1965-03-25

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I raised a question of privilege regarding the regularity of an action taken in connection with the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. I now want to add to what I said on that occasion, for no further opportunity will come, and unless action is taken now it will be too late.
What I am referring to is an act before the legislature of the province of Quebec in connection with the repatriation formula. In order to found my question of privilege I must place before the house the wording that now appears on the order paper of the legislature of that province, which reads as follows:
Mr. Lesage-Quebec Parliament Act-Motion-
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec, in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be made before the parliament of the United Kingdom, to be expressed as follows:
Then the act is set out to provide for the amendment in Canada of the constitution of Canada in the terms that appeared in the white paper.
I rise, sir, to say that it is not constitutionally proper for any province to be placed in a position of exercising the right of address to the sovereign. Such addresses to the sovereign, asking for action in the British parliament, cannot, according to constitutional authorities, be made by a province or any of the provinces. To do so would be to permit the provinces to circumvent parliament, which alone can pass such addresses.
I raise this question because it is a matter upon which we must have a clear and unequivocal statement from the Prime Min20220- 808i
ister. Has there, on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada or the government, been any arrangement made with the premier of Quebec whereby an address regarding the repatriation of the constitution shall be made directly by the legislature of that province? What will be the position of the Prime Minister when this matter is brought before the Sovereign? Will he, as her adviser, inform her that it is in order for her to accept an address from the province? If he will not, then all that will be done, should this be passed, would be a nullity. If, on the other hand, as her adviser he informs her that it is in order that any one province may do this, rather than that the consent of the provinces shall be made known to the parliament of Canada, then in effect by this advice he will have accepted the theory that there can be sovereign states within this nation.
It is a matter that must be raised now before this-I was going to say anachronism- before this unusual step can receive the fullest consideration of parliament. I raise it at this stage because on the face of it the Quebec parliament act and the address being directed to the Queen of Canada, in her dual capacity as Queen of Canada and Queen of Great Britain, would bring about a constitutional difficulty in this country that needs no further explanation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has raised a very important question and I hope, speaking for the government, I will be given an opportunity to look into it and make a statement, a fuller statement, tomorrow or at the latest on Monday. But I think I should say at once that any arrangements between the provincial governments and the federal government on this matter were dealt with in the exchange of correspondence which has been tabled, and there is no arrangement I know of which goes beyond that correspondence.
I should also add at once, Mr. Speaker, that of course it is understood by us all, and I think by those concerned in Westminster, that no amendment to the British North America Act, which is within the constitutional jurisdiction of the United Kingdom parliament,

Assistance to Secondary Airports can be entertained by that parliament except on an address, and solely on an address, of both houses of this parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am in entire agreement with the Prime Minister that he should take time to look into this, but I would ask him whether this matter had not been drawn to his attention until I brought it up today and, if it had, surely the incongruity that would result from accepting the proposition that a provincial legislature can enact an address to Her Majesty must have resulted in some communication to the premier of Quebec from the Prime Minister of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the matter is still under consideration by the legislature of Quebec. We have notice of the form in which the consideration is being given and, if required, we would certainly wish to take the appropriate steps for consultation with that government.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on November 5 last I announced that certain assistance was being given to three airports in Ontario, Sarnia, St. Catharines and Waterloo-Wellington. At that time I indicated that consideration was being given to a new policy with respect to assistance to secondary airports, that is airports which are not used by scheduled air lines generally. The government has now reached a conclusion about this matter, and I think I should communicate it to the house as briefly as I can if that will be agreeable to hon. members.
As a result of this change in policy there have been substantial changes in the capital assistance program for building local and other smaller airports. Federal assistance to municipalities and other public bodies was hitherto limited to 50 per cent of the capital cost of local and development airports up to a federal share not exceeding $100,000. Treasury board has now approved a policy under which the 50-50 limitation will be dropped. The new policy will be based instead upon the firm requirement that in every case a local body must assume full responsibility for operation and maintenance, and as well, if land is required in support of the development, then the municipality or other public

body must provide the land required. Each case will be the subject of individual study and the amount and percentage of the federal contribution determined on the merits of the case.
The limit on grants which may be approved in any one fiscal year to all airports shall not exceed an approved ceiling of $1 million. A restriction that runways must be built to "DC-3 or larger" standards has also been lifted so that small communities may now develop a basic turf aerodrome at minimum cost. Outright contributions for small aerodromes in remote areas have also increased from $50,000 to a maximum of $100,000.
The new proposal reflects the growth of all types of civil air operations other than air line in Canada, which in terms of hours flown are about three times as extensive as air line route operations. I think this will surprise many hon. members. Special studies have shown this proportion to have been maintained in the past three years.
The policy is expected to be of benefit to larger communities with relatively ambitious airport plans as well as to smaller communities which do not need and could not afford the kind of airport supported under the former scheme. The new policy also opens new possibilities for vacation and convention areas where an annual influx of summer tourists justifies a landing strip, but where the small resident population cannot afford one without considerable financial assistance.
Main line and auxiliary airports required for air line operations are not affected by the change, as the transport department either owns and operates or provides maintenance subsidies to municipalities operating them. Support for seaplane base facilities will now be made within the same general classifications as land airports; main line, auxiliary, local, development and remote.
The department estimates federal contributions under the new policy may total up to $10 million over the next 10 years. Full details of the new policy will shortly be available from the air services regional offices very shortly.
May I also say that I learned this morning with great gratification that the United Kingdom government through the agency of the minister of air transport, Mr. Jenkins, had agreed to have Air Canada fly a shuttle service on the route Montreal-Halifax-Ber-muda, or simply Halifax-Bermuda, whichever is more convenient to the air line. The British government has been very understanding of our needs and wishes in this

matter, and I wish to express great satisfaction and gratitude.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: This is the first intimation members of the house have had concerning this important change in one aspect-a comparatively small aspect-of air transportation policy, and it is therefore not possible to comment in detail with respect to some of the points which have been raised. However, I would like to say that as I understand the announcement of the minister it will meet the needs of smaller communities for minimal landing strip operations, which has been a problem of growing proportions in the last few years as the increased use of smaller aircraft for personal passenger flying has developed.
I did not notice in the announcement any comment concerning the need for expanded facilities, particularly in the form of improved runway facilities, in some of the more major airports in the prairie part of Canada. I am thinking, for example, of airports that were once serviced by Air Canada and where a program of expanding and strengthening the existing runways had been embarked upon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may interrupt the hon. gentleman. This assistance does not apply to any airport where there is a scheduled air line; it applies only to airports where there is not a scheduled air line.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I presume, then, that would apply to any scheduled air line as well as Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where it is running regularly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am glad to have that point clarified, Mr. Speaker. I come back to the original point I was making, namely that this will meet the real need of smaller communities which have been moving forward on their own initiative. I am wondering whether there is a retroactive provision connected with the policy that has been announced, because it is a policy that has been badly needed over the past several years. The very fact that some of these communities have entered into the expense of such a development without any federal assistance whatsoever is indicative of the fact that the policy was far too long delayed. Could the minister indicate whether there is a retroactive feature in any form of reimbursement for communities which already have an airport under construction?
Assistance to Secondary Airports
My final comment, Mr. Speaker, is to congratulate the government and the minister on their decision with respect to the service between Halifax and Bermuda. It does not affect my part of the country directly, but it is a service that has long been desired and sought after, and I am sure it will go a long way toward completing the total picture so far as air transportation is concerned.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, if I could be somewhat regional about this and make a comment about it as it has potential application to British Columbia, I hope you will forgive me; because I feel that British Columbia is perhaps a province that has had a need for airport and seaplane base expansion and assistance far beyond that of any other province.
I think the best we can say for the minister's announcement is that it is interesting, but because the new policy is to be applied, as I understood it, to each individual airport or seaplane base on the merits of that particular airstrip or base, it seems to have a degree of vagueness about it, and it is not possible to define it any further beyond that vagueness.
The fact of the matter is that in my own province there has been growing concern for some years about the need for a fairly clearly defined policy with respect to airport assistance such as that just referred to by the minister, and it is about time something was made clear. It is to be hoped that in the application of this rather vague and indefinite policy the merits of each application will be dealt with in the true liberal tradition, in a small "1" way.


Mr. Beri Leboe (Cariboo):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to express to the minister and the government my deep appreciation for this announcement. I am sure the minister will be very happy that I will now be off his back somewhat, because I have been aboard it for several years regarding this problem.
We are very pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of money is to be allocated' on merit. I think this is a wise position to take, and it will be very beneficial to the province of British Columbia and many of the areas which have to be served. In the constituency of Cariboo alone there are 49 places designated as landing spots for these small aircraft, and it means a great deal to the expansion and development of British Columbia.
I should also at this point like to mention that I have refrained from asking for assist-
12766	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Assistance to Secondary Airports
ance for various small airstrips, awaiting the announcement that we have heard today, because I felt that the whole of Canada must be served in a better way than by the policy we had previously. So, Mr. Speaker, we do thank the minister and the government for this announcement.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement that air service would be instituted by Air Canada between Halifax and Bermuda. Can the minister tell us when we may expect this service to commence, what type of plane will be used, and whether it will be a plane such as the Vanguard which could carry our excellent lobsters as well as passengers? On behalf of all Nova Scotia members I should like to thank the minister very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since this is a matter of international importance perhaps I might make a brief reply. As soon as I had word from the United Kingdom government I communicated with Air Canada. I understand they are going to make arrangements as quickly as they reasonably can to institute this service. They will seek to arrange a schedule in such a way as to connect with ongoing flights to the eastern Caribbean. I am afraid they have not told me yet what kind of aircraft they will be using. When they do I shall be glad to communicate it to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Having regard to the minister's announcement, I may say we would all like to go to Bermuda. I am wondering if he would reconsider the submissions made by Pictou county regarding lighting improvements at the airport at Trenton, Nova Scotia, in relation to this announcement he has just made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The connection does not spring to my mind right away, but just the same I shall be glad to see what can be done about it.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: My
supplementary question refers to the announcement of assistance for smaller municipal airports. I should like to ask the minister if he has under consideration the plight of the larger municipal airports. I am thinking chiefly of Saint John, but I imagine Calgary and Brandon would be involved as well. Is a
[Mr. Leboe.l
new policy coming forth in that regard, and can we expect some announcement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Saint John airport is never very far from my mind, I can assure the hon. gentleman. Actually the case of the Calgary airport is already being discussed. There is as the hon. gentleman knows, a very substantial maintenance grant in the case of the municipal airports that are used for scheduled air services. I think the department always stands ready to consider any proposition from municipalities concerning airports, as we did in Vancouver, to take them over if the municipality wants that done. The Saint John airport is so well managed the department has nothing but praise for it.


Mr. Hales:: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Rheaume:: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There has been a fair amount of leeway on this matter because a good many parts of the country are affected. However, if all members are going to talk about the local airports in their districts we are going to take a lot of time.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Since he has placed so much emphasis on what he is now calling international airports, would he consider telling his cabinet colleague from Cape Breton South the importance of speaking about the welfare of the unemployed in Cape Breton?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No government in history has done so much to reduce unemployment including unemployment in Cape Breton. I pay the highest tribute to my colleague the Minister of Labour for his inspired efforts.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: How can you say that in all honesty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The last interesting reply seemed to spark a rash of supplementary questions. It is usual to ask one or two, or even three, but if we get up to 10 or 20 the Chair will have to tighten up.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask one further supplementary, and it will be very brief. Is the Minister of Transport prepared to eat those words at a later date?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if he would allow to spring to his mind the urgent necessity for

the government to announce a regional air carrier policy for Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it does not need to spring to my mind, because it is in my mind constantly.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on March 5 last in response to questions I advised the house that because of the complexity of the project for the Canadian centre for the performing arts and the desired completion date of June 30, 1967, my department was proposing special tender procedures to select a general contractor for this project. I also announced that this involved a cost plus invitation tender from a selected group of contractors.
This action was commenced on the day of my announcement. However, concurrent with this the Department of Public Works and treasury board have been reviewing the proposal in detail, examining it on the following basis: first, a possible increase in cost due to the accelerated program; second, the degree of detailed planning of requirements and design of sophisticated mechanical and electrical systems; third, the degree of certainty of meeting the completion date of June 30, 1967 to a satisfactory provision of facilities and standard of construction.
As a result of the review it is evident that a substantial increase in cost would be involved in premium overtime and bonus for the manufacture and delivery of equipment. The status of the plans, in spite of the best efforts of the consultants as well as the various committees establishing requirements, was such that a guarantee of completion by June 30, 1967 and maintaining the high standard of facility desired is not probable.
Having regard for these factors, the government has decided that the time of completion should not be the controlling factor in the project; hence we do not intend to proceed with the cost plus contract.
The government now proposes to continue with the existing contract and undertake additional work on the portion of the underground structure; however, tenders will not be called for the main portion of the project until the detailed plans are completed. Work will, however, be continuing on the site and the preparation of the balance of designs
Inquiries of the Ministry will receive priority to ensure completion of the project at the earliest possible date.
The revised schedule now contemplates that the centre will be completed to a point where it will add distinction to the capital in the centennial year. Interior completion will continue throughout the year, and the centre will be ready for the launching of a festival in 1968, in the first year of the second century of confederation.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Have any representations, formal or informal, been made by the administration of the United States or any member of the administration, or by the governor of Minnesota in connection with the refusal of the minister's department to allow Professor Sibley to come into Canada except under the conditions outlined yesterday by the minister?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I might say I have arranged for a meeting late this afternoon in connection with the source of the information that was acted upon by my department in order to discuss the whole matter, and I may have a statement to make on the matter tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, from which of the sources I have mentioned have there been complaints or representations? I asked about the administration of the United States or anyone connected with the administration, and the governor of Minnesota. Which of these have made representations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: To my office or to me personally, the governor of the state of Minnesota; and I believe representations have been made-at least my attention has been drawn to them-to the Department of External Affairs by the vice president of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what was the nature of the representations made by Vice President Humphrey, through whom were they made and when; and following these representations has the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry decided to endeavour to soften the harsh attitude of the immigration branch?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be better if I answered that question. The right hon. gentleman himself provided the answer yesterday. He read the representation into the records of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have never yet had to answer my own questions. I directed my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I want to get an answer from him. What was the nature of the representations made by the vice president of the United States, and what was the reaction? Apparently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not like to hear me repeat this. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs endeavour to soften the attitude of the immigration branch so as to assure at least reasonable consideration of the immediate admission of Sibley whenever he wants to come to Canada, without having to go through a catechism such as was detailed yesterday?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice. I will give a reply later.


John George Diefenbaker: It has not reached the minister yet?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if it is still the intention of his department to insist that Professor Sibley appear before a tribunal before he will be admitted to Canada to give a lecture? If so, what is the reason for insisting that this gentleman be subjected to such an inquiry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition I stated that I have arranged a meeting to look into certain information that was supplied. That meeting is taking place later this afternoon. I will have to take this question as notice and reply to it tomorrow.
Mr. ft. Gordon L. Fairwealher (Royal): Mr. Speaker, would the minister take another question as notice? Because I think it is important I want to ask him how many people from other countries coming to Canada to fulfil speaking engagements have been advised that their presence or admissibility was open to question under the terms of section 5? Perhaps we could have the information for the last year.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Order paper, Mr. Speaker, I suggest.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he received this morning a petition signed by 76,000 women of Canada regarding the C.B.C., what action does he intend to take arising from this very important protest that comes from the homes and the mothers of this nation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is inaccurate. I received the delegation yesterday, and the number of names on the petition was greater than the number he gave the house. The Secretary of State and I listened with great interest to the delegation. We received the petition and we are studying it. In due course I will be able to inform the house what action, if any, should be taken.


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree with the earlier statement of the Secretary of State that the government would not interfere with the programming of the C.B.C.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the policy of the government, Mr. Speaker, and there is no intention of changing that policy.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for York-Scarborough, in his capacity as chairman of the committee on privileges and elections?
Has the hon. member inquired whether the committee's report will be distributed in both languages and, if so, when will it be distributed?


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member for

Lapointe a definitive answer. As he knows, the translation bureau has been somewhat overloaded and is behind in its work because of the pension plan, but as soon as I have an answer I will be glad to give it to him.


Mr, Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question?
Can the hon. member assure the house that he will introduce a motion for concurrence in the report before this session ends?



CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE BY HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to address a question to the hon. member for York-Scarborough in his capacity as chairman of the committee on privileges and elections. I wish to ask him whether in view of the decision made by the house two days ago to refer the very interesting subject matter of the Hansard index and the scarcity of items listed under the names of some hon. members to the committee on privileges and elections, the hon. member could indicate just when the committee will begin its consideration of this subject.


Mr, M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: intend to call a meeting of the steering committee later this week to consider this matter, and I shall be able to give the hon. member information at that time.



PAN-AM GAMES-ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASED FEDERAL SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Konaniz (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the Pan-Am games. Has the government decided to give further federal support to this great international event which is being held in Winnipeg in 1967?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Starr:: Don't answer that.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, by the strangest of coincidences I happen to have sent certain telegrams this morning to the premier of Manitoba, the mayor of the city of Winnipeg and the chairman of his finance committee, and to Mr. Culver Riley,
Inquiries of the Ministry president of the Pan-American games 1967 society, as follows:
Federal government is prepared to raise its contribution for Pan-American games to $1J million if provincial contribution $1 million. If this proves insufficient for staging games federal government prepared to contribute SI 1 million if provincial contribution is set at $11 million. Letter follows with details.



WINNING OF BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP BY ALBERNI ATHLETICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises out of his well known desire that all parts of Canada should be well and favourably known both at home and abroad. I would like to ask him whether he would be willing to join with me in offering congratulations to the Alberni Athletics on having on the Canadian basketball championship over teams representing such little Canadian hamlets as Winnipeg, Hamilton and Montreal?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Not only will I do so but I
must apologize for not having taken the initiative in indicating my disposition to offer to that team, through my hon. friend, my sincere congratulations.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not on the Pan-American games, with regard to which I received a very unsatisfactory answer last week. I want to ask the Minister of National Defence a question. Are members of the Canadian army who have been called up from the militia under Canadian army order 94-2 to be released without pension or other benefits? I did not have a chance to give the minister notice.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF SCHOOLS TO PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can he tell the house whether he or his officials have

Inquiries of the Ministry been in communication with the educational authorities in the various provinces to discuss the possible transfer of D.N.D. schools to the authority and control of provincial educational authorities?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister advise the house whether this was being contemplated in November last year?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I will have to check that.



REQUEST THAT TELEPHONE OPERATORS REPLY IN BOTH LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['In view of the fact that the reward of $15,000 that has been offered by the government has not brought forward information as to the whereabouts of Mr. Rivard, can the Prime Minister advise the house whether this has been supplemented by a government advertisement in newspapers which reads "Lucien, do not feel unwanted; come on home" and signed "Lester"?']
Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, and I should like to make it also a question of privilege.
I should like to draw the attention of all hon. members to the fact that, as of this morning, bilingualism in parliament has made some progress since government telephone operators are answering "Government of Canada", "Gouvernement du Canada", following the request I made last week.
My question of privilege is this. Instructions to answer in both languages calls made to the government have not been given to all telephone operators and, consequently, when Quebec citizens who can only express themselves in French telephone from Abitibi, Lake St. John, Riviere-du-Loup or elsewhere, their first contact with the government of the country, their government, gives them a strange feeling when the telephone operator only says: "Government of Canada".
Now that instructions have been given to bilingual telephone operators to answer in both languages, I wonder if, through the Minister of Transport who is now responsible for the government telephone branch, unilingual telephone operators could not also be required to answer: "Gouvernement du Canada", "Government of Canada"?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of which I have not given you notice. My question is based on a telegram I have received


from my constituency signed by members or supporters of all parties, including a former Liberal candidate, and a member each of the Protestant and Catholic clergy. The question is this. When is the government going to publicly and unequivocally dissociate itself from the inhuman and barbarous use of gas by United States forces in Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think if my hon. friend will look at what I said yesterday he will find that the request has already been answered. I am sure that my hon. friend's constituents, particularly the gentlemen he mentioned, will give this matter the responsible attention which a subject of this importance warrants.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to announce that Canada is going to offer the assistance that Tanzania requested for the establishment and training of her air force? This is an urgent and pressing matter, since we all know to what very willing aid our commonwealth brother may have to turn if Canada turns down this request.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said three days ago, this matter is now under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: In view of the fact that the reward of $15,000 that has been offered by the government has not brought forward information as to the whereabouts of Mr. Rivard, can the Prime Minister advise the house whether this has been supplemented by a government advertisement in newspapers which reads "Lucien, do not feel unwanted; come on home" and signed "Lester"?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Transport. Would it be possible for the parking authority of the township of York to lease any of the right of way of

the spur line of the Canadian National Railway lying north of the Canada Packers plant in Toronto, which spur line is no longer in use?


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



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO PROMOTE EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Bank of Canada statistical summary for March indicates a drop of 7 per cent in merchandise exports in the fourth quarter, with a fall of 4 per cent in shipments to the United Kingdom and 23 per cent in shipments to other countries. In view of the effect on the balance of payments position if the trend continues, has the government any plans in mind for increasing the volume of exports in these areas?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the government is continuing its efforts to promote exports. We expected there would be a levelling out of exports in the month of January as compared with January a year ago. Most of the decline that took place was a decline from the very high level of wheat exports that occurred in January a year ago. As I recollect the figures, there is a continuing increase in our exports to the United States. We may expect this year that there will be a tendency for exports to level out in comparison with last year, when there was an increase of 19 per cent.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am sure the minister must feel we cannot depend on our wheat exports to help this balance of payments position. Do he and his associates not realize that the 11 per cent tax on production machinery has a very great bearing on this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, any sort of tax always has undesirable effects, and that includes the 11 per cent sales tax. I only wish it were possible to eliminate many taxes.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans
Inquiries oj the Ministry Affairs. I regret that he is not with us today, but perhaps his parliamentary secretary will take notice. Would the ministry inform the house when the persecution of the secretary of the army benevolent fund can be expected to terminate with his immediate reinstatement, after the unnecessary suspension he suffered a month ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member must realize the form of his question is incorrect. He is making allegations, and I suggest he change the form of his question.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Then I will change my question to ask when will this honoured and valuable public servant be reinstated in his public office, and the excuse for his suspension explained to him in a satisfactory manner?


Mr. C. W. Carter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can only inform my hon. friend that the army benevolent fund is not a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs or any other department of government. The minister is just the agent through whom the army benevolent fund board reports to parliament. However, I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister as soon as possible.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence may I address it to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister take immediate steps to set up a royal commission to investigate the entire price structure of farm machinery, as requested by all farm organizations across Canada, so as to bring the price of machinery more in line with the prices the farmer receives for his products?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that is a question of policy which can hardly be answered on orders of the day.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. In view of the very disappointing answer which I received yesterday from the Secretary of State in reply to my question No. 2,917 on the order paper, with reference to the schedule of the 1967 confederation train in the province of Manitoba, would the Prime Minister look into this matter and take the necessary steps to have this train make full use of all rail lines in northern Manitoba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and do my best to ensure that the train makes full use of all the facilities in northern Manitoba and northern Ontario.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the almost complete blackout of the name of my province, Saskatchewan, in the estimates blue book for the coming financial year, would the minister give urgent consideration to including expenditures for a taxi strip at Regina airport and improvements to Prince Albert airport so that Viscount planes can be used in regular service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I must say the position of those two particular places commends itself to me very much, and I will see what can be done.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a brief from the Canadian association of optometrists within the past week? If so, what action has she taken with regard to their representations concerning the Hall report, which tends to discriminate against optometrists who care for over 5 million Canadians?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. friend said the association of optometrists, but I could not hear him well. Is that correct?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Yes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: These gentlemen were here earlier this week when they brought a brief, and I might say they had been in correspondence with me before that. I explained to them, as I have previously to the house, that the government is considering the reports of subcommittees in the Department of National Health and Welfare which have been dealing with this matter for over a year, with respect to the first volume of the report, and for the last month or so, the second volume since it came out.



CONSIDERATION OF ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS BY DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. May I ask whether the government intends to call a federal-provincial conference this year to examine the recommendations of the Hall commission report on health services?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is to be a federal-provincial conference, as the house has already been told. I hope this will take place late in April or early in May. The question of medicare will be on the agenda of that conference.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR FORECAST OF SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that the wheat board has had a chance to visit Russia and is able to assess world demand for wheat, is the minister in a position to indicate to the house what are the prospects for wheat sales this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether I have given this information in the house. I think I have, but in some recent statements I made in western Canada I have stated an objective for the current crop year and for the following two crop years of 1,200 million bushels. It is my expectation that in the current year our exports will be of the order of 400 million bushels.


Stanley James Korchinski: As a supplementary question, on the basis of the information available to him, and because farmers will have to buy their seed requirements now, would the

minister indicate whether they should increase their wheat acreage for the coming year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence in the good judgment of western farmers.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I just want this information so the farmers may have an idea of what they should do. They could possibly increase their acreage or even reduce it. This information is lacking.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it was for this very reason I gave the statements to which I have already referred, outlining the prospects which I think lie ahead for export sales. If my hon. friend will make the calculations I am sure he can make, they would indicate that in the next three crop-years, including the present year, we should be able to market an average crop of 550 million bushels.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then would the minister say that the information he gave when the price was dropped by 20 cents, about the buyer's market, was incorrect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is starting an argument.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
'[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Industry in relation to a question I asked him February 16 last, concerning the fears I entertained with respect to the tariff reductions granted American automobile manufacturers without the latter pledging themselves to promote Canadian manufacturing? Could the minister give us some information on this matter?
I would also ask him what he thinks of the statement made by Mr. J. P. Loveridge, general manager of Ingersoll Machine Tools Ltd., who proved with figures that the agreement between Canada and the United States was greatly detrimental to Canadian manufacturers of automobile parts.
Hon C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I definitely do not agree with Mr. Loveridge. For the information of the house, I may say that Mr. Loveridge represents a very
Inquiries of the Ministry small number of Canadian manufacturers of automobile parts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), but in his absence I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has announced the abolition of the bonus program for the employment of persons of 40 years of age or older, what alternative formula does the government intend to propose in order to help this class of workers?


Mr. Speaker:: It strikes me that this is a question far too large in scope for an answer to be expected at this time.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, I suggest to Your Honour that it is very urgent. It is a question of public importance. The number of those unemployed in Quebec is so great-


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the importance of the question, but I also have to apply the standing orders.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a question for the Prime Minister. It is based on my reading of article 178 of Beauchesne, and I suggest it is in order. What does the right hon. gentleman intend to do to help those people aged 40 or over who are unemployed and deprived of the benefit of certain legislation which has lately been abolished by the Minister of Labour?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The first thing I intend to do is to congratulate the hon. member on his 45th birthday, if I may. I hope I shall be able to give a satisfactory reply to the other part of the question a little later.


Georges-J. Valade: May I thank the Prime Minister for his congratulations, and say that if ever I lose my job I shall have to have recourse to the unemployment legislation which the government withdrew yesterday.

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF MARINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Can the minister tell us when construction will begin on the Montreal harbour station?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that will be done as soon as agreement on the plans can be reached and the tenders called.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as the minister who speaks for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have given him notice of the question, which arises out of an article in last night's Toronto Star headed "Lesage moves in on the mortgage business".
Has the minister or the government received representations from any of the provinces for the transfer to any province of any duties and responsibilities exercised in the housing field by the government and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? If so, what was the nature of such representations and what was the response, if any, of the government?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. The answer to the first part is no. In view of this, no answer to the second part is called for.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF EFFECT ON CANADA OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: have a question for the Prime Minister. About a month ago I asked the right hon. gentleman for information about the committee which was set up to inquire into the economic, social and political effects on the rest of Canada should Quebec province become sepa-

rated. Can the Prime Minister now tell us when he expects this report to be made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have answered this question on two or three occasions. The examination is continuing, and it will be some time before it will be possible to make any report.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: May I ask if it is the intention of the Prime Minister to make this report public when it is received?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question. The report will be made to the government by a group of officials. Whether it will be the kind of report which should be made public will have to be determined when we receive it.


Reid Scott: Can the Prime Minister say whether the report will at least be made available to members of this house?' He indicated last August that it would be available in September of this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already answered that question. This process is bound to take a long time. This is a complicated question, and it will take a good many months before we can expect a satisfactory report.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding his decision to refer the matter of the increase in steel prices to the economic council of Canada. In view of the fact that Dr. John Deutsch has said this study will take several months I want to ask the right hon. gentleman whether any additional assistance will be made available to the council in order that it might complete its work quickly. Has the Prime Minister any idea how soon the government can expect a report from that body?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the council has authority to add to its staff in order to conduct any particular investigation, and I am sure if extra help of this kind is needed steps will be taken to procure it, because this is a matter of importance and urgency and I hope a report will be made with the least possible delay.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement by the Minister of Labour that he apparently intends to pay no attention to the recommen-

dations of the economic council of Canada on manpower policy, have we any assurance that the government will take any action on a report of the economic council in connection with steel prices?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the first part of the question is entirely unwarranted. The Minister of Labour has not made such a statement.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 24, consideration in committee on 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.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to take part in the debate on the Canada pension plan bill which is no doubt the most important piece of legislation introduced in this house at this session.
This importance stems in a large measure from the fact that it represents a danger for the economy, and especially for our democratic institutions. But I should like to make it clear, to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of our opponents, that we Creditistes are definitely in favour of a most generous old age pension. Personally, and all the members of our group share my opinion, I believe the present pension should be doubled. Furthermore, the pension should be paid to all those who are 65 years of age and without any means test. On the other hand, an investigation should be made in the case of those who would apply for a pension at age 60. Instead of passing this bill, since Canada can physically and materially afford it, the existing act should be improved so that a couple who has been married for at least five years may receive the pension at 65 years of age, and if the husband reaches 65 first, the pension should also be paid to his wife whatever her age may be.
At the present time, the pension is inadequate for a single person and I never could understand why a married couple had to live on a pension calculated for a single person, a pension which makes it hard for one person to make both ends meet. It is inhuman and unaccountable in a high production country like ours. All members of parliament should
Canada Pension Plan
be concerned about that situation, which should become enough of an obsession to disturb our sleep as long as the problem is not solved. Certainly the legislation before us is no solution to this problem, and here is why.
This legislation takes away part of the purchasing power of those who already do not have enough, so that they may use it in 10, 15, 20 years from now, or even later. We might as well tell those people: Do without bread or other material goods which you have legitimately earned, to which you are entitled and of which there is plenty right now in order that you may enjoy them a little in 10, 20, 30 or even 35 years from now, without knowing, besides, whether or not you will live long enough to enjoy them.
Such are, in brief, the provisions of this pension plan. I know that the citizens of the province of Quebec where I live, will not directly participate in the federal pension plan, but I know that the Quebec government is preparing a pension plan based on the same principles as those of the federal government, and everything I have to say of the federal pension plan applies also to the Quebec pension plan.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the government with this pension plan is lofty, generous and most human, for the idea is to find means of enabling old people to enjoy a larger share of the consumer goods which raise the standard of living and increase comfort, all that in about 10 years. Therefore, I admit that the purpose is sound, lofty, human, and logical.
Nowadays, and increasingly so in the future, people 60 years or over will be excluded from production jobs. Automation increases total production and individual productivity to such an extent that even now there are not enough jobs on the labour market for young and energetic people, educated or not. This situation is bound to get worse from day to day, and yet statistics show that production increases rapidly. I am not speaking of the costs of production but of its volume.
Since production will be higher in the future, is it logical to take away from the public, by compulsory contributions, purchasing power which is already inadequate in relation to the volume of products on the market, and keep it in reserve in order to buy an even more abundant production in the future?
We all recognize that the abundant production, present and potential, is and will always be the result of two basic causes: science

Canada Pension Plan
and life in society. It is obvious that if we lived isolated from one another, without contacts between us, a lot of inventions and commodities would never have seen the light of day; on the other hand, as science does not belong to anyone in particular it is an heritage which reverts equally to everyone. Hence everybody is entitled, free of charge, to part of the material goods resulting from science. In a profit sharing organization each shareholder gets what is coming to him. It is according to these principles that our senior citizens are entitled to a share of the overall production. Through a lifetime of work they contributed to make Canada what it is today. Most of them brought up a family, thus providing the country with human capital, the greatest asset a country could have. They made sacrifices for the education of their children and went without a great many of the comforts they could have had. They also paid a considerable share of the taxes which were used to build up Canada. I would go even further. Most of them would still be willing and able to serve industry and continue their productivity. However, they can no longer work and, as a result, they have to be satisfied with a pittance which, for several years to come, will be ridiculous, pitiful and unworthy of a country as rich as Canada, a country which has become wealthy thanks to the labour of its inhabitants.
I believe that the main reason why the government wishes to proceed thus with this bill is because the two old line parties, the Conservative and the Liberal parties, look at this problem from a false angle. Since the government looks at it from the financial angle it is primarily concerned about determining the amount of money required to give a mere pittance to those elderly people. Naturally, it endeavours to find the most practical and least painful means. Something marvellous came out of this effort, since the government will kill two birds with one stone. First, it will obtain the necessary funds to pay an allowance to the aged by levying a compulsory contribution. Second, it will also be able to use those funds to make up its deficits, since this compulsory contribution will bring in billions of dollars within a few years. Therefore, it will be in a position to tell the people that it set up an old age pension plan without increasing taxes, because it will never be admitted that a compulsory contribution is a tax in disguise, a shameful tax, even more discriminatory than the personal income tax. I say that this compulsory

contribution is a hypocritical and ignominious tax whereby dog eats dog, as the communists would say.
What do our elderly people want? A shelter, wholesome and plentiful food, proper clothes, medical and surgical care, drugs when needed, and some recreation. I do not believe that such requirements are exaggerated; on the contrary, they are perfectly reasonable and particularly deserved.
Who, in or out of this house, would claim that Canada cannot supply this minimum of comfort to persons who have reached the age of 60? I am not talking in terms of money, but in terms of products. If this is the intention of the government, if those people are entitled to this, why then exact from them a tax in order to give them something to which they are entitled in all fairness? If the objective of the government is the same as ours, that is to grant those people well-deserved amenities, then it is worthy of our congratulations.
What we cannot accept is the method used to finance this program. Why deprive the present generation of part of the goods and services produced in order to make it available to future generations?
Does the government fear a large decrease in production or its complete stoppage? The only reason why the government requires such a contribution, which is a dictatorship in disguise, is because it is the slave of a monetary and financial system controlled by bankers who disregard their responsibilities to the people.
It is criminal to accept such bondage. In this way the people are misled, but those who control money and credit are satisfied. It is pure and simple gangsterism.
When money is needed to help the people or give them what belongs to them taxes are collected first. When $200 million are needed to save the English pound sterling, this amount is issued and made available to Great Britain.
If it is proper and possible for the Bank of Canada to issue $200 million for our "mother-in-law", Great Britain, why could it not be proper and possible to issue the credits required to finance the Canada pension plan?
Why must the Canadian government start by depriving the Canadians of today in order to give to the Canadians of tomorrow, when everyone is sure there are enough goods at present and there will be still more in the future?

I am dead set against communism, because everybody, including the Liberal party, denounces communism. Yet, the proposed method of financing for the pension plan amounts exactly to the application of the basic principle of communism, which consists in depriving some people of their property in order to distribute it to others, to spread poverty around instead of well-being, rather than trying to raise the standard of living of everybody. Why is the government acting in this way?
When billions are being spent on safeguards against communism and its propaganda, why does the government attempt to force on the people communist-inspired legislation?
The government takes such action simply because instead of playing its part, that is carrying out the mandate they received from the people, to give leadership, they prefer to yield to the requirements of high finance where their party funds come from, and comply with the old financial system that cheats the people to the benefit of high finance.
The government, on the occasion of the establishment of a pension plan, had an opportunity to show that they really practise democracy and that they administer by the people and for the people, in creating the credits required for the administration and the implementation of this project.
Let them not tell us that it would be illegal under the law, because to my mind laws should be passed to help the people and not to do them harm.
If some people are adversely affected by certain acts, it is not the people but the acts, especially those benefiting a small group of financiers, that should be changed. The government has here the opportunity of supporting what it had in mind when it voted with the Creditiste party in 1963 to have a debt free monetary system; if the government does not take this opportunity, the Liberals will once again be accused of being phonies, liars and turncoats, interested only in votegetting schemes.
I am asking the Liberal members, on behalf of the people, to give us the truth. You have approved debt free money. Why then, when the time has come to use that system, do you say it is impossible?
Mr. Chairman, we the Creditistes are opposed to compulsory financial contributions and suggest that the Bank of Canada should issue the necessary credits to implement this act since production is high enough. It should
Canada Pension Plan
make such credits available to all those who qualify and they will then be able to select for themselves whatever products are on the market.
The terrible thing about this plan is that the small wage earner is made to contribute while there are restrictions on those who could make larger contributions.
If we Creditistes were in power here is what we would do: we would pay a monthly pension of at least $150 to all those who are 65 years of age, and, furthermore, the expenditures involved would be financed from the credit issued by the Bank of Canada. That is my suggestion to the government today.
The compulsory contributions imposed under the government pension plan are nothing but a new means of taxation which is more odious, more hypocritical, than anything we have seen yet. Canadians will be required to make compulsory savings but 20 years hence the dollars thus saved will probably not buy half of what they can buy today.
To me it is the most socialistic legislation ever introduced in this house. It is a further step toward communism, that doctrine we condemn and want to fight with billions of dollars worth of armaments, but that we are establishing little by little here in Canada.
Let us be frank and honest with ourselves. If communism is bad, condemnable and monstrous, why try to imitate it in our legislation instead of providing measures which would show that democracy is, and by far, the system best suited to our mentality, to the private individual and to the Canadian people?


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Chairman,
having been the joint chairman of the special committee of the Senate and House of Commons appointed to consider Bill No. C-136, an act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors, I think it is not inappropriate that I make some comments on Bill C-136 before clause 1 is carried.
The Canada pension bill is undoubtedly the most important legislation of its kind ever to be brought before the Canadian parliament. The very comprehensiveness of the measure and the number of persons who will be protected under its aegis, the many millions of dollars involved and the benefits payable are bound to have a very direct and material effect on the future welfare of millions of Canadians and our political maturity.

Canada Pension Plan
The committee itself was a strong one, as any member may judge for himself by referring to the personnel constituting it. It included amongst its numbers two former federal cabinet ministers in the persons of the former minister of health and welfare, the hon. member for Perth, and the former minister of trade and commerce, Senator McCutcheon. It also included a former Ontario provincial cabinet minister whose special responsibility had been matters affecting the social welfare of the residents of Ontario, Senator Croll; a member of this house noted for his leadership in labour circles, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; the chairman of the board of a large life insurance company, again Senator McCutcheon; chartered accountants, economists, distinguished representatives of all fields of public endeavour, including business and the professions.
The procedure followed by the committee may be of interest to some hon. members. In the first instance, during a period of about three weeks the committee had the advantage of detailed explanations of the bill from the deputy minister of welfare, the deputy minister of justice, the assistant deputy minister of national revenue, taxation division, the deputy minister of finance, the chief actuary, the director of pensions and social insurance, Department of Finance, technical adviser to the department of welfare, who was also technical adviser to the committee; and there were very many other highly placed and knowledgeable civil servants.
We were given in retrospect the actuarial formulae and the legal language in which they were clothed. We had clearly explained the principles incorporated in the bill. We were given in complete detail how the act would be handled from an administrative point of view. This part of the work of the committee was an education in itself.
The information thus obtained is of course available in the minutes of proceedings and evidence, both in English and French, to all members of the house. I can only regret that all hon. members did not have the same advantage of hearing it, and express the hope that from the minutes of proceedings and evidence they have obtained a clear understanding of the scope of the bill and of the security and peace of mind that will be the end result to our fellow citizens. Canada can and should be proud of its civil servants, who are unsurpassed anywhere in the world.
Following the explanation of the bill and the procedure in regard to its administration,

we then had the advantage of hearing from the chief government actuary as to the actuarial basis and the actuarial implications of the bill. We also had the benefit of hearing from the deputy minister of finance as to its economic implications and from the director of the pensions and social insurance division, Department of Finance, as to the proposed integration of civil service pensions with pensions under the bill.
Following this course of study, and with the information which had thus been made so readily available, the committee invited all national organizations which had appeared before the King-Lesage committee to submit briefs if they so desired, and an invitation was also extended to the general public to appear before the committee to submit briefs if they so desired and to make their views known to the committee. Most of the national organizations referred to accepted the invitation and submitted briefs. Through their properly accredited representatives they appeared before the committee to support their briefs and submitted themselves to intensive questioning by members of the committee.
In addition to the many national organizations that appeared before the committee there were also many private individuals who had intimated their desire to appear and who did appear and presented briefs and arguments. It might be proper to say also that by invitation Dr. Robert Clarke, economist, Mr. R. J. Myers, chief actuary of the United States social security program, Mr. W. M. Anderson, chairman of the board of the North American Life Assurance Company and Mr. J. E. Kilgour, president of the Great West Life Assurance Company, voluntarily appeared and gave the committee the benefit of their special and extensive knowledge and experience about the subject matter of the bill, on which they were experts.
In addition many letters, statements, etc. were received and filed as exhibits. Each member of the committee was supplied with a copy of the briefs which had been filed in order to enable him or her to study the briefs and be prepared to ask whatever questions they thought necessary and advisable in respect of the material contained therein. The briefs were all printed in full as an appendix to the minutes of proceedings and evidence, and are available for the information of all hon. members of the house.
The minutes of proceedings and evidence are extensive and cover some 2,100-odd pages of printed material. Included therein is information supplied by the technical adviser to the committee, by other branches of govern-

ment relating to the subject matter of the bill, and also information requested by hon. members.
As all hon. members are aware, the bill received approval in principle on second reading and was then referred to the special committee for study. There was no restriction placed on the committee by its terms of reference, and during the course of the proceedings I think it is quite fair and quite honest to state that all points of view not *only had an opportunity to be presented but were in fact presented to the committee and given thorough consideration. I know the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka felt that the hands of the committee were tied to a degree. With this thought I cannot agree. The committee were free to bring in whatever findings they saw fit notwithstanding the fact that the principle of the bill which they were considering had already been approved in the house.
It is worth noting that from the beginning emphasis was placed on the argument that persons now in retirement or shortly to be on retirement would receive no benefits under the legislation. It was also argued that there was no need for a Canadian pension bill and that the needs of those now in retirement, or hereafter to come into retirement, could be best met by an enlargement of the coverage and benefits under the Old Age Security Act. It was argued that the old age security legislation, which had been recommended by the King-Lesage committee and which has worked so satisfactorily since it was enacted, with improvements, was the answer. This is an argument that was advanced by the life assurance officers' association representing more than 100 Canadian and British life insurance companies, the life underwriters' association and by many of the actuaries who appeared before the committee in their personal capacity, although many of them were employees of life insurance companies or in some way connected with pension schemes as advisers and consultants. It is to be noted that the life underwriters were of the opinion that there would be increased sales of pension insurance as a result of the publicity given to the bill.
The life insurance officers' association suggested in detail improvements that could be made to the Old Age Security Act. They were significant, and undoubtedly would have constituted a major step forward in our development of adequate retiring allowances. They felt there was no need for an earnings related scheme. On the other hand the
Canada Pension Plan
principle of the bill was supported by the large employers of labour such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the retail council of Canada, the Canadian construction association, labour organizations including the Canadian congress of labour, welfare agencies and also by organizations representing persons now in retirement.
The principle of the bill was supported by the Canadian welfare council, and in particular I draw attention to their recommendation that an appropriate body such as a royal commission be constituted to study all aspects of social security in which the dominion government has a direct or indirect responsibility, and more particularly to make recommendations with respect to (a) gaps in existing provisions and priorities in dealing with unmet needs; (b) the appropriate methods of providing social security benefits, whether by social insurance, statutory social welfare payments, public assistance, or by a combination of these methods, in respect of old age, unemployment, sickness, disability, death of the breadwinner and the cost of child rearing; (c) the development of a more integrated system of social security; (d) federal-provincial co-operation in the field of social security; (e) the negotiation of reciprocal agreements with other countries in order to provide social security coverage on an equitable basis for immigrants to Canada and for Canadians residing in other countries; (f) other questions having to do with the design, content and administration of Canada's total social security system. The wisdom and soundness of this recommendation commends itself very strongly to me.
The committee held in all some 51 sittings. They sat while the house was in recess, and they were in a position to submit their report to the house when it reconvened on February 16. The committee, toward the end of its hearings, had the privilege of receiving a brief from the Ontario government, and may I say that they were greatly heartened to hear of the statement made in the provincial legislative assembly of Ontario by the prime minister of that province that the province of Ontario for the reasons given decided that it would be in the best interests of the people of Ontario and in the best interests of Canada that we in Ontario accept the Canada pension plan in principle and lend every effort to make this plan truly national in scope for the benefit of all the citizens of Canada.
The brief submitted by the Ontario government was ably presented by Mr. Coward,

Canada Pension Plan
chairman of the pension commission of Ontario, and his associate, B. W. Stevenson, director of the economics branch of the department of economics and development. Their suggestions as to improvements in the bill were given very careful study and consideration. The suggestion, however, that contributions under the Canada pension bill should be used to pay benefits to persons who were not contributors under the bill did not prove acceptable to the majority of the committee.
The desirability of making additional payments to persons now in retirement or shortly to come under retirement was in no way questioned. The objective of $100 a month is reasonable and is much nearer realization as a result of the study of the Ontario government. I think it might be fair to state, and at least it is my opinion, that the Old Age Security Act and the Canada pension bill taken together will provide the means for assuring to Canadians, including those now in retirement or shortly to come into retirement, a measure of security sufficient to assure a reasonably adequate standard of living for the great majority of Canadians. With regard to those persons who do not come within that classification it was, of course, thoroughly understood and agreed, certainly in the committee, that supplementation will continue to be necessary in such particular cases. My own thinking leads me to the conclusion that in addition to bringing down the age for receipt of pensions, thought must be given to upgrading the benefits as age increases.
The committee did not adopt nor was it necessary to bring in a report dealing with the arguments pro and con or giving reasons why the proposal for improvements to the Old Age Security Act was not sufficient to cover the problem, or arguments as to why the Canada pension plan in conjunction with old age security would have the result which I have indicated. Criticism has been made of the bill on the grounds, inter alia, that it benefits most those who need it least. One answer at least to that argument is that the bill provides for a wage related scheme of contributions for the purpose of ensuring adequate retirement allowances and the maintenance in retirement of a standard of living comparable with that whilst in employment.
Features of the bill which commended themselves to the committee are set forth in the committee's report.
In addition may I mention the benefits of portability, which is a feature of the bill

applauded by everyone, especially by employers and employees. The recommendations concerning the bill are set forth in the report. As all hon. members know, the government has accepted the recommendations, except that the recommendation of a 20 per cent drop-out allowance made by the committee was reduced to a 15 per cent drop-out allowance. Then, too, the government has seen fit to do what the committee had declined to do, that is to reduce progressively the age at which old age security benefits will be payable so that a few years from now benefits under that act will be payable as of right to everyone attaining their 65th birthday. In doing this the government has established an important principle.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say it is my considered judgment that the Old Age Security Act, improved as it will be from time to time both in scope and as to the amount of its benefits, and the Canada pension bill as it now stands and as it will be refined and improved from time to time, offer to the Canadian people one of the most comprehensive and well thought out assurances of adequate and meaningful retirement allowances that it is possible for human ingenuity to devise, and at the same time remain financially responsible in its implication. As Canadians, regardless of party affiliations, we have approached the problem with open minds. While we may have some disagreements with regard to changes in the bill, there is no doubt that the bill is a credit to the members of this house and to the people of Canada generally.
In answer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer I wish to say without qualification that Bill No. C-136 is a social security pension for income earners with supplementary benefits to and in respect of contributors.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I do not wish to take up much time of the committee, but there are some comments I should like to make before this legislation passes through the committee stage. There are a number of gaps in the coverage which this bill provides for those whom it was intended to protect. This party to which I have the honour to belong made an effort to cover those gaps, both in the special committee which was set up to consider the pension legislation and in this committee of the whole house. Its proposals for improving the legislation have followed, in some respects, along the lines of the suggestions offered by the province of Ontario, such as the recommendation providing for uni-

versal coverage. This party wishes everyone to be covered and no one to be left out.
Another Ontario recommendation was that a pension of $25 per month should be provided for all contributors. This, together with the old age security flat rate pension of $75 per month, would have provided all Canadians on their retirement with a minimum of $100 per month. Our party strongly supported this suggestion. Other improvements were suggested by speakers within this party and by other opposition parties. I still support the principle of a contributory old age pension, but this bill falls far short of what I and many others hoped would be provided. It is a far cry from the original pay as you go proposal which was first offered to the electors of Canada during the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963.
I note that the premier of Ontario, according to a recent press dispatch, has indicated that while Ontario, for the sake of national unity, is prepared to accept the program as it is, the province looks forward to amendments in the near future which will cover the gaps and weaknesses in the legislation. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the most careful consideration should be given to these proposals and any desirable amendments should be included in the legislation now. It is most regrettable that the province of Quebec, so far, has not been able to convince itself it should follow the example set by the province of Ontario and accept this national program for the sake of national unity, thereby making it a truly national undertaking. Perhaps this hope may yet be realized.
The provisions of this bill have been widely discussed, except one which I intend to deal with now. I have been and continue to be, in common with many of my colleagues on this side, strongly opposed to the opting-out provision contained in clause 3 of this bill. It has been pointed out that this pension legislation covers matters which originally came under provincial jurisdiction and therefore any province that may wish to do so can remain outside the program. However, it is my belief that this legislation should cover all the provinces or none. I do not believe it is in the interests of this country for nine provinces to come under the legislation and leave one province outside of it. This, I submit, will destroy national unity rather than promoting it. I repeat, therefore, that the legislation should cover all the provinces or none.
Canada Pension Plan
Now I may point out that in times past the policy was for Canada to move ahead as one country. If one or more of the provinces could not agree with proposals that were made, the proposals had to be dropped until unanimous consent could be given. We got along in this way for 98 years. I feel it would be wiser if this country continued to move ahead as one even if progress is slower by following that course.
Hansard will indicate that I opposed the opting-out principle provided in the youth allowances legislation. I also dealt with this matter of opting-out under Bill No. C-142. I believe this principle of opting out is wrong, that Canada has to move together as one country. The shared programs were contracts entered into in good faith by both federal and provincial governments, just as this pension program should be. The reason for sharing such programs as this and others is to make possible a better distribution of our national income. Through the media of these shared programs it has been, and will continue to be, possible to convey assistance from the higher income provinces to the lower income provinces. The necessity for equalizing income and, therefore, the desirability of our shared programs continues to be as valid today as when the first arrangements were made some years ago. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the only reason for these opting-out proposals in connection with this legislation is to promote and create in Canada that which is envisaged in the concept of associate states.
I attempted to make my position clear in this respect during the debate on Bill No. C-142 on March 22 last, at which time I put on the record a number of press clippings and other things designed to set forth the implications of the term "associate states". This was not done for my own sake but was done for the sake of the thousands of people I have the honour of representing and for the sake of this country. The concept of associate states in Canada brings fear to the minds and hearts of many Canadians.
They fear that this concept of associate states, if implemented, will transfer authority from the central government to the provincial governments to such an extent that the provincial governments will dominate the political scene in Canada and, in the course of time, Canada will become balkanized.
Our central government in its dealings with the provinces may be likened to a farm father with a family of sons. As long as the

Canada Pension Plan
father retains title to the property and control of the operation, the family works as a unit. If the property and the control are transferred to the sons the family tends to pull apart and no longer continues as a unit. The authority of the father is lost because he has no favours left to bestow. This is what could happen to Canada if the authority of the federal government is dissipated. The permission for opting out, as contained in clause 3 of the bill, sets one or more provinces apart from the others. It isolates that province or those provinces and creates a division in the unity of the nation.
There has been persistent criticism throughout this unprecedented, long and wearisome session of parliament that the opposition has obstructed business. I submit that this criticism is unjust. The basic reason for the length of debate has been the determination of the government to lay rough hands on the delicate matters of our federal-provincial relationships, and to remould those relationships to a shape unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the country.
The Liberal party did not offer to the people of Canada, during the election campaigns to which I referred or at any other time, a clear understanding of what it intended to do to the federal-provincial relationships of this country.


The Chairman:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that although his remarks are very interesting, it appears he is going beyond the terms of the clause now before the house, which is clause 1 of Bill No. C-136, "This act may be cited as the Canada pension plan." It seems to me that by going into details regarding the question of opting out the hon. member is dealing with matters relevant to another order of business, Bill No. C-142. I would ask him to try to relate his remarks more specifically to clause 1.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, may I say in reply to your suggestions, which I greatly appreciate, that I am dealing particularly with clause 3 of the bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: I might remind the hon. member that clause 3 has carried and may not be reopened. What the hon. member is doing now is reflecting on a vote of the committee, and he cannot reopen discussion on a clause that has been carried.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I do not wish to reopen the clause, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to lay

the basis for a contention which I am about to make. I am pointing out under clause 1 that I feel the government has no mandate from the people of Canada to do what it is doing in connection with this bill. I believe that the paramount purpose of the opposition at this time should be to prevent the government from doing to Canada what it is proposing to do, without a clear mandate from the people to do it.
The kindest action the government can now take is to recommend dissolution of this parliament and offer to the people of Canada an opportunity to express their views concerning the record of the government, and their wishes with regard to the establishment of the concept of associate states, as provided in clause 3 of this bill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand what my hon. friend is saying is that he would ask the government to dissolve parliament over the issue of whether the official opposition should be able to oppose and stop passage of the Canada pension plan?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: In reply to the minister I would refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 119, where it is stated that "one of the main functions of the house consists in debating public issues." It goes on to say "No rule should silence representatives when they think they have a message to deliver." "Every man," Beauchesne points out, "has the right to be heard even if in doing so he sometimes disregards the rigidity of procedure."


Lucien Lamoureux: Unless the hon. member is rising on a point of order I do not believe one was raised. The minister asked a question which had nothing to do with a point of order. I would ask the hon. member to return to the consideration of the clause before the committee.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: The minister asked a question concerning the line of reasoning I was following in this debate. I was simply replying to her and trying to point out that the line of debate which I was following is in accordance with Beauchesne, who goes on to say that "delays, multiplicity of amendments and even obstruction-"


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I ask the hon. member to return to consideration of the bill before us.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Well, Mr. Chairman, we will accept your ruling as cheerfully as we can.

I still think the line I was following is justified and that so far as this legislation is concerned, before proceeding further with it the government should have a new mandate from the people of Canada to do so.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken on the Canada pension plan to date, and I feel I should speak briefly about it. In my opinion this is one of the most far reaching pieces of legislation to be brought before any parliament.
I am in favour of a Canada pension plan, but not a plan that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, not a plan that gives little or nothing to two and a half million Canadians, and not a plan that does little or nothing for the person who has low income, due to low productivity that may be the result of sickness, disability or chronic illness, whether he be self employed or employed by another person.
It seems to me that in their scramble to gain individual advantage the politicians have gone a long, long way from the original plan, which was to have guaranteed an essential, minimum pension for all Canadians. But what a travesty of justice is this plan which is introduced in the name of helping the Canadian people. Now the Canada pension plan is all mixed up, mixed up in providing capital for power hungry and money hungry provinces to use for economic development, and not for the people who have built this country with their initiative. It is to provide capital under rules that would not be allowed by any insurance company or any privately operated funds. It will not provide as much in the way of returns as would a private pension plan.
The government must have taken one of two attitudes; either that there is no further need to help the poor people of this country, or that we have no low income people in Canada and that only a contributory savings plan is required. Let us look at the facts. Canadian welfare costs are the third highest in the world. They are the highest on this continent. Surely this does not indicate that we do not need more help for the poor people of the country.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but I am sure he does not want to mislead the chamber. If he has read the speech I made when we first came to deal with the new resolution respecting old age security, he will have found that I talked there about a new assistance program which is to be a companion to the Canada pension
Canada Pension Plan
plan. I am quite sure that my hon. friend, who has taken a great interest in health and welfare matters, does not want to mislead the chamber and the country into believing that this program is intended to stand alone, and that it is the indication by the government that it is enough for the poor of the country.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I can understand the hon. lady's strong maternal instincts, in sponsoring this bill. Indeed, she once indicated in this house that she wanted this baby referred to as a perfect one. I am sure that in anything I say I am trying to help her along in that direction.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is most solicitous.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This is what I had in mind. But with the best intentions in the world, something can go wrong, and I suggest it did, in this bill. There is a clear indication that we do need a higher pension rate. This could have been brought about by raising old age security payments to $100 a month at the age of 65, possibly worked out over a five year period, if necessary. This would have cut substantially the drain on municipalities brought about by welfare costs of today.
Now we have a plan of forced savings. The government is saying, in effect: We will take your money because we know how to invest it much better than you do; we shall return it to you when you are 65; we may return all of it with a moderate rate of interest or we may return part of it plus a moderate rate of interest on your investment, or we may return only the principal. This is being done under the guise of a Canada pension plan to help out the poor people of this land. What does it do for the people on whom we have to spend welfare funds in Canada? Nothing. Twelve per cent of our budget is in this department.
This is a step which could eventually lead to state control of all investment. I am sure that most of us who live in one of the richest countries in the world, endowed with greater natural resources than any other country, would like the opportunity of handling and developing some of the riches of this world as our forefathers did when they came to Canada and made it the fine land it is today. We also want the people who worked so hard to develop this country, some of them during the hungry thirties, to be well looked after when they reach the age of 65. We want a decent living for those aged 65 and over. But we want to be left alone to develop

Canada Pension Plan
this country-with the help of government if necessary but not by way of interference with savings.
In conclusion, let me say I regret the failure to put a respectable pension floor beneath everyone aged 65 and over. I hope the government will see fit, though they have voted against it, to do the decent thing by a million of our people who are 65 and over, those who helped to bring about the prosperity of this land and make possible the things we enjoy today.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, if I have not spoken until now it is because several members have already said what I intended to say and also because, since the province of Quebec is opting out of the pension plan, I do not feel I should do more than I have done so far.


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. C-136 is a document of a wide social scope, the application of which will affect the well-being of all Canadians.
Because of its importance several Canadian associations have submitted briefs to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
Those associations, representing thousands of Canadian workers, suggested major amendments to the pension plan which would have given Canadians social legislation within their means.
Unfortunately, most of those briefs were turned down, and the bill now before us has not received the changes which were expected. I fail to understand the reasons why the government did not lend an ear to all those briefs which were submitted to it.
For instance, there is the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, established in 1871, with more than 6,000 members throughout Canada. It accounts for about 75 per cent of all goods manufactured in Canada. This association submitted a brief in which it suggested some changes which can be summed up as follows:
Negotiations should be resumed in order to give Canada only one pension plan. The high rate of preconsolidation should be reduced in order to collect only the funds necessary for the payment of benefits and the setting up of a modest stabilization fund for emergencies or contingencies.
There was also Alexander & Alexander Services Limited, consulting actuaries. That firm is one of the chief independent firms of consulting actuaries in Canada, and I believe that it deserves every respect in the actuary field.
[Mr. Rynard.l
That firm submitted to the committee a brief outlining some of the problems that the pension plan will create, namely the inherent instability of the consolidation plan, the eventual increase in the cost of the pay as you go plan and the permanent cost of the old age security benefits, the difficulty to prevent a certain number of contributors to private pension plans to receive a pension higher than the salary they were getting before their retirement.
Some aspects of the plan were the subject of unfavourable comments in the report of the 1964 royal commission on banking and finance. This plan will create problems in labour-management negotiations because it will be necessary to take into account additional costs to be borne by the industries when the federal plan is compared to the private plans now required by the labour unions.
We can add to this the potential cost of a compulsory health insurance plan. Furthermore, one can see, unfortunately, that the union movement does not seem prepared to admit the need to combine pension funds with the federal plan.
If the briefs submitted by those various Canadian associations had not been ignored, the difficulties that the pension plan will create could have been avoided or at least reduced.
Mr. Chairman, I would not want to gloss over the importance of private pension funds in Canada. In 1960, 9,600 funds were in operation in Canada, with a membership of 1,815,000, which is 34 per cent of the nonfarm labour force. The number of funds increased from 9,600 in 1960 to 12,000 in 1963. Therefore, we can say that this represents about 60 per cent of the non-farm workers whose employers already have a pension fund. Therefore, one can say, on the strength of the statistics I have just quoted that private pension funds are better suited to administer a pension plan than this government.
Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a need for a pension plan in Canada, but we are against the way the government is forcing its pension program on us. I think a national pension plan should in no way interfere with existing plans. We have no need for the plan as it is presented to us.
The implications of a national pension plan such as the one now before us will affect our national economy. If we assume that a national pension plan is desirable and that the benefits paid out must have the actuarial value of the contributions paid in, we will

set up a larger fund than what is anticipated. But the fact that this fund adds up to $5 or $10 billion is less important than to understand the fact that it represents a tremendous diversion of investments from the private sector to the public sector of our economy, and the government has a serious tendency to underestimate the scope of that diversion.
We should not overlook the fact that almost all existing pension plans to which employees must pay a contribution of 5 per cent of their income will be integrated with the Canada pension plan so that the total contributions of the employees, under both plans, will not be increased, with the result that large amounts of money are taken out of the private sector and handed over to the public sector. The implementation of such a pension plan will have a serious effect on the Canadian economy.
I would say that for the persons working at the present time the pension plan before us provides benefits that we are not prepared to grant to other people who deserve them just as much, if not more than we, and we are asking the next generation to contribute to a large extent to the benefit that we are expecting for ourselves.
A much wiser man than I said: "There will always be paupers among us". Therefore it is up to us to see that their interest is not jeopardized because the government is concentrating its efforts on a plan which will be much more beneficial to those who are already well off than to the needy.
Because of this let us make sure that Canadians of all ages and walks of life, but especially the needy, the indigent, will enjoy the best social security pension legislation which the country can devise and afford.
The government let itself open to criticism in saying that the Canada pension plan is not a social welfare measure but a social insurance measure based on some of the principles of group pension plans, with the government plan financed by means of taxes levied against wage earners for the benefit of non-earning pensioners, disabled persons, widows and orphans.
The great majority of the Canadian people have been less informed than misinformed by official statements and press releases as well as by statements made to the voters during the election campaign.
In this connection I should like to quote the official statement made in this house on July 18, 1963, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) concerning the Canada pension plan. Her statement 20220-809
Canada Pension Plan
was meant to create a favourable impression and went something like this:
The purpose of the Canada pension plan is to ensure that all Canadians will be able to retire in security and with dignity.
Those words were repeated during this debate.
I am sure that only those workers whose wages are near or above the average, and they would be the minority, will be able to retire in security and with dignity.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Canadian people are unaware of the detail and nature of the official proposals. I think most people are in favour of something likely to assist the poor and those in need.
However, we must keep in mind that Canadians are a fair, intelligent, reasonable and humanitarian people. All Canadians, including Quebeckers, feel that their primary duty is to their poverty-stricken and less fortunate brothers.
I am sure that if Canadians were aware of the inadequacies of the proposed plan they would realize that it would be better for their present and future interests that the government should entrust the plan to experts in pension plans, who have all the proficiency, the skill and the means for that, without putting Canadians into a strait-jacket.
The great majority of Canadians would commend the government, the opposition and parliament for having taken the steps found necessary after a thorough study of the original plan. They would not only admire parliament for the intelligence and courage which it would display, but their faith in its wisdom and integrity would be increased.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, if I want to speak on clause 1 of Bill No. C-136, it is not in order to torture or massacre the French language, as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Berger) said last week, but rather to point out to the house that I do not accept the recommendations of the government, which, under Bill No. C-136, is preparing to torture and massacre Canadian citizens for generations to come, by establishing a compulsory and arbitrary pension scheme that is nothing but a national fraud.
Mr. Chairman, I object to this pension plan above all because it is compulsory. In fact, this was often mentioned during the debate. Moreover, some members stated that the province of Quebec was not directly affected by this legislation. That is true, but if we think that the province of Quebec intends to

Canada Pension Plan
pass shortly legislation similar to Bill No. C-136-I rather think that Bill No. C-136 is similar to the one the province of Quebec intends to pass-I believe we cannot remain idly by if we consider everything which the government intends to do and which will have repercussions for years to come in our country. The members who agree to pass this bill, willingly or forcibly, will be responsible and will bear that burden for the rest of their lives, and their party will be branded accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is proposed to us as a boon for our old people. One of the few members on the government side to take part in the debate spoke this afternoon only about old age security benefits. He forgot to tell us about the contributions which must be paid by the Canadian workers. In fact, there is no mention about this. In my opinion it is easy to prove that the pension plan, as it will be financed, is nothing more than a direct tax levied at the source-a direct tax which must be paid for by the Canadian workers. Obviously, it is not called a direct tax, but a contribution. But for years the Liberal party made us familiar with changes in names. If we revert to the period of the second world war we will see that there was no conscription, but mobilization was decreed. There was merely a change in names.
For a few years, there has been no direct relief. However, there are winter works which are nothing but direct relief.
Today we have this bill which is intended to ensure a pension plan for workers. It is not mentioned that a tax is provided by this legislation; it is called contributions.
Mr. Chairman, Canadians cannot be hoodwinked. When this bill comes into force and when Canadians see that the amount of their pay cheques is decreasing, although at present it is far from too high, they will complain, but then it will be too late. Once more I object to the principle of this bill because it is compulsory. It is presented in this form by the government because it believes that the individual, the labourer, the worker cannot save in order to provide for himself a decent and appropriate pension.
If such legislation is necessary-and necessary is not the exact word-if it has become almost compulsory today, and if so many people must resort to subsidies from the government and apply for pensions or other benefits, it is because the old line parties imposed a system which brought extreme poverty upon a group of our people,
[Mr. Laprise.l
thus compelling them to claim an ever greater number of socialistic measures.
Mr. Chairman, if we go back 40 or 50 years we find that people managed to provide for their old age. They succeeded in saving enough to retire decently.
But today, with all those taxes, with the licences to be paid, it is impossible to provide for retirement. One has to pay taxes on everything.
Because of a haphazard administration three quarters of the population are living in dire poverty and cannot set anything aside to provide for their old age.
To prove that assertion I shall refer to a statement made in North Bay, Ontario, by the Ontario federation of labour and published in he Droit of October 5, 1964:
The federation recommends the setting up of a royal commission by the federal government to look into the problem of poverty in Canada. According to this report distributed at a seminar on political action held this week end, almost 4,000,000 Canadians are living in the most abject poverty or destitution.
Mr. Chairman, one readily realizes when faced with such figures, that those Canadians are unable to provide a decent retirement for themselves.
And further on:
Almost 2,500,000 Canadians, or over 13 per cent of the population, live in the most extreme poverty.
Do you think those 2,500,000 persons are able to save for their retirement years when they reach the age of 60 or 65? It is absolutely impossible. The contributions collected under the proposed pension plan will take a few dollars more out of these people's small income. Twelve dollars, $15 or $20 is still too much for a person who earns from $1,000 to $1,200 a year. Those people will be deprived of what they desperately need. Throughout the countryside and in urban areas some people live only on social welfare benefits. Some of our fellow citizens have had to depend on winter works for a living. Some of them had to drag themselves through the mud, this winter, to dig wells and reservoirs collecting water 150 feet from a lake. I saw it with my own eyes recently. What will be taken away from such people is still too much. They suffer hardship and need more purchasing power; yet, part of the pittance they earn will be taken away from them.
Mr. Chairman, no sensible person has the right to accept such a scheme. That is why I am opposed to it.

An enormous sum, billions of dollars, will be taken from the population in the ten years needed to get the act really working and will become a tremendous weapon in the hands of the bureaucracy which administers the government's business. It will add to the power of that fabulous bureaucracy monster to dictate to all the citizens of this country.
To administer this act a new pack of hunting dogs will come snooping around in the books of small as well as large employers, in those of farmers, independent workers.
There is in each locality, in each village, in each city a proportion of construction workers who are independent workers; investigations will be made everywhere they worked during the year to find out how much they earned and if they could not be made to pay 5 cents or 10 cents.
Mr. Chairman, the cost of those investigations will be very high. We need only consider what happened in other fields, with other legislation requiring investigations into people's businesses. It will just be a source of trouble for the Canadian people who already have quite enough with all the compulsory legislation they are subjected to. We already have to put up with a great deal of legislation but we are still in the process of passing a new one.
Mr. Chairman, I quite object to this situation. In my opinion, if we search through Bill No. C-136 for all its implications we shall realize that it endangers seriously the automony not only of Quebec but of all the provinces. The federal government will control anything where provincial action is required. Enormous sums of money made available to provinces, municipalities and school boards will become a terrible weapon in the hands of those leading the country.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Pepin:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
Is the hon. member aware of the fact that in a paragraph of his speech he speaks of the "destitution of small wage earners," and later he speaks of the "fabulous amounts" that the pension plan will take away from those people who earn less than $6,000?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, if one looks at the figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics, one can see that the total income of self employed workers was $21 billion. If we take off from this amount $5 billion and a few million dollars for the province of Quebec, 20220-809i
Private Bills
we arrive at the amount of about $15 billion, which represents their income for 1963.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this shows that more than six million workers with an income of $600, $800, $900, $3,000 and $4,000 will contribute to this plan, which will take away from them $160 a year. I contend that it is still too much.
If the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Pepin) will look carefully at those figures, he will see that the money taken away from Canadians through this tax is still far too much.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I pointed out a moment ago that it was five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


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



PRIVATE BILLS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, through you, I could make a suggestion to the house before the items are called. Item No. 5, the sponsor of which I see in the house, the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett), is dealing with the association of universities and colleges of Canada, and unfortunately, through a variety of circumstances, that bill proceeded to the bottom of the list a couple of weeks ago.
There was almost agreement last week to give this bill prior consideration and I believe there is a great desire to do so now. I wonder whether I might put the proposition to the house that by unanimous consent we proceed to deal with item No. 5 on today's order paper under private bills, namely, house again in committee of the whole on Bill No. S-36, an act to incorporate the association of universities and colleges of Canada. Following completion of that item we could then proceed to consider items Nos. 1 to 4 in the order in which they are now listed.


Miss Jewett:: I wonder whether we would have any assurance there would not be a prolonged debate on item No. 5?


Frank Howard: I can only repeat what the Minister of Transport has said on so many

Private Bills
occasions. That is a guarantee no one can give. I can only speak for myself.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, having studied the suggestion made last week by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), we are in complete agreement with his proposal of today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the house proceed with the consideration of order No. 5?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore we will call order No. 1.



INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-42, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company -Mr. Wahn-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Subdivision of capital stock.
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, some of us who were members of the committee that examined the bill are not too happy about it. The purpose stated in the explanatory notes is as follows:
The purpose of this hill is to divide each of the 40 million authorized shares of the par value of $5 each of the capital stock of the company into five shares of a par value of $1 each.
It goes on to say:
The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company considers it desirable that the small Canadian investors be encouraged and given an opportunity to invest in the equity of a successful and growing Canadian company.
Some of us have doubts that this is the real purpose of the bill before us seeking to authorize the splitting of the shares. The attitude that some of our members hold was quite well expressed in the committee, and at this time I should like to quote briefly from page 889 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence where the hon. member for Port Arthur had this to say:
In this explanatory note there seems to be a suggestion that there is some great virtue in the small investor and something wrong in the big investor. I would like to have things flat and on the line. I do not think it matters a darn whether it is a big investor or a small investor; it seems to me one of the reasons for a share split is the advantage to the company and the people who presently have the shares. I would like to see this put on the line instead of it coming in with

the people's capitalists propaganda. I am sure you are aware that some persons in our party would like to change some of the rules of the game, but because we are not in power I am content to let it go along as it is for now. I appreciate frankness and I feel, although you may have been frank in the introduction, that the explanatory note is too glorious.
When we examine the structure or ownership of the company we find that at the present time there are 5,087,282 shares outstanding. On the last page of the committee report, page 896, there is a list of the principal shareholders of the company, those holding 10,000 shares or more. It starts with Imperial Oil Limited holding 1,680,000 shares, British American Oil Company owning 360,000 shares, and shows a total of 3,166,501 shares held by shareholders owning 10,000 shares or more.
With regard to the major investors in the company at its inception, Imperial Oil Limited, British American Oil and Shell Oil held about 47 per cent of the shares of the company. They acquired their shares at minimum prices. Of the original shares there were 3,596,000 issued at $5 a share and later 3,600 shares were issued at $5.20. There has been a very great appreciation in the value of the shares of this company. At the present time the price on the market is approximately $90 a share.
So far as we can determine, there are not very many small shareholders at the present time and we doubt very much that there would be many more if the split took place. It is usually the case with large well established companies, which have a very good earnings record such as this company and pay a dividend of something like $350 on shares of a par value of $5, that there is little increase in market sales and the greatest benefit from such a change as proposed here is derived by the established shareholders of the company, who are usually large corporate enterprises. It seems to us that the splitting of the shares would not achieve the purpose set forth in the bill, namely to bring in small shareholders in large numbers. The small shareholder is not going to have the opportunity to buy many shares and the advantage will go to the existing shareholders.
The company has had a plan whereby certain employees have received shares over the years, and in the name of the employees at the present time there are about 11,000 shares. I suppose that is commendable but it is not very much when you consider the total issue of over 5 million shares outstanding at the present time. Therefore we can see no

particular merit in the bill. As I said before, it will not achieve what is set forth in the explanatory notes and it will be very much to the advantage of the existing shareholders. So we see no reason why the bill should go forward at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I saw the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice stand and I thought he was rising to support the comments of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. While I was not a member of the committee and did not have the opportunity to listen to the debate that went on in the committee that considered this matter, I too am of the opinion that the bill should not receive the endorsation of the house, primarily because I think the reasoning set forth in the explanatory notes is somewhat misleading.


Mr. Fisher:: To say the least.


Frank Howard: To say the least. I do not say that the company did this deliberately. I think they probably just followed the example set by the Minister of Transport in the house, namely that it really does not matter what you do as long as you get the business accomplished. In the past we have seen other companies do the same sort of thing under similar circumstances. The reasons which this company has presented are not the true or correct reasons, and if the company, as set forth in the explanatory notes, really had at heart the interests of its employees in enabling them to become shareholders of the company to a greater extent, the company could have taken a different course.
The bill, if passed, as I understand it, would result, inasmuch as there is a five to one stock split, in the shares of the company numbering some 200 million. This is a fabulous number of shares to have as the share structure of a company. This will be the result if I understand what is involved correctly. If I am incorrect in my understanding,
I am sure the sponsor of the bill will put the true situation on the record. I just looked at the financial page of today's Globe and Mail and under the industrial quotations for March 24, 1965, which was yesterday, I note that Interprovincial Pipe Line Company shares were being traded at $91.75 to $92.25. They closed at a price of $92.25 per share.
This must be an extremely profitable venture since the value of the shares has increased from the original $5 by more than $90 as of yesterday. One part of the explanatory note reads as follows:
Private Bills
On June 10, 1964, the $5 par value shares of the company had a market value of approximately $85 to $85.50 each.
The value of these shares in this period has increased to $92, which is the figure I just quoted. I continue reading from the explanatory note:
This relatively high market value discourages investment by small investors.
Now, if the stock split takes place, the market value of the shares, in so far as I can gather, will be approximately $18 for the purposes of rough calculations. I spoke with a stock brokerage firm just today to find out the weight and importance which we should give to this statement, that this relatively high market value discourages investment of small investors. He told me that this is perhaps true with a stock that has a market value in the range of $90 or more as this one does. He said also that if the stock split takes place they can expect somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 5 per cent to 10 per cent increase almost immediately in the newly established market value.
We can, therefore, take the $18 which will be the market value of the shares of the stock split takes place, and almost immediately add somewhere between 5 per cent and 10 per cent. I will admit at the outset that predicting what any share will do on the market is a rather hazardous occupation. It is probably worse than predicting the outcome of an election. None the less, this is what a brokerage firm told me. If we add just 5 per cent to the $18, that would bring it close to $18.90 or nearly $19. If we add the 10 per cent, it brings it closer to $20 per share if this stock split goes through.
The broker told me that the small investors, as he knows them, are equally deterred by $20 a share as they are by $90 a share. It does not really matter to the small investor. They are not likely to buy these shares at the new market value as is implied in the explanatory note here. I think it is true to say that it is likely to discourage investment by small investors. Even after a stock split, the high market value will equally be discouraging to the small investor. I put it to you, therefore, that this attractive comment by the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company is misleading. I base these statements only on what people who are knowledgeable in the stock market field tell me.
The explanatory note goes on to point out another enticement or explanation as to why

Private Bills
it is necessary that this bill be passed. I quote:
The company recognizes that it is in the best interests of the company and investors in its stock that employees be enabled to become shareholders so as to give employees a sense of ownership in the company and active participation in its growth and profits.
I believe that is a laudable objective. The explanatory note continues:
Some time ago the company established a voluntary employees saving plan, to which the company contributes.
It would be interesting at this stage, perhaps, to know the details of the company's contribution to this employee savings plan.
I do not know if some statement has been made on this. It does have an element of fair play about it. I continue quoting from the explanatory note:
Under the terms of the plan the employees have the option of investing their plan savings in the stock of the company at current market prices. It is felt that with a lower unit market price this option will be more attractive to them.
I submit that last sentence indicates a sort of gilding of what the company intends to do for these worth-while people, as well as for those classified as small investors. If the company was seriously interested in attracting these employees to become owners of shares and thus to have what they call a more intense interest in the growth, development and profit structure of the company, then they could do it in a vastly different way. It has been, in fact, the practice of corporations of this size and larger to establish so-called stock options, mostly for their friends, relatives or board of directors. The stock option, as I gather, works in this way: The company guarantees to issue to certain preferred and selected people, mostly friends and relatives of members of the board of directors, shares in the company at a set price, and they usually establish this price at the par value.
We all know the story of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines where two people, whom the Leader of the Opposition at one time classified as Texas buccaneers, under a stock auction plan parlayed an $8 investment into a million dollar or more savings account. If this company wants its employees to become shareholders an arrangement should be made to offer the employees who, after all, have a greater interest in it than perhaps others, the option to buy shares at a fixed value, and set the value so that it is not subject to the fluctuations of the market. They do this with members of the board of directors; why can they not do it with employees?

Who has a greater stake in the profitable and efficient operation of a company than those who depend on it for their wages in order to earn a livelihood? Members of a board of directors usually have so many diversified interests in other companies that one board of directors does not matter too much.
I submit this is a way by which this company can entice its employees into becoming shareholders. If they do not wish to become shareholders then at least they can realize the profits by buying at the option price and selling on the market if the market price is higher. This would allow the employees to get some of the benefits that should accrue to them from the profitable operation of the company.
I submit that offering an option to their employees at whatever is market value is not an option at all unless the employees may save the brokerage fees. Under an employees saving plan, presumably money is taken from an employee's cheque and deposited in some trust fund. Then the employee, if he has the option, merely says, "I want to invest my amount of money in shares of the company at market value." Does this mean that the company sells out of the treasury shares which were given to it to promote at $5 and now sells them to its employees at $95 each? Or does the company take the amount of money in the fund, and when an employee exercises his desire to buy shares on the market, does the company act as his broker or agent, take that money out of the fund, phone up its stock broker and say, "Buy so many shares on the market for John Smith or Joe Brown"

or whoever the employee happens to be.
These are questions that require some sort of answer, and because this is the bill's first venture into committee stage in the house, which allows for a more informal type of debate, we should have an answer; but so far the sponsor of the bill has said nothing about this or any of the other aspects of it. These are questions which I think should be answered before the committee is asked to follow the enticement given by the company itself, namely that it will entice small investors and its own employees to become shareholders to a greater extent in the company. Unless we get some reasonably satisfactory answer we may well not be inclined to give passage to the bill at this stage.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, we are very interested in the Interprovincial Pipe Line

Company, and I feel sorry that the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill saw fit to do so. I say so because if he were aware of the history of this company, as are some of us, he would be aware that this is the type of bill that has not been matched among pipe line bills to come before parliament since 1949.
I am not aware how government members are selected to sponsor Senate bills, but I rather hoped he would have taken the opportunity to read some of the previous debates and look into the history of the company. If he had, he might have considered some of the complications involved and be willing to explain them. Or he might have thought it better not to raise this problem at all.
I have always wondered why a company should split stock. This is a good question for a layman to ask himself but I do not think we will get the answer to it today. However, it is interesting to note that this is not the first time this company has split stock. I seems to me that it is always after stock has reached a certain level of interest that a stock split is sought.
If we approve the splitting of this stock today it means this company will have 200 million shares of stock on the market. From a layman's point of view dealing with the mining industry, 200 million shares would mean approximately $200 million capitalization-very sizeable capitalization.
A special act of parliament was passed in 1949 establishing the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to do a number of things. On September 5, 1952, the shareholders approved a ten for one split of common stock, and changed the par value from $15 to, I presume, the $5 figure at which it stands now. Approval was given following debate on February 11, 1953.
As the hon. member for Skeena has mentioned, it would be interesting to know why the present stock split is being made. Let me say without equivocation, I am as sure as I am standing here that it is not done for the reason given in the explanatory notes to the bill. This company could not care less about the common employees it employs. This stock split may well apply to the executive types in the company, and when you check down the list you can find the companies they represent; but the company does not really care whether its common employees buy stock or not.
If an employee were buying treasury stock it would not matter to him whether he bought ten $5 shares, one $50 share or even fifty $1 shares. He is going to have to raise $50 and
Private Bills
it does not matter whether he has a big sheaf of stock or a little sheaf of stock. We are not being fair to the wage structure system if we allow this method.
The reason this stock is being split is because the company is making a fantastic profit, and this is not unusual. I am highly perturbed about a company in my area operating in the trans-Canada pipe line agency, and I would like to refer to this because the profit motive of these companies is quite often the deciding factor.
I thought I had the news clipping here but I do not, and so I will have to describe from memory what took place. I may not be exactly right because the figures involved were very large. A meeting was held in Toronto the other day. I will not go into all the details of that meeting, but it was a very interesting one, for exactly the reason being discussed here, allowing the shareholders and common shareholders to have some control. Incidentally in this case the little shareholder did not get any hearing and was not able to put his nominee on the board of directors.
In two months Northern Ontario Natural Gas Company was able to make this enormous profit; it was able to increase its profits compared with the previous year by 34 per cent and make a profit in January and February of more than $1,300,000. This must be taken in conjunction with the fact that last year the company made a profit amounting to an increase of 50 per cent by comparison with the previous year. I would point out, too, that in northern Ontario there are only a few towns and that these are not densely populated.
All this means that shareholders receive so much money in relation to the amount of money invested that it becomes embarrassing. The Canadian public as a whole will eventually look at the profits declared by some of these companies and say: "This is not in the interest of Canada; this is an abuse of our natural resources and of their distribution." In my opinion this is the situation which it is hoped will be covered up here.
This company has a current rate of interest of $3.20 per share per annum paid regularly quarterly from September 3, 1963; 75 cents a share paid quarterly from June 1, 1962 to June 1, 1963, inclusive; 70 cents a share paid March 1, 1962, and December 1, 1961; 60 cents on March, June and September 1, 1961, and $2.30 a share paid in 1960. An extra 10 cents was paid on December 1, 1962; 40 cents was paid on December 1, 1961 and 50 cents in 1960. I have taken these figures from the Financial Post survey of 1964. In 1953 there

Private Bills
was the little matter of which I spoke earlier. The company had in 1953 paid $1.50 a share. This was followed, after the ten to one split, by an extra payment of 15 cents a share which really represents $1.50. Had there been no split, $3 would have been paid in 1953 on $50 stock, which is surely a reasonable amount of profit.
I intend later to put on record what the dividends have actually been. Hon. members should note that expenditures during this period have not been small. The company was able to twin its pipe lines from western Canada and extend the system to Sarnia and the Toronto area; there is now a twinned system established. At the very time the company was engaged in this terrific program of capital development it was able to pay $3 a share.
I will go on to give further figures. In 1954 it paid 45 cents. Of course, the shares have been split and this figure is really the equivalent of $4.50. In 1955, they paid 70 cents, that is, $7 in one year on a $50 share. A good stock to buy. In 1956 they paid $1.10. This amounts to $11 per share. By 1957 the dividend was up to $1.40. At the old rate it would have been $14 a share, coming very close to getting half your money back. In 1958 the shareholders got $1.40 plus 40 cents, that is, $1.80 or $18 a share on the old basis. In 1959 they got $2.25, or $22.50. By 1960 they were getting $2.30 plus 50 cents, that is, $2.80. So if a man held stock in this company it took only two years to pay off his initial investment because he made $28 per share on the old basis. In 1961 the company paid $2.50 plus 40 cents; in 1962 it paid $2.95 plus 10 cents, which comes to $3.05. In 1963 the shareholders got $3.10 which amounts to $31 on a $50 share. No wonder they come to parliament wanting to split the stock. Would hon. members agree that a $50 share was able to earn as much as this, unless you were stealing the money- that it would be able to earn $31 each year? Why, we would even run the moneylenders out of this country if they charged that kind of interest.
The man who pays for gas in Toronto, the man who pays for gas from the Lakehead Pipe Line Company which is a subsidiary outfit, is paying $31 to the shareholders of this company on the basis of a $50 investment.


An hon. Member:: Crude oil.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member raises a pertinent question. I have only had an opportunity of looking at this subject very recently. They did bring in crude oil.

The company was authorized to operate a crude oil pipe line extending 1,930 miles from Redwater, Alberta, via Edmonton, Regina and Gretna, Manitoba, across the international border to Superior, Wisconsin and thence via Sarnia to Port Credit, Ontario. A 93 mile extension from near Hamilton, Ontario, to Buffalo was completed in 1963 and transportation of natural gas liquids began in 1961. I learn that the original line has been progressively looped since its completion, resulting in a completely double system between Edmonton and Superior by the end of 1958. A further 167 miles of looping was completed in 1963, largely in the United States.
The article goes on to talk about the oil which has been carried. I gather that now the line has been twinned it is available for carrying gas. I may be wrong about this, but it does not really matter whether you buy oil in a can or whether you buy gas from a line into your house. In any case, the customers across Canada are supplying these profits and I have no hesitation in saying they are exorbitant profits-so exorbitant that I believe this question should be examined by the security commissions in the various provinces which are concerned.
In the circumstances I feel confident the hon. member would like to withdraw his support of the proposal before us because I am sure he would not wish to be associated with a company which has such an unreasonable profit structure as this one. We kicked the moneylenders out of the temple a long time ago because they were charging exorbitant interest rates. It seems to me that this company must be charging exorbitant rates for the transport of oil in order to allow it a profit amounting annually to more than half of the price of the original stock.
Now the company wants to reduce the interest rate which is apparently being paid. In order to do this, the stock issue has to be increased. May I say, in passing, that I have just been handed a note which is likely to be of interest to the hon. member. It indicates that the 1949 shares in this particular company would now be worth $950 if one had accumulated the interest on those shares. I am sure the hon. member will consider these things. We in this party have always been opposed to the extension of these pipe lines in the present manner, regarding these matters as directly involving the public interest and parliamentary control. Surely there is some machinery for giving consideration to what should be done when these companies make an unreasonable profit. It is eyewash,

literally eyewash, to say this. Listen to it. What a bunch of junk this is:
Under the terms of the plan the employees have the option of investing their plan savings in the stock of the company at current market prices. It is felt that with a lower unit market price this option will be more attractive to them.
If in 1949 they could buy one share and now find it is worth over $90, they must all have holes in their heads if they are not willing to take it at any price. This is all eyewash. It is a disgrace for any member to come into the house, put that junk on the record and endorse it. That statement is not true. It is not what they are trying to do. It is not even, in my opinion, an excuse for what they are trying to do. Under the plan their employees could make just as much money in the way I have pointed out. Did it really make any difference to them, splitting the stock ten to one? In 1953 they got $1.50; the stock was worth $50. Later in the year they got 15 cents. What difference does it make to them if they split it? Say they still got $3, so it does not matter if it is 15 cents or $1.50. The statement contained in the explanatory notes is not the fact. If they are going to take it out of their investment plan, then obviously arrangements could be made for the accumulation of money until you can pay for a $50 stock just as easily as you can pay for a $1 stock.
Maybe the house is in sympathy with this, and perhaps I am wrong. I am no financial wizard, by any stretch of the imagination. I have not been able to make 50 cents out of stock myself at any time, and I have worked for mining companies for many years. So I am not suggesting that I am a financial wizard. But reading the statement from the Financial Post, a statement made by those who look into these matters, I can only come to the conclusion that what is in the explanatory notes of this bill is not true; that this is not the reason. This is not the logical explanation of what they are trying to do and it is in no way an answer to the questions members of this house must ask themselves before they allow an amendment that will change the structure of the company that is operating in the public utility field.
Across the nation there is a growing desire for more honesty in agencies operating in the public utility field. I think that has been demonstrated by many of the remarks made in relation to bills in connection with telephone companies that come before us. It certainly is true in the case of gas and oil company bills that come before us. I know 20220-810
Private Bills
that the people in northern Ontario-who, through no fault of their own, are buying more cubic feet of gas this year than they did last year-should have had a reduction in the cost per unit, but because of the fact that the federal government, through the national energy board, allowed the establishment of the plant in western Canada to take out the high quality products, they are now buying cubic feet of gas which is not the same quality. This is cheating; this is downright thieving. I do not blame the national energy board, because the contract worked out between the trans-Canada gas company and this company-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee to continue. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Macleod, who I understood was going to rise, would permit me to make one suggestion. Earlier we suggested that we might proceed to consider the universities association bill. I understand there was some misunderstanding as to what was the intent with regard to this bill, but since then the hon. member for Danforth has had some discussion with other hon. members and so far as we are concerned and everyone with whom he has spoken is concerned, there is no desire at all to enter into a debate with respect to the universities association bill.
I am pretty well assured that it would take but a moment or two to consider that bill and pass it. I wonder if I may therefore suggest-and this is apparently the last day on which this could be accomplished-to the committee that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day, which opens the door for us to come back and consider the bill that is before us at the moment. If we rose and reported progress to the house we could then get the house to agree with regard to proceeding with item No. 5, namely the universities association bill. I am reliably informed that everybody who has spoken about this to the hon. member for Danforth has assured him that the bill would receive quick and easy passage in a matter of moments. Then we could come back into committee of the whole and consider the bill that is now before us.

Private Bills


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
member sugesting that we do it at six o'clock? That would be very acceptable, I am sure, to all hon. members, if we could do it without debate. I suggest that we should do our best to finish the bill that is now before us. It looks as if it is about to pass.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pauline Jewett: I would hope, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that we could do what the hon. member suggests, at six o'clock.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Northumberland is the greatest obstacle to the passage of her own bill that I have ever run into. We are trying to expedite matters for her, and she is putting roadblocks in the way. There is no guarantee, unfortunately, with respect to the bill that is before us at the moment, the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company bill, and we might find ourselves at six o'clock in the position of having to adjourn. That can very easily happen. I suggest that we take a few moments now to expedite the passage of the bill in which the hon. member for Northumberland is so interested, and which befell an accident a couple a weeks ago, and then come back and consider the particular bill that is now before us.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is being too clever in this regard. Surely if he is prepared to do what he has suggested, he would be equally prepared to proceed with the bill now before the committee and deal with the universities bill at six o'clock, particularly as he has said-and I have been assured of this by hon. members -that the house would be prepared to pass it very quickly. So I would suggest that we proceed until six o'clock with the bill that is now before us. In fact, I was hoping at six o'clock to rise and ask the unanimous consent of the house to deal with the universities bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Port Arthur told me a long time ago, "Don't argue with a lady, especially one who has a Ph.D." The hon. member's original proposal contained, I thought, the suggestion that we consider the bill which she is sponsoring at six o'clock and it would hinge upon the passage of the Interprovincial Pipe Line bill that is now before us.


Pauline Jewett: That was a wrong assumption, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena I would say that there seems to have been a little misunderstanding a few minutes ago when the hon. member for Chapleau rose, and this question was under consideration by the house. The misunderstanding was that he said this group could not guarantee that there would not be a debate with regard to the bill. I can assure the committee that there is no intention on the part of this party to debate that bill, and we are willing to give it speedy passage. I suggest that we deal with it now, because you cannot guarantee anything happening after six o'clock, once six o'clock is called. I think it would be a logical thing for the committee to rise, report progress and come back and deal with this bill later this day.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the sense of the committee that we rise and report progress now?


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor of the bill now being considered by the committee perhaps I can say a word or two. I would have no objection to the procedure suggested, provided the committee was prepared to add to the time taken on the bill now before the committee any time taken up by the universities bill. In other words, I am quite happy to have the universities bill dealt with first, if that is the wish of the committee, and passed without debate, provided we come back to the present bill and allow it to have the length of time that would otherwise have been available to it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the house to proceed now to the consideration of item No. 5?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-36, to incorporate the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada-Miss Jewett-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 15 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Pauline Jewett: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, one brief word, if I may. About a week and a half ago a certain member of the Liberal party, whom I will not bother to mention by name or by riding, commented on a nation-wide television broadcast that I for one, and others, had deliberately set out to scuttle and defeat this particular bill. You now see, Mr. Speaker, the desire which we have and the lengths to which we have gone to resurrect it and to bring it back to prominence. So I hope that that same hon. member will make a further comment to balance out his previous one at some appropriate time.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that the comments which he has just made are not relevant on third reading. I would suggest to hon. members that we proceed before six o'clock to third reading. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee on Bill No. S-42, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company-Mr. Wahn- Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Subdivision of capital stock.
Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to say a few words on this Interprovincial Pipe Line Company bill. I do so because this particular company is a monopoly organization and as such should be scrutinized with the greatest of care by the house, before we pass this bill. That scrutiny has not been given, either here or in the committee.
The real purpose at the back of this split and the reason this corporation is in a position to make this split has never been properly explained either to this house or to the Canadian people. I think that when a matter of this kind comes before a body such as is gathered here you should not pass it over, but you should look into it. I suggest this organization is a monopoly from beginning to end.
Some 39 per cent of the stock of this corporation is owned by Imperial Oil. Another percentage is owned by B.A. and another percentage still is owned by Shell. Out of this arises a combination of monopoly tactics. Those monopoly tactics have been levelled 20220-810i
Private Bills
against small operators who want to be in the oil business and who are anxious to develop the oil industry of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
To be sure, Mr. Chairman, this company will tell you that they have done this and done that as part of their policy. But I am telling you that wherever a corporation takes from the services which it is performing the amount which this corporation has been taking, they are relying upon their monopoly position in order to feather their own nest.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what has been said is that they want to sell shares to their employees; they want to get the employees in and let them buy. But let me tell you what is actually happening. These shares that are to be split five for one were at about $85 per share a short time ago. They are now up to $93 in anticipation of this split. If this split comes about they will probably bob up another $5 a share. And who would the shares be distributed to? Who would buy them? As a result of the excitement, being split five for one the price would come down to around $18 or $20 a share. What would happen? In the stock market each particular active issue has at least one sponsor. This means there is a sponsor backing the stock and that he has bought up a lot of the floating stock of this corporation. Therefore he and others are waiting to have this stock split, so that during the flurry which follows they can unload their shares on to unsuspecting people whom they call the small buyers. They might be speculators or anybody else who might buy the shares at that time. The people who own shares now are the ones who are going to profit. If you have had anything to do with the stock market you know that is true. Just watch the volume of transactions after a split of this kind takes place. The stock goes up and those who held shares unload them on the public.
This corporation has come to us stating that it wants to divide its shares so that its employees can buy more of them at a lower price. What utter nonsense. There might be a few employees who would buy shares, but what the company is up to here is the division of its shares so that those who now hold shares can make millions in the market. Since this is a monopoly corporation, I think that in the interests of everyone concerned we should give careful consideration to the policies of this company and how the incidence of those policies is affecting the growth of the oil industry in western Canada.

Canada Pension Plan
Mind you, it may be said that it is not unusual for corporations to split their shares after they have made profits that justify a split. It is quite a customary practice. We know that almost every corporation, once it has been in existence for a certain length of time, splits its shares. There is no question about that. But in the case of this company its policies and the amount of money it has taken from the people for performing a service need a better investigation by parliament before we pass this kind of legislation.
I see that my time is up and I have gone overtime. I do not wish to talk out the bill in any sense of the word, but I do think that we should call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty at this time to bring to the attention of hon. members that the following questions will be debated this evening at eleven o'clock: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) - Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

The hon. member for Lotbiniere-the R.C.M.P. and Mr. Gregoire;

The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume)-air transport policy.
We will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.



PENSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh -Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, before the committee took recess at five o'clock I was saying 
that the huge amounts which will be made available to governmental bureaucracy would permit bureaucrats to rule the roost. They are the ones who will decide which areas will be developed, providing of course those areas are on the right side. They will be all-powerful because those amounts will total more than $8 billion within 10 years.
We are told that people are not intelligent enough to provide for their declining years and consequently they will be forced into it. They will be deprived of their purchasing power and thus browbeaten into conforming to government requirements. Then patronage and dictatorship will blossom out.
On May 26, 1964, La Presse published a report issued by the French service of William M. Mercer Limited, the most important actuarial consultant firm in Canada.
It stated:
The coming into force of the plan will cause the net income of the majority of the workers to fall off. This reduction, plus the one brought about by the last personal income tax increase which became effective on January 1, 1964, and taking into account future tax increases resulting from recent tax-sharing agreements, will bring about, we expect higher salaries and other inflationary measures. A plan offering such benefits will no doubt, at first, receive general public support, but as its effects on taxation and inflationary tendencies are fully assessed, this original support will be somewhat more restrained.
The government is only stressing the benefits accruing to the individual without telling him now what he will have to pay in the meantime and all the trouble he will have to go through.
Always take away from the weak and give to the strong. Workers having little or no income will get nothing or very little from this pension plan. Yet, they are the ones who will need it most. But those having the highest salaries will get the most from this pension plan, while they will need it the least.
At one of the first federal-provincial conferences held in 1941, Hon. John Bracken, then premier of Manitoba, said:
Our present taxation system seems to have been based on the evangelic promise: "For unto every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath".
Later, he said:
This unbalanced taxation system transfers the income of people with relatively low wages to those with relatively high income. The federal government's revenues from indirect taxation are largely used to cover debt charges which, in many cases, are paid out to people who bore a relatively lighter share of the dominion's taxes because, before the war, the federal government drew only a slight proportion of its revenues from direct taxation.

Thus, the income of relatively poor people goes to persons who are fairly rich. We will never set up a sound tax structure in Canada if we tax those in the low income group for the benefit of those in the higher income brackets.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is practically what we have in this bill.
Yet, as far as old age security is concerned, it would have been much simpler and much more advantageous for everyone to provide for a minimum pension of $100 a month at the age of 60.
When the head of a family reaches the age at which he can draw his pension, his wife, even though she is younger by a few years, should also get this $100 pension, so that the two of them would not be forced to live on the same pension, as unfortunately happens too often at the present time and as happened in the past. In this way it would be easier for people, but it would perhaps be disastrous for lawyers like the hon. member for Lotbiniere who prefer obscure legislation which cannot be understood. I prefer results to complexities.


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Chairman, to open my remarks on Bill No. C-136, may I sincerely thank all those who, directly or indirectly, helped in supplying to us the French version of the evidence given to the joint committee established to consider this bill. I hope that the appropriate decisions will be made by the staff authorities so that both the French and the English versions of the proceedings of the various committees will be distributed to all members.
Bill No. C-136 now before us, commonly called pension plan, was first introduced as a social measure; it underwent various amendments or revisions afterwards. It is easy to see, however, that the plan was prepared in order to supply the government with a source of capital; it is important to know- and all the Canadian people have a right to know-the scope of the provisions of the various clauses in Bill No. C-136 which might provide for a fair distribution of the social requirements to the Canadian people.
I am rather surprised to see that the supporters of the pension plan suggest that it is one of the best social security plans, but at the same time that it is drafted in such a complicated and incomprehensible manner.
I have already mentioned here in this house that there is something wrong, not with the number of pieces of legislation, but rather with the complexity of their drafting. In my opinion, the important thing in the drafting of legislation or the preparation of a plan is that it must be drafted in such a
Canada Pension Plan
way that it will be easily understood by those who have to comply therewith or contribute thereto one way or another.
I could quote various sections of Bill No. C-136 in which we find that we have to refer back to many other sections or paragraphs of the same bill to reach any conclusion at all.
Such drafting of laws or plans allows thereafter the officials responsible for their administration to find in them all kinds of loopholes, or to use in their correspondence in reply to taxpayers who are the victims of wrong decisions, some phraseology designed to create confusion rather than clarify the situation.
I could refer to a host of examples of the kind, but I shall limit my remarks in this field to quoting part of a reply sent to a citizen who was asking for supplementary social assistance; there are form letters prepared in advance, on which the official or the writer has only to add the address of the claimant.
The text is as follows:
The rate of your allowance was increased by $10 per month as of April 1, 1964; it is nevertheless possible for us to continue, at a reduced rate, the payment to you of the extra allowance which was previously granted to you pending the raise of new regular allowance.
Just imagine. What can a fellow understand from such double talk?
I pity some civil servants who sometimes have to resort to a great deal of ingenuity to make replies void of meaning in order not to commit themselves, and this is largely due to too large a percentage of ill-conceived laws.
As evidence of the administrative complexities of such a plan, I shall quote from a brief submitted to the committee by the E. B. Eddy Company on January 18, 1965.
This Canada pension plan could have been enlarged, made more encompassing, providing at the same time simplicity of structure which would lead to its more ready understanding and acceptance.
Judging from reported discussions on this bill, we must anticipate great confusion on behalf of our employees, together with much difficutly and expense in reconciling the plan throughout our day-to-day operations. Questions, correspondence and detail will be massive. Those learned in the way of finance and insurance have already demonstrated that the plan is not easily digested; and they have great experience.
How, then, can we expect a man earning $600 or upwards to be clear as to what he should contribute, what he will receive and when? It should not be overlooked that the cost of collecting from those in the lower income brackets might well surpass the returns.
And further down the brief goes on: Demand for refunds will be heavy, caused by two employers in the one year contributing more

Canada Pension Plan
than an employee should pay. An employee can obtain a refund and presumably there will also be redress for the employer. However, money will be paid which both parties know is not due; and will be returned in time and at expense. Much of this will be collected from those least able to part with it.
A brief submitted by the chamber of commerce of Canada on the same matter says clearly that:
In connection with integration, a major problem is created by the fact that the Canada pension plan indexing will make it impossible to integrate private plans with contractual benefits to a national plan whose rate of benefit would be changeable and unforeseeable.
Each time benefits under the Canada pension plan would be adjusted, a large number of private plans would have to be amended. The short transitory period of 10 years and the exclusion of incomes under $600 add to the complexity of integration?
As evidence of administrative complications, we notice that the supporters of the plan seem to have committed themselves by their longstanding promise of a social security program. I shall quote here a sentence from an article published in the Quebec newspaper L'Action on Monday, March 15, 1965, concerning the present pension plan. The author said that there had not been enough critics. Here are his words:
Allowing criticism from experts would have led at least to a complete revision and at the most to the withdrawal of the plan in favour of one or more suggested alternatives. However, neither the one nor the other was politically beneficial. Having committed themselves to the plan, the Liberals and the other parties are compelled to implement it, whether it is adequate or not. And to think that this will be described as a political victory when in fact it is a popular defeat.
I must mention here, however, that the government can expect a violent reaction from the people the moment they realize the excessive amount they will have to pay for a pension plan that the majority did not ask for, but that the government is seeking to impose through a publicity fanfare. It is obviously a means of taxation disguised so it can be accepted as a pension plan.
Actuaries have voiced their opinions in various ways. One of them, who had been a government employee for the last 13 years, even had the courage to denounce the pension scheme by stating that those who have investigated the plan have disguised its origin, hidden its true nature, concealed its effects to exaggerate the support it received in certain quarters and discredit its critics, adding that it was only because of propaganda and through fear that some members of parliament ended up supporting the plan.
The reaction of the supporters of the system was brutally evidenced when, the day after he made his statement to the press, this actuary who had enough courage to point out the errors in this pension plan, was fired.

This procedure more clearly points out the socialistic principles which underlie this plan.
He is not the only actuary who criticized this plan. In an appendix to a report of the meeting the committee held on January 18, a fellow of the society of actuaries, Mr. Dowsett, speaking on his behalf and on behalf of his organization said:
If all major parties want "a comprehensive plan to apply to as many people as possible in this country", surely they will express this desire in a strange fashion if they adopt Bill C-136 which channels current tax dollars-raised in the name of the plan-into some provincial government development program rather than into increases in income for the current aged.
Fortunately, this actuary is not a federal civil servant because he would be dismissed forthwith.
This is what he stated at page 120 of the same brief, dealing with portable pensions:
If a province wishes to raise funds for provincial development, the honest approach is to tell the voting public the reason for which the tax is adopted. By hiding a provincial development fund tax within the framework of the Canada pension plan, it is possible that the provincial and federal governments together might avoid the criticisms that would be forthcoming were the tax to be imposed directly, as a measure quite separate from the Canada pension plan. Combining a development fund tax with a social pension plan tax, and advertising the whole tax as a contribution to a pension plan may be politically smart, but it would not be forthright, and it would leave a legacy of problems to our children as well.
Giving as an example the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act, he stated:
Initially, the fund was supposed to be self-supporting, as is proposed for the pension plan. However, this actuarial soundness was destroyed when unemployment insurance benefits were extended to seasonal workers. The question is, of course, what guarantees can be provided so that the actuarial soundness of the Canada pension plan will not be destroyed in the same way by the future application of an opportunist policy.
I agree with the decision made to extend the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act to all workers, seasonal and others, but many of those who should be enjoying those provisions are not doing so at present, such as those who go to work across the American border.
Considering that the present plan cannot give security without interfering with the citizens' purchasing power, it is necessary to estimate what will happen in the future with the coming into force of the pension plan now under consideration.
Is it unreasonable to think that this plan will be used as a means to get the voters' support with their own money?

I suppose that the plan's supporters said to themselves: after all, what difference is there between increasing ordinary taxes and increasing taxes on the pay lists to meet the cost of the pension plan?
It is obvious that under the present plan many groups of people will not get benefits related to their needs.
Taking into account the circumstances and the manner in which this plan is drafted and presented, I find it impossible to support it because I find it inconsistent. If the financing methods advocated by the Creditiistes are not used, then I would rather see the present method used to pay for the government pensions. As it was said, it is completely unthinkable to collect contributions from workers whose income is still too low to enable them to live decently, in view of the increase in the cost of living.
At a time when a large number of workers have an insufficient purchasing power, it is not logical to draw further upon their resources by forcing them to contribute to a pension plan. This will simply compel the workers to demand wage increases, and the problem will become more complicated. On the other hand, in taxing enterprises, we run the risk of seeing their production costs increase, and the consumers will have to pay the shot.
This is the problem confronting us at present. Where should we get the money? Whