and I am glad to have my number. My last question on the subject is this. Is this social security number used for any purpose other than the Canada pension plan? Is there any other benefit in having this number?
Canada Pension Plan


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, as we
indicated at the time the numbers were issued for unemployment insurance, the intention was to utilize the regular issuance of books for the unemployment insurance system for the anticipated purpose of the Canada pension plan. Therefore this is in line with the originally stated purpose, namely that the social insurance number would also be used for the Canada pension plan. We stated in our advertisements that it would be used for social benefit purposes, and this is the only other social benefit purpose that was mentioned or intended.


Siegfried John Enns: Yes, but at the present moment surely one is eligible for unemployment insurance without this number. It would appear that the only reason for having this social security number is for the purposes of the Canada pension plan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman. It has always been compulsory, since the inception of the unemployment insurance system, to have a number. The regulations that make it possible to assign a social insurance number followed from the law itself. No person could be eligible for unemployment insurance today without a social insurance number.


Siegfried John Enns: I have another question, Mr. Chairman, for my own clarification. Is the minister saying that really the whole registration program in connection with social security numbers is not a duplication of the unemployment insurance numbers; that is, persons who have an unemployment insurance number do not need to register again for a social security number? Is this correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right, Mr. Chairman; that is, persons who have already registered and have been assigned a social insurance number need not register again. As I have stated, I think, 6,314,000 applications have been received and numbers have been issued. There may be some duplication, though. These applications do not necessarily represent the total number of persons, but these numbers have already been issued. Persons holding numbers need not register again for this plan, under this law.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering what the minister meant by saying there might be some duplication.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand it is possible that persons who applied for a number, moved to another job and got a number with the new employer after having obtained a number with their former employer, might

Canada Pension Plan
end up with two numbers. But apparently the electronic process, computer or machine system is sorting out this duplication, and it will be taken care of.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This will not happen any more; in other words, once a man has his number, this will be his permanent number?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has it not thus far been done that way in connection with unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if this applies to those who have been self-employed for years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There have been, as I understand it, self-employed persons who have come forward and registered up to the present time. The same facilities will be available for the future registration of the selfemployed; they may register as they have in the former registration.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. How is the department going to calculate the contributions of the self-employed under the regulations which are to govern them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think I dealt with this matter relatively thoroughly on an earlier occasion. The self-employed person will, when he files his tax return at the end of the year, file a supplementary return which will show his earnings for pension purposes, on which his contribution at the rate of 3.6 per cent, after taking off the basic exemption, will be calculated; and he will remit the amount that is owing at the end of the year. This is modified, of course, by the instalment payment system we have for self-employed persons, whereby people who normally remit quarterly instalments during the year will make the same calculation with regard to pension as they do with regard to income tax. They will remit that on a quarterly basis. Farmers will make the two remittances per year, at the end of December and at the end of April, although I was informed by one of my hon. friends opposite that they usually only make the payments at the end of April.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: A further supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know how the minister's department is going to arrive at a decision in this respect. What about moonlighting? What about all the other angles? This is a bureaucrat's dream. I am

just interested in how the department is going to work it out.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I believe clauses 10 and 12 deal with moonlighting, and we have already passed those clauses. I believe they were adequately discussed in the committee. The question has been raised very often, and I think there is an adequate explanation of the position of moonlighters if one looks at the deliberations of the pension committee in this regard.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: A further supplementary question. Will the minister define a moonlighter?


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the minister what would happen in the case of a self-employed person who refused to register.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: He can opt out as an individual, like the provinces.


Edgar John Benson: Clause 102 (2) deals with this matter, Mr. Chairman. The only penalty that
is involved is loss of possible benefits under the Canada pension plan.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If I understand correctly the answer of the minister, this means that it would leave the door open for many selfemployed persons to stay away from the plan.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman, this is not quite the case; because they would still owe the money and we could still go after them in regard to their contributions to the plan. They owe the money to the crown, the same as a person owes his income tax to the crown, and there are provisions in this bill which provide for the crown collecting these contributions. It is a compulsory plan for the self-employed, and the government has the right, under this bill, to collect the contributions from them, just the same as they have the right to collect income tax.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is exactly what I want to know from the minister. Does the government intend to take action in the case where a person refuses to join the plan? I would like to have it in black and white.


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, while we have the Minister of Labour here, I wonder if he could answer a couple of questions that are of concern to me. In the first place, to my understanding of the clauses relating to social insurance numbers the minister's department is responsible for the issuance of social insurance numbers to cover people who will be drawing benefits from the Can-

ada pension plan. 1 want to find out from the minister what plans his department has to establish some kind of office in the Northwest Territories in respect of this matter. Because at the present time the Department of Labour has no such office. I have already gone after the Minister of National Revenue, who was very generous and amiably said that he would look into the matter. The hon. lady, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, also said she would take a reading on the possibility of setting up an office. If we are going to add 1,000 civil servants in the first year, I want at least one to be added in the Northwest Territories. That is all I want for my 38 per cent of this country.
I should like to know from the minister in charge of numbers whether or not he is prepared to establish an office in the Northwest Territories to handle these matters or whether, as is now the case, people who apply for unemployment insurance or other benefits will have to apply either at Edmonton or Montreal, depending on which of these two centres they live closer to. That is the first question, and I should like the minister to be decent enough to give the same kind of commitment his cabinet colleagues gave, which is that he will at least look into the necessity, under the provisions of the Canada pension plan, for establishing an office in the Northwest Territories-and in the Yukon if they do not have one, although I am not speaking primarily for the Yukon. I would be very happy if he would give me his commitment in this regard, but in my dealings with the minister I have not quite got him to that point, so I do not expect he will commit himself.
The other question is a more general one. In the numbering process there are three ministers who have their hands in the pot.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Four.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: One is the Minister of Labour, who is going to number people. The minister says four and she may be right. Second, there is the Minister of National Revenue who will get money from these people. Then there is the minister herself who passes the goodies back to them; and the Minister of Finance will also be in the act.
My question is this; When an official of the Department of Labour, say, is numbering me in this mysterious process, whatever it is- and I am not going to accept it willingly- are these numbers to be used-the hon.
Canada Pension Plan
member for Portage-Neepawa also raised this point-for any other purpose, and will an official of the Department of Labour be able to draw my file, such as it is, and have access to the information on it? I do not know how the computers will handle all these matters, but it is a source of concern to me that any one of the officials of three different government agencies, or four as the case may be, would be able to draw my file and have access to all the information which may be on it, which could be used for any purpose whatever.
We discussed this question in the committee and received reassurances that information would be used only for the particular purpose of the official who had his little task to do. However I was a federal officer for years and know the temptation to browse and expand one's reading into areas not necessarily required of one in the course of duty.
I want to know from the minister whether his officials, in the process of trying to plant a number on me, will have access to all the information which, for instance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Health and Welfare may have. This question is a source of concern to a lot of members and people. With four government agencies administering a very complicated program I want an assurance that some method will be devised to preserve confidentiality of information which may not relate to the particular and peculiar processes of, say, the department of the Minister of Labour.


Edgar John Benson: I think this is covered in clause 107 but I would assure my hon. friend that the number will be used by the Department of National Revenue for keeping the pension record of a particular person. The pension record as such is available only to the Department of National Revenue and the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In regard to the first question raised by my hon. friend, my colleague the Minister of Labour has indicated to me that he would be willing to give him the same assurances regarding the situation in the Northwest Territories that I have given the hon. member verbally.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up the remarks of the hon. member for Northwest Territories, a little further on in clause 107 (3) the following appears:
Any information obtained by an officer, clerk or employee in the Department of National Health

Canada Pension Plan
and Welfare pursuant to this act or any regulation may be made available to an officer, clerk or employee in the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance, the unemployment insurance commission, the department of insurance or the dominion bureau of statistics where it is necessary to do so for the purposes of the administration of this act.
In other words, there is quite an opening here for different government agencies to have access to the information about which the hon. member for Northwest Territories is a little jealous.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am not jealous; I am concerned.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would rather leave this till we get to clause 107. This is really quite restrictive in nature.
I did omit something when I was mentioning the confidentiality of the information obtained by my department, which is basically responsible for keeping track of the contributions of each person in the country. Where there are dual contributors-that is, contributors to a provincial plan in a province not a party to the Canada pension plan, and to the Canada pension plan-there is provision for the transfer of information with regard to the computation of benefits, which I believe is dealt with in clause 108 of the bill.


Mr. Slenson:: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that everyone will be forced to have a social security number to participate in the Canada pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is taking the wrong view about this matter. This is a program which is there for people who, one must remember, cannot get pension provisions anywhere else. Something like 40 per cent of the people are all who can be covered by private plans. It seems to me that all members of this house voted for this plan as a matter of principle because they thought that a plan should be available through federal legislation which would provide an opportunity to people in this country who could not otherwise find one to put something away for their own latter day pension. Certainly this is compulsory, because you need that broad base for the operation of a state plan; but this gives an opportunity to people to buy pensions. The only way this can be arranged when dealing with such tremendous numbers of people is through a system which is based on numbers. It just cannot be done by names or alphabetically; you have to have a numbering system. Therefore, everyone who either files a statement

of national revenue or has a social insurance number issued by the Department of Labour and the U.I.C. will have a number for this purpose, and this number will be available when people come up to the age where they start making contributions. This number is given them for social insurance purposes.


Fred Frise Stenson: So everyone will need a number then?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Everyone who makes a contribution and gets a benefit, yes.


Fred Frise Stenson: Will everyone in the province of Quebec be required to have a number?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This was dealt with by my colleague a moment or two ago, and I am sorry you were not in the house at the time. It was pointed out that last year, when the unemployment insurance commission started this national program, more than six million people came into it voluntarily or involuntarily. The number was intended to apply all across Canada. This numbering system will be available to all individuals in Quebec, so Quebec will not have to institute a separate numbering system. As my colleague the Minister of Labour indicated, they are all included under the one master numbering system which is applicable to the whole of Canada.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Is the system compulsory?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, there is one pertinent point that should be brought out at this time. In Canada we have 6,500,000 taxpayers at this time. With the change in the unemployment numbering system and with the advent of the social security numbering system there are now 6,314,000 individuals who have numbers either as a result of the change in the unemployment insurance numbering system or because they voluntarily agreed to accept a social insurance number.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, my question may sound a bit facetious, but I assure you it is not. I have been asked this question many times and for that reason should like to pose it for the minister. Will these pension cheques be endorsed by the use of a social security number or by signature? I have been asked that question quite seriously.


An hon. Member:: There is no need to answer that question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-

Marsh) has just said that social security numbers are the same throughout the country. Since Quebec authorities have definitely and officially stated they would not participate in the Canada pension plan, how can social security numbers be said to be the same in Quebec as in the rest of Canada?
Since the province of Quebec will have its own pension plan, it is not at all interested in the federal plan of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that is, the plan now being considered. How can we now be told, therefore, that those numbers will be the same or concurrent throughout Canada, when the province of Quebec will have its own pension plan and will not have to comply with the provisions or requirements of the Canada pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry not to be able to answer the hon. member in French-

I should like to say, however, that the province of Quebec has indicated that it intends to save money for its residents by using the system which is in existence. The hon. member should realize that this system is not being imposed by this legislation. This legislation was adopted by the house last spring, or almost a year ago, under the aegis of the Department of Labour in respect of the unemployment insurance commission. The numbering system is in effect and 6,500,000 Canadians, including many who reside in the province of Quebec, have social insurance numbers. That numbering system is in existence for the benefit of Canada, including the province of Quebec and any other province, and should any province decide to have its own scheme, that numbering system is available for its use. This has nothing to do with the fact that Quebec will pass its own legislation comparable to the Canada pension plan.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, should the Quebec government turn to the minister or to the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare to know, for example, the social security number of Mr. Jean-Pierre Bonneville in Rouyn, or Mr. Jean-Bap tiste Cote, in Jonquiere, in order to find out who is contributing to the Canada pension plan?
The minister is not specific in her explanations and I want to know in what way it will help the province of Quebec.
Canada Pension Plan
Even if I am told that it is to save money, while there is no question here of saving money at all, and considering the fact that the minister herself admits that, within ten years, Canada will benefit from $5 million collected from contributions across Canada, in what way will money be saved to help the province of Quebec administer its own pension plan, which will be clearly provincial and not national?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, a block of numbers will be made available for Quebec and cards will be issued by the Quebec office for Quebec residents rather than by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The cards will be issued by the Quebec pensions commission, or whatever body exists in respect of the pension scheme. This will ensure that residents of Quebec who take part in the Quebec pension scheme when it comes into operation will be able to move to St. Boniface, for example, and continue to use the same number without having to obtain a new one.
In all fairness, I do not know what names will conflict, but I do not think LaMarsh or Caouette are very common, whereas names such as Leblanc or Baptiste may be as common as Smith, Brown or Jones. There are literally thousands of residents of the country whose first names and surnames are identical, and it is necessary to have this kind of a system in order that an individual who pays in over a lifetime, perhaps 20, 30 or 40 years, will be able to reap the benefits.
My colleague suggests that Smith is not a very French-sounding name, but as a matter of interest I am informed that there are some 50,000 Smiths alone on the unemployment insurance commission master index and, of these, well over 10,000 have the initial "J". It will be appreciated, therefore, that this numbering system is designed for the benefit of the individual so that his or her pension benefit will not be lost in the future, and so that the hon. member for Villeneuve, the hon. member for Perth, an Eskimo in the north, a fisherman out west or a lumberman in the east, or vice versa, cannot be confused with someone else, notwithstanding the fact that that individual may have been born in the same month of the same year and with an identical name.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, even though the minister is a very charming lady, I must confess that her explanations do not satisfy

Canada Pension Plan
me at all, because the point is this: If the province of Quebec intends to set up its own pension scheme, why should the federal parliament or the Minister of National Health and Welfare decide to number all Canadian citizens, when Quebec will have officially and definitely its own pension plan?
It is out of the question, for Ottawa, to know how many Smiths there are in Quebec, how many Smiths in Smiths Falls or how many Smiths in Manitoba.
What must Quebec do with its plan? Will the province still have to supply information to the federal department?
If the province of Quebec decides to have its own plan, it seems very logical to me that the federal minister should not interfere with what is going on in the province of Quebec.
Why, then, number the residents of the province of Quebec with those of the other provinces, since the province of Quebec wants to number its own citizens?


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer the question of the hon. member for Villeneuve. At this time, in the province of Quebec, workers register with the same series of unemployment insurance numbers as the workers in the rest of the country-


David Réal Caouette: That does not concern the pension plan.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Exactly the same number will serve for the pension plan: the social insurance number.
That series of numbers was offered the province of Quebec by the federal government, and Quebec accepted it to facilitate the integration of workers moving from one province to another.
The province of Quebec may use that series of numbers if she wants to, but she is entirely independent and free to accept it or not.
In my opinion, it may not be essential but the use of the same series of numbers would greatly facilitate the movement of workers from one province to another.


David Réal Caouette: Could the minister's assistant tell me when the province of Quebec asked to use the same unemployment insurance numbers?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I say that this block of numbers was offered to the province of Quebec. The province did not ask for it but

it was offered to the province, which could have accepted it or not.


David Réal Caouette: When did the province
accept it?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I think it is when we enacted legislation concerning a block of numbers for social insurance purposes, at the time of the negotiations which resulted in the standardization of the pension plans.


David Réal Caouette: Could the minister's assistant tell me exactly in which manner the two plans became identical?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Following lengthy negotiations. I wonder whether the hon. member for Villeneuve was not yet in Canada-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The member for Villeneuve is always in Canada; I am wondering whether the hon. member for Longueuil is in Canada at present when he says the province of Quebec has received offers. I am asking him when the province of Quebec had offers from the federal government and when it accepted them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec has not passed its pension legislation yet. The government of Canada has the numbers which we have accumulated under the Unemployment Insurance Act and, incidentally, they are bilingual numbers. We have simply indicated to the province of Quebec as a matter of co-operation, which I think is vitally important in Canada, that these numbers can be made available to them if they want to use them. If the province of Quebec decides to pass its legislation and to use Roman numerals or perhaps numbers in Latin or German they are perfectly at liberty to do so. But we have the numbers. We are offering them to the province of Quebec and it is up to the province of Quebec whether or not, within their own rights, they legislate to use these numbers.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would
readily understand the intervention of the Minister of National Revenue, but we are wondering whether the pension plan comes under the Department of National Revenue, the Department of National Health and Welfare or some other department; we do not know. However, I fully appreciate that the Minister of National Revenue would express satisfaction with the interim report on Canadian bilingualism and biculturalism, for the

province of Quebec wanted to respect the fact that two cultures exist in Canada.
As a matter of fact, a few days ago I had an experience in Winnipeg, not necessarily in Winnipeg North Centre but more particularly in Winnipeg South Centre. Let me tell you what happened. I was taking part in a radio program and a gentleman called me to say: "I will question you in French although this is an English station". I told him: "Very well, but I will answer in English because we will be talking to an English speaking audience". So, I answered in English while being questioned in French. Presently, the telephone rang and a woman's voice said to me: "You are now in an English and not in a French town, and therefore you should speak English and not French". I replied that if she were in Montreal and that a similar remark were made to her, that in Montreal one has to speak French because it is a French city, what would she say? I added that I thought that in Winnipeg I was in a Canadian city just as I would be in Vancouver, Victoria or Montreal.
But reverting to the question raised by the Minister of National Revenue, I will say this. The province of Quebec announced several months ago that it would have its own pension plan. Why then is the federal government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of National Revenue, telling us that Quebec should not object to unemployment insurance and social security numbers when that province has opted out of the federal plan? Why should they impose numbers on us in Quebec when that province wants to set up its own plan? That is what I want to know from the minister or the government.


Edgar John Benson: I think all I can say in answer is that I wish I were as bilingual as my hon. friend is, and that the provision within this legislation simply allows us to make the numbers available to the province of Quebec if they want to use them. We in no way affect their position with regard to operating their own pension plan.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
What number will be used by the federal government's civil servants residing in the province of Quebec, the one pertaining to the
Canada Pension Plan
federal scheme or the one related to the provincial scheme, if the numbers are different?
tText]


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the administration of the pension plan enacted by the legislature of the province of Quebec the federal government will, of course, have nothing to do with it. For the unemployment insurance numbers we will use the social security numbers which are being established and which, as I have said several times in the last few minutes, are simply being made available to the province of Quebec if they want to use them as well.


David Réal Caouette: Is there any connection between the authorities of Quebec and the federal authorities with regard to the establishment of that specific plan? Is it going to be the case that for the whole administration of the plan we will still have to say, "red in Quebec, red in Ottawa"? Will the minister tell me about that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend knows that there have been very long negotiations between Quebec, the other provinces and the federal government in which they have agreed, as reasonable people do, on compromises, so that the plan which has been outlined in the resolution in the Quebec legislature but has not yet been enacted there is almost identical to the legislation now before this house. There is no connection at all beyond that. If my hon. friend will look at section 103 he will see that there is provision for an agreement about this matter of numbers. There is provision later on, if they choose, that is Quebec or any other province, to use the central appeal board.
The numbers question my hon. friend has raised was dealt with in the last six days in the 103 sections already passed by the committee. This numbering system was passed almost a year ago by the house. It is simply that those who are setting up this system are using the social insurance numbers already established in principle, mainly under the U.I.C.


David Réal Caouette: I did suggest to the western part of Canada to do exactly what Quebec is doing, that is to get away from this national pension plan so that each province would look after its own plan. As I said in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Edmonton, this would then be a Judy LaMarsh plan and nothing else, nothing for the people of Canada, just a plan for the ministry in Ottawa. The provinces

Canada Pension Plan
[DOT]would keep free from the interference of any members of the cabinet or the government itself.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I want to ask a question that is of concern to me. Where a province is not under the Canada pension plan, where it chooses to operate its own either right away as in the case of Quebec or in the future, and may devise some other method of indentifi-cation and filing, then I am sure the hon. lady and her staff have devised some way of dealing with those people who may move in or out of a particular province whereby the number they had previously will remain active. In this way, there would be no bar to a person moving in and out, regardless of the system some other province may develop. If we could have that assurance, it would remove any doubts I may have.


Edgar John Benson: The number system, when established, will be such that each person in Canada will have one number. This number will be used for no one else. If at some subsequent date one of the provinces should decide to move out of the Canada pension plan, the easy method for them would be to take the same number because there is no danger of duplication in the whole of Canada. A person might have benefits coming from two sources, because of the arrangements made. They might have benefits coming from the Canada pension plan and from the provincial pension plan. It would make it much easier to deal with the individuals involved if the same numbers were continued.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Will the minister say that there will be no means test, and that you can draw both pensions?


Mr. Moore:: Will this government department have the same access to the information concerning the residents of opting out provinces as they have for the residents of provinces that do not opt out?


Edgar John Benson: I think I dealt with this question earlier. In the case of dual contributors or contributors to a pension plan which is outside the Canada pension plan, and the Canada pension plan, there is provision in the legislation for an exchange of information. Other than that, there would not be any necessity for an exchange of information and it is not provided for.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: You say there is no necessity for an exchange of information. What about our private pension plans? Are we going to
[Mr. Caouette.l
be subjected, under the Canada pension plan, to a means test or are we not?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I know that the hon. member has been busy in his office and has not had an opportunity to be here as much as some others. I know too he is concerned about private pension plans. May I say there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that has anything to do with private pension plans, no means test or anything else with regard to them. There is no right in the federal government to deal with them on a Canadawide basis. I hope that allays his fears, and we will now be able to move through the sections. We have covered over 100 sections in the last six days, and it was the hope we could reach the end of this bill and return to the sections that have been stood.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I should like to thank the minister for the assurance that there will be no change in the regulations.


William Skoreyko: I just want to refer, if I may, to the question of social insurance numbering. I know that the affable Minister of National Health and Welfare will not mind answering this question, in view of the fact that a moment ago she said the social insurance numbering system is not imposed by this legislation. I am interested, if the minister will answer, in the numbering scheme as it is applied or as it is put into effect under the U.I.C. today. Is it compulsory? If it is not compulsory, and I understand it is not, then is the numbering scheme under social insurance compulsory to qualify for a pension under the Canada pension plan? Can you draw a pension if you refuse to apply for a number, as a lot of people I know have done?
One matter with which I had considerable dealings in recent weeks has been unemployment insurance. You cannot qualify for unemployment insurance unless you have applied for a social insurance number. If a Canadian citizen refuses to apply for this number, will he still be able to qualify for a pension? If the rule applies to western Canada and the rest of Canada that if you do not apply for a number, and you do not then qualify for a pension scheme, how does this affect the province of Quebec?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As was explained thoroughly, if you are in the labour force and are at present covered by unemployment insurance, it was compulsory last year to be numbered. It was open also-and you will remember there were advertisements-to individuals such as myself who did not have

to go to get a number, to get a number. The Minister of Labour indicated within the half hour that 6.5 million people have numbers now.
With respect to the Canada pension plan, it is not possible to make a contribution unless you have a number. If you do it by name, the contributions over a 30 or 40 year period may be lost or assigned to someone else. If you do not have a number for your own protection, your contributions may not be counted in your favour. If you do not have that number, you will not be able to make a contribution. If you do not make a contribution, this being a wage related scheme, you will not get any benefits.


William Skoreyko: The answer to my question, then, is that the social insurance numbering scheme is, in fact, compulsory, contrary to what the minister said in this house a few minutes ago. The statement is on record in Hansard that the social insurance numbering scheme was not compulsory. The statement was made by the Minister of Labour. You now say it is compulsory, and that unless you have a number you do not qualify under the Canada pension plan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I can clarify the point raised. The issuance of a number is compulsory and always has been compulsory of any member of the insured population of Canada. That has been so for 20 years. It became apparent last year that the unemployment insurance commission had to issue new books and register the insured population under the terms of the law. Since it was anticipated that a Canada pension plan would be forthcoming we stated that though those who were insured were obliged by law to register, any others might come forward voluntarily to do so. The commission has received applications from more than six million persons under its program and it is estimated that a million of those persons came forward voluntarily. We thought we should take advantage of the issuance of these books to anticipate approval of the Canada pension plan. The result is that 6,314,000 applications have now been received for social insurance numbers, so it will be unnecessary for this number of persons who may be affected by the Canada pension plan to come forward and register at this time. It is a fact that a getting of a social insurance number under the bill now before us is compulsory for all persons covered by this plan.


William Skoreyko: The answer, then, is that it is compulsory for everyone.
Canada Pension Plan


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Under the Canada pension plan.


William Skoreyko: That is precisely what I wanted answered.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course, when we registered last year we did not have authority such as is now anticipated under the Canada pension plan. We could only rely on the authority of the Unemployment Insurance Act in respect of persons in insured occupations, and ask the others to come forward voluntarily. And one million did.


William Skoreyko: I should still like to know why the Minister of National Health and Welfare said a moment ago that the social insurance numbers system was not being imposed by this legislation and had nothing to do with it. She said that a moment ago. The Minister of Labour now says it is compulsory under this scheme. Where is the consistency in those statements? I have asked a question and I think the Minister of Labour is about to answer it, Mr. Chairman.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have stated the facts as I see them. I do not see any contradiction between what I have stated and what the minister of health and welfare has stated, if we take into account the time sequence which has passed.


William Skoreyko: I am not concerned about the time sequence. A few minutes ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare- and I made a note of it-said the social insurance numbering scheme was not imposed by this legislation. Yet the Minister of Labour a moment later said that in fact it was. Is the Minister of Labour now saying that his colleague the minister of health and welfare was wrong?


Edgar John Benson: I think this could be cleared up by simply saying that the present insurance numbers which people have do not arise out of this legislation, but that the present system will be extended compulsorily by this legislation, because those who do not get a number voluntarily under the unemployment insurance legislation will be required to have a number by this legislation if they are covered by it.


William Skoreyko: Then this legislation compels everyone in Canada to apply for a number.


Edgar John Benson: If they are covered under the plan. It is an extension of the system which has already been started. This legisla-

Canada Pension Plan
tion extends the requirement that people in Canada should have a social insurance number, because one must have a number in order to contribute under this plan.


William Skoreyko: This brings up a most important point. Suppose I run a one-man business in any city in Canada, and I am not interested in the Canada pension scheme at all, can I refuse to participate in this scheme?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Skoreyko: Well, where is the consistency in the argument? Ministers opposite say I do not have to apply for a number, and then I can apply for the pension scheme, but I cannot do that unless I have a number. Where is the consistency?


Mr. Munro:: Might I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the committee has already passed clause 100? Subclause (1) of that clause clearly states that those in pensionable employment are required to have a social insurance number. Subclause (3) sets out the provisions regarding social insurance numbers for the self-employed.


William Skoreyko: I do not need a lecture from a junior member who is now sitting on the front bench.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton East that he should have been here for the last six days instead of coming here at nine o'clock on the sixth day?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Skoreyko: I regret to inform the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I know more about the scheme than she does. If she does not answer my question, I intend to pursue the matter.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


William Skoreyko: I refuse to yield the floor until one of the three ministers sitting opposite is able to answer my question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is number 604-515-148-


William Skoreyko: I will resume my seat if one of the ministers rises and says he is not able to answer my question. On a question of privilege-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am rising to acknowledge the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton East.


William Skoreyko: I asked a simple question of one of the three ministers sitting on the

front bench. I wanted to know whether a man operating a one man business in any given city has a right to refuse to participate in the Canada pension plan-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Skoreyko: If he does not have the right to refuse to participate, it is compulsory to have a number. And is it compulsory to participate in the plan?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be happy to clear this up for the benefit of the hon. member. I should like to read clause 100.
(1)	Every Individual who has reached 18 years of age on or before a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council and who is employed in pensionable employment on that day shall within 30 days after that day, if he has not earlier been assigned a social insurance number, file an application with the minister, in such form and manner as may be prescribed for the assignment to him of a social insurance number.
(2)	Every individual
(a)	who has reached 18 years of age on or before the day fixed by proclamation under subsection (1) and who is not employed in pensionable employment on that day but thereafter becomes employed in pensionable employment, or-


William Skoreyko: This is an obvious display of complete arrogance.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair recognizes the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(b)	who reaches 18 years of age after the day fixed by such proclamation and is or becomes employed in pensionable employment on or after reaching that age, shall within 30 days after he reaches 18 years of age or becomes employed in pensionable employment, as the case may be, if he has not earlier been assigned a social insurance number, file an application with the minister, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, for the assignment to him of a social insurance number.
(3)	Every individual who is required by section 31 to file a return of his self-employed earnings for a year, other than an individual to whom subsection (1) or (2) applies, shall on or before the 1st day on or before which he is required by section 34 to pay any amount as or on account of the contribution required to be made by him for that year in respect of those earnings, if he has not earlier been assigned a social insurance number, apply to the minister, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, for the assignment to him of a social insurance number.
(4)	The minister shall, upon application by an individual to whom a social insurance number has not earlier been assigned, cause a social insurance number to be assigned to him and a social insurance number card issued to him.
(5)	Every employer who employs an employee in pensionable employment shall,

(a)	in the case of an employee to whom subsection (1) applies, within 30 days after the day fixed by proclamation under subsection (1);
(b)	in the case of an employee to whom paragraph (a) of subsection (2) applies, within 30 days after the employee becomes so employed; and-


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: (c)	in the case of an employee to whom paragraph (b) of subsection (2) applies, within 30 days after the employee reaches 18 years of age or becomes so employed, whichever is the later, require the employee to produce to him his social insurance number card and shall maintain a record of the social insurance number of each such employee.
(6)	Every employee who is required by subsection (5) to produce his social insurance number card to his employer shall produce such card to his employer within 30 days after being so required.
That is the clause as passed by the committee one hour ago.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, we have just had a display of ladylike arrogance. I would like to answer, for the benefit of the committee, a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare a few moments ago when she said that social insurance numbers are not imposed by this legislation. Moments later the Minister of Labour rose in his place and said that in fact it was true that social insurance numbers were not compulsory when the U.I.C. initially brought out this program, but by reason of this legislation it is now compulsory.


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


William Skoreyko: The minister says that is right. I simply asked whether a man operating a one-man business in Canada is compelled under this legislation, or under the U.I.C. legislation, to obtain a number; and if he is not, is he compelled to comply with the regulations under the Canada pension plan?
There is something wrong with the statement made by the Minister of Labour, because a while ago a self-employed individual in Canada was not compelled to apply for a social security number, but he is under this legislation. Where is the clause in this legislation dealing with the compulsion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer the hon. member to clause 100 (3), which says-and I will repeat what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just said:
Every Individual who Is required by section 31 to file a return of his self-employed earnings-
20220-750i
Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of the hon. minister that this clause has already been quoted.


William Skoreyko: It has been quoted, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing in that clause that says it is compulsory to apply for a social insurance number. Where is the clause that says you must apply?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee I would requote this clause, which says just what the hon. member says it does not say.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.	-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as I said when I tried to get the floor a few minutes ago, this is No. 604-515-148. Obviously I do not mind having my social insurance number, which I applied for voluntarily some months ago. I would like to say that it seems to me that a lot of unnecessary fuss is being made about the idea of having numbers to facilitate the operation of a scheme such as the Canada pension plan. Anyone in this house can go to any bank in this country and open a bank account, on one condition-he must accept a number to that account.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You need some money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can apply to any oil
company in this country for a credit card, and it will have a number on it. You can get a driver's licence, and you are given a number. You can get a licence for your car, but it has a number. Even the motor of your car has a number. You can get a telephone if you wish, but you cannot be dialled by name; you have to have your number. If you want to get married in any province in this country, you have to get a licence or have the banns published. In either case there is a number. Some of us, as a matter of fact, have the right to marry-this is to be taken in two ways-and for that right we have a number. If you have property and register it at the land titles office in any province, you are given a number.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Or when you go to jail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you belong, as you must under the laws of this land, to a hospitalization scheme, you have a number. If you join one of the voluntary medical schemes, as I have-I am a member of the M.M.S. in Manitoba-you are given a number. If you go to hospital or to the doctor's office when you are sick, you have to produce that number to get in. If you want to get a passport and

Canada Pension Plan
travel around the world, you can do so; but you have to have a number. All of us in this house have our railway passes that we use when travelling by train. We present these passes to the train conductor. Does he take down your name? No; he takes down your number. Are we insulted by having these numbers? Throughout the whole of our lives we have numbers as a means of simplifying things. In the end, when we die, each of us will be buried with a burial permit that has a number on it. So why all this fuss about numbers to facilitate the administration of an important and complicated pension plan?


Fred Frise Stenson: Mr. Chairman, we have now established that we are going to have numbers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Fred Frise Stenson: The Minister of National Revenue said this was optional for Quebec; they can take it or leave it. I would like to ask him this question. If they do not take these numbers, how is the pension plan going to be portable?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this would affect the portability of the pension plan. It will certainly make it much easier to move from province to province if we have a single numbering system across the country. However, if you had a different number in the province of Quebec and moved from Quebec into the Canada pension plan, I am sure the two numbers could be integrated and we could feed into our computer a cross-reference for these numbers.


Fred Frise Stenson: Is the minister assured that everybody in Quebec will be numbered? This is what I am worried about.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, you cannot operate a modern social insurance plan without a number.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question-


Lucien Lamoureux: The	hon.	member	for
Megan tic.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman-


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The	hon.	member	for
Megantic has been trying to get the floor for a long time.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to what the hon. member for Edmonton East was saying a few minutes ago about this compulsory, number business, because if

you look at clause 105 (1) you will see that you are graciously offered a number, but then they graciously impose a fine if you do not have that number. This is the part I am worried about; if a guy doesn't want that number.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given a whole series of numbers, but there is only one you do not have anything to say about; and that is the last one, when you are dead. I do not care what number they give me then, so long as they give me a place to rest. All the others are voluntary numbers; you can take them or leave them. I can get a railway pass, if I want to; I can get a marriage licence with a number on it, if I want to. Nobody is going to push me into that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond Langlois: These numbers are voluntary and you can have them if you wish. I remember distinctly that when unemployment insurance was brought in, only those who were eligible for unemployment insurance had to have a number. The minister said no, the thing is not compulsory because there are so many who are not on unemployment insurance; but all those who receive unemployment insurance, or come under the labour code at the moment and are working, have that number. Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare says, on my part, that I have to have a number too. But this covers everybody in the country; so if you are compulsory in one part, and compulsory in the other part, taken together that gives you the whole and you might just as well say the thing is compulsory. Why not say that?


An hon. Member:: It is.


Raymond Langlois: It is. Then why didn't you say so half an hour ago when the hon. member was asking you about it?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, we have been trying to say this for half an hour.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I knew that if I stood up for a third or fourth time you would see me. I have a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Peterborough. I understood from the question earlier that the province of Quebec had more or less accepted the basis of the numbering scheme which will be adopted. If that is the case, could the minister inform the committee if indeed there is an area of agreement with the province of Quebec in regard

to portability. It may be unrelated here, but inasmuch as a statement was made with regard to numbering I wonder whether the minister could make a comment in this regard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, if there is a comparable scheme, the agreement which will be negotiated, as I said an hour ago, as I said 35 minutes ago, as I said 45 minutes ago, as I said 15 minutes ago and as I said 20 minutes ago, will be such as to enable the province of Quebec to be part of an over-all numbering scheme, as they have indicated is their wish.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The minister has just verified what I said she said earlier. But let us not get around the questioning in that way; the minister must learn to be a little more patient and courteous, instead of making smart remarks about the way we ask questions.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member who has just spoken is making imputations about the motivations of the minister. He should ask a question, demonstrate his ability to phrase it, and then get on with the business before the committee.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is exactly what I did and the minister skirted around answering my question. I would suggest that the senior member for Halifax must be included with the junior member for Halifax and I must call him brash as well. He should also learn patience.
If I bring the committee back to a degree of sanity for a moment I would ask the minister the question once more. Is there any specific agreement or any understanding regarding portability as there is regarding numbering? I think one is related to the other and the question is important. Is there some understanding with regard to portability?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is the most sensible thing you have said all day.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Since the Minister of Labour has said that his department has collected the numbers for the province of Quebec, I should like to know whether his department is going to assume the responsibility of securing numbers for self-employed persons and also farmers in the province of Quebec, who up to now do not have any social security number.
Canada Pension Plan


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend will realize, very large numbers of the citizens of Quebec have already secured social insurance numbers. The recipients of unemployment insurance, the insured population as well as others voluntarily have secured a social insurance number. The facilities of the unemployment insurance commission will be available for the further registration of self-employed persons or farmers either in the province of Quebec or in any other part of Canada. Persons who wish to come forward are able to obtain a number.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like a more specific answer to my question. My question is clear. I want to know from the minister whether his department is going to assume responsibility for supplying social insurance numbers to those who, up to this date, do not have one, as his department has done for those who voluntarily come into the scheme. I want to know whether his department will take the responsibility for numbering the rest of the population of the province of Quebec which up to now are not numbered.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Naturally, with the consent and agreement of the province of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to know whether there is any agreement between the minister's department and the province of Quebec with regard to this question. I should also like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether there is an agreement as to the date of the entering into force of the plan of the province of Quebec. Is the plan of the province of Quebec going to come into force on the same date as the plan of the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 103 provides that the minister may enter into an agreement with the government of a province which on its own account is providing for a pension plan. So surely when both plans have been passed by the respective legislatures, or by the legislature of the province and the parliament of Canada, the minister will then enter into an agreement which provides for the circumstances under which these numbers can be interchanged. That is all clause 103 deals with. My understanding is that because the officials of the unemployment insurance commission advised me that there is an understanding with the province of Quebec that these numbers will be interchangeable, the numbers which have been issued and gathered by the unemployment insurance

Canada Pension Plan
commission will be made available if required to the province of Quebec. In that way a master index will be made available.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then the answer of the minister is in the affirmative.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Last year he wanted to oblige school teachers to get numbers. They were told it was compulsory. Following representations made to me, I asked the minister about it and he told me that it was not compulsory, that people were left entirely free.
A year later a new department altogether tries to force the workers to obtain numbers, otherwise they will not be able to get their pensions. In other words, all means are good to reach certain ends. One of these days people will no longer go under a name but a number.
Such a piece of legislation is extremely pleasing to N.D.P. members because they are socialists. For them, human beings do not count; they are merely numbers. The Liberals are drifting more and more towards socialism. They are seeking to designate people by numbers. One day everyone will be called by a number instead of by a name.
How is it that a new department now seeks to force people to register under the social security number set up by another department?
Personally, I do not have a social security number and I do not want one. Consequently, I will not be able to get a pension. How do you explain that? How is the government going to proceed?
Do not say that registration is not compulsory. Under this scheme, it does become compulsory. Put your cards on the table and be consistent.


Mr. Pritlie:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Quebec West that you could not pay Social Credit dividends without numbers either.


Mr. Nasserden:: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue which arises out of a statement he made a few minutes ago. I wonder whether he could elaborate on his statement that an individual could draw benefits both from a provincial and from a federal plan.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, there will be two plans in operation in Canada of which we presently know. If there is no agreement,

then as provided in clause 82 of the bill which we discussed and passed this afternoon people might get two cheques from two jurisdictions. If, however, the agreement as provided for in clause 82 is entered into between provinces which do not participate in the Canada pension plan and the federal government, there would be only one cheque.


Edward Nasserden: What I am getting at is, how could a person get two cheques?


Edgar John Benson: A person could get two cheques if there were two pension plans operating in Canada, for example one in Quebec and another pension plan covering the rest of Canada. If he contributed to the Quebec plan for 15 or 20 years of his working life and to the Canada pension plan for the other contributory years, he might ordinarily have cheques coming to him from two different pension plans if no agreement was reached under section 82. However, because of clause 82, if an agreement is entered into under that clause, he would only receive one cheque, because there would be an agreement between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec for reimbursement for such payments.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask how this clause affects the farmer who keeps no books, and a great many of them do not. I have reference to the farmer who does not want a number. Is he assigned a number?


Edgar John Benson: Clause 100, subclause 3 requires that he apply for a number. I am informed that farmers generally in Canada are law abiding citizens and file their income tax returns each year, honestly recording their incomes for my department. These farmers will file along with these returns a pension plan return on which they will calculate the amount they have to contribute.


Lawrence E. Watson: I have a supplementary question. Now that we have established that this number is compulsory, what happens in the event a farmer hires a casual worker for harvest work, which in the normal course would last two or three weeks but because of bad weather extends over the 30 day period, making it compulsory for that farmer to apply within 30 days for a number? The farmer knows that the man will not be working for a continuous or lengthy period of time, but will leave his employment as soon as the harvest is completed. What happens in this event?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, clause 6 deals with the exemptions in respect of contributions made by employers, and deductions from employees, and if the particular circumstances the hon. member has in mind do not fall within the terms of the exemptions as covered by clause 6, subclause 2 (a), with which we dealt some days ago, then the employer must make the deductions and contributions required.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to comment in respect of one other set of circumstances to which I should like to draw his attention. I am aware of several cases where an employee of a small farmer has left the job, leaving all his clothes and belongings, including unemployment insurance cards and other like things. These are irresponsible individuals, and I can show the minister many suitcases and contents left with employers by irresponsible employees of this type. In the event an individual who has left his insurance number in a suitcase with another employer comes to me for employment, and I ask him for his number and am told that he has lost his insurance card, and I apply for a new number, will the department have some means of checking on these duplications? I understand the minister stated there are 50,000 Smiths of which 10,000 have the initial "J", which would indicate that this will present some difficulty. What method will be used to check on employers and employees in this respect?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the system to be adopted will be such that if an individual loses his card and writes in telling us his name and his address at the time he applied for his card we will be able to indicate what his number is.


Mr.   Walson@Assiniboia: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this type of individual would not be interested in writing in or he would not walk away and leave all these possessions behind him.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I only intend to ask one or two questions and I shall be as brief as possible.
We have now established that it will be compulsory for a businessman with a small operation to apply for a social insurance number and participate in the Canada pension plan. I have other questions dealing with punishment to be handed out in the event of fraudulent application for social insurance numbers, and I understand there is provision
Canada Pension Plan
in this regard, but will the minister indicate what penalties will be imposed in respect of a refusal to participate in this scheme? If there is a penalty for refusing to apply for social insurance numbers under the provisions of the Canada pension plan, what will be the penalty for refusing to apply for or partake in the Canada pension plan?
I should also like to ask the minister what happens in the case of a contractor who comes into Canada for a period of two, three or four weeks, hires several employees for that period of time and then leaves the country? Perhaps I could use the case of Red Adair who comes to Canada to fight fires and returns to the United States after a period of two or three weeks. What method of recovery does the government intend to use in respect of losses incurred by people employed by individuals who operate in this capacity in Canada?
One other question of some considerable interest comes to mind regarding exchange students coming to Canada to work during summer periods for one, two or three months. What responsibility has the employer in respect of contributions on behalf of these students, keeping in mind that the employer is aware that the students will leave his employment within a few months?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I can deal with some of the matters raised by my hon. friend. First of all, I hope we have established to his satisfaction that a self-employed person must be covered under the act, and therefore must have a number. One penalty he suffers as a result of non-compliance is the inability to participate in the plan, or to reap any benefits of the plan. He cannot make contributions if he does not have a number.
Furthermore, in respect of the statutory obligation under this act to make contributions, the Department of National Revenue has the right to impose the penalties which are defined in an earlier clause, and to take the ordinary steps to collect these contributions from an individual in the same manner they would collect income tax.
Regarding the third question in respect of a short term contractor coming into Canada, if the employed persons were not deemed to be exempted employees under clause 6 of the bill, he would be required to make deductions from them, and make contributions on their behalf. The status of an employer as to residence when coming into Canada, affects his position in the country. If such an individual

Canada Pension Plan
was in the country operating a business he would be deemed to be a resident in Canada and expected to comply with the law. It the individual employees in question were only employed tor two or three weeks but not deemed to be exempted employees under the terms of the bill, the contractor would be expected to comply with the law just as would any other person in Canada. If he does not comply with the law we will take the steps that we can take within the country to collect from him. If he comes into Canada once, does this and gets out, possibly we can never collect from him, but this is exactly the same situation that exists when somebody comes into Canada, makes a quick profit, pulls out of the country and has not paid income tax here. Suppose he comes from the United States. We have no tax collection agreement with that country and therefore we just could not collect. However, I think the number of instances of this sort is rather small and the losses would be infinitesimal under a plan such as this.
The other point that my hon. friend raised was the question of the exchange student who comes into Canada. If his earnings were below the $600 exemption there would be no deductions from him under the Canada pension plan. He would make no contributions if his earnings during the few weeks involved were under $600. If his earnings were beyond the $600 level the employer would be expected, under the legislation as it now exists, to collect contributions from him which would go to his credit in the Canada pension plan. If he was here for one year while going to university, earned $1,000 and then left Canada and never came back it might be that if we took the total number of employable years and divided it into his contributions to the Canada pension plan he might have a few cents coming to him at age 65, but I think this is something one cannot deal with unless one has a specific case.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in the event that not only Quebec but other provinces should establish their own pension plans, what would the federal legislation have to do with the administration of a provincial legislation?
First of all, the federal government has clearly established that this pension plan is not intended to help people aged 65 to 70, but to find from $5 to $8 billion between now and 1975. Now, the first objective of this pension plan is not to help retired people, but the government.

Mr. Chairman, since there are provinces other than Quebec that want their own plans, will the federal government be then satisfied with giving numbers to Canadians?
In answer to the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) who is afraid that a national dividend may not be paid to him under a number, I think that instead of considering the establishment of a Canadian pension plan which the provinces do not want, the government should consider dispensing not poverty but bounties, and not to numbers but to citizens; such a distribution would be called a national dividend, and would be of benefit not to numbers, but to human beings.
Now, my question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) is this-because I believe that there are now three ministers interested in this pension plan, and even the whole government-if each province sets up a pension plan managed by itself, will the federal government be content to give numbers to Canadian citizens? Ontario and other provinces have expressed the wish to establish their own pension plans. Since Quebec will have its own, why should Ottawa interfere with exclusively provincial prerogatives? I would like to know the answer of the Minister of National Revenue on this matter.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think some of the questions raised by my hon. friend deal with the principle of the bill which was approved by the house several weeks ago by a vote of 180 to nothing. However, in answer to one of his questions I should like to point out that section 3 of the act, which we passed several days ago, deals with the conditions under which provinces can move out of the Canada pension plan. We have no reason to believe at present that more than one province in the country will choose to move out of the plan. Therefore I believe his question with regard to numbers and whether or not the federal government would simply be the authority for passing out numbers in the country is a purely hypothetical one and one I really cannot answer under present circumstances.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Edmonton East. It has to do with students who come to Canada from other countries on scholarships, and there are quite a few who now do this. Would such

scholarships be chargeable under the Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: If they are employed in pensionable employment and have earnings beyond the exemption, they will have to contribute.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, clause 103, with which I suppose we are still dealing, provides for one numbering system for pension purposes for the whole of Canada, does it not?


Edgar John Benson: Clause 103 contains authority for an agreement whereby numbers accumulated or issued by the federal government may be turned over to a province which is outside of the scheme. It envisages a single numbering system for Canada and the right of the federal government to turn over the numbers to the provinces which are not within the legislation for their use.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question. With all its dubious effects, does clause 103 now give the federal government the power to compel the province of Quebec or any other opting out province to accept this numbering scheme? That is what I want to know.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which we have been discussing for almost two hours now and I think the question raised by my hon. friend has been answered several times.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Megantic.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Megantic. The hon. member may ask his question when he is recognized again by the Chair.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one of the ministers, probably the Minister of Labour since we asked the same question last year, as to what the situation will be with regard to lumbermen who work in the United States. How is the government ever going to get their contributions if they have a United States employer and have to leave Canada to earn their living? Are they going to be able to come back here and get a pension? How are you going to get over that difficulty? They are residents of Canada but they go across the border for four, five, six or seven months to earn their living in lumber camps. How are you going to 20220-751
Canada Pension Plan
solve the problem or are they going to be in the same fix they are now with regard to unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the persons to whom my hon. friend refers are not, as he realizes, supported by a reciprocal arrangement with the state of Maine, and accordingly they normally do not receive unemployment insurance, so we do not register them under the Unemployment Insurance Act. But there is no apparent difficulty in registering them for the Canada pension plan if they are contributing under the plan.


Raymond Langlois: How are you going to get the employer's contribution if it is an American employer?


Edgar John Benson: If an individual is employed in the United States, we certainly have no method in Canada of covering him under the Canada pension plan. He is presumably required to pay under the social security scheme in the United States. This is a scheme whereby we collect from employers. The only provision we have for collecting from employers outside of the country who employ people in Canada is if we enter into an agreement under clause 7 of the bill whereby an employer will agree to contribute to the Canada pension plan.


Raymond Langlois: This does not solve the problem if the employer does not want to contribute. These people are still residents of Canada, their families are still here and they have to have social insurance numbers. These numbers are compulsory in so far as these families are concerned, but they will not receive any benefit from this pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: They would only have to apply for social insurance numbers if they were employed in Canada. If they are employed in the United States they would be covered by the social security system in the United States. If my hon. friend is speaking about people who work part of the year in Canada and part of the year in the United States, they would, for the part of the year they are employed in Canada, if they earn more than the basic exemption of $600, be required to contribute under this Canada pension plan, to have a number, and would reap the benefits of the Canada pension plan based on their employment in Canada only.


Raymond Langlois: May I ask a supplementary question? How does the Minister of National Revenue proceed in the case of income taxes? These employees who are working in the

Canada Pension Plan
United States come back here, make their report and have to pay personal income taxes on their earnings in the United States.


Edgar John Benson: The income tax is based on residence, and contributions under the Canada pension plan are based on employment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me that the discussion during the last few minutes has gone away beyond the confines of clause 103. I ask the co-operation of hon. members in returning to clause 103, in the hope that perhaps that clause might be adopted.


Raymond Langlois: I respectfully consider-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: I should like to ask the minister if a beneficiary under the Canada pension plan has to be a Canadian citizen?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I regret to disturb the composure of the minister, but I still have not received an answer to the question I recently asked. Does clause 103 compel the province of Quebec or any other opting out province to accept this specific numbering scheme?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Would a federal civil servant residing in the province of Quebec be numbered and registered with the federal plan or the Quebec plan?


Edgar John Benson: If an agreement is worked out with the province under clause 4 he would be covered by the Quebec plan. If not, he would be covered under the federal plan.


Mr. McIntosh:: How does this provision affect a federal member of parliament from the province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that he is treated as being an employee in the province of Ontario for the purpose of this measure.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Has the minister had the assurance of the present government and the premier of Quebec that the Quebec plan will be fully portable with other provinces? I did not hear an unequivocal answer to that question.


Edgar John Benson: They have passed a detailed resolution indicating that it will be a very similar plan and as such it will be portable.


Lucien Lamoureux: In any event, this question is not relevant to clause 103.


Raymond Langlois: I have respectfully considered the views you expressed a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, concerning the lumbermen. You said this case was not relevant to clause 103. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have in the past neglected these lumbermen, and the same thing is happening again. The Minister of National Revenue can find a way of taxing them, but he cannot find a way of giving them a pension. He can find a way of giving them a number. I do not know how the minister will be able to work his way out of this problem, but if he can find a way of taxing these people he can also find a way of giving them a pension. He knows their earnings; he taxes them. He could work out an agreement so that these workers across the border would be able to contribute to this plan, even if only the employees contribute and the employers in the United States do not participate. The citizen could contribute to the plan and at least receive some sort of a pension later on. Some of these people have worked part time in the United States for many years, but they have always lived in Canada. They have been neglected in the past, and I think this is one time the government should consider them. I should like to get the minister's views on this problem.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 2, 1965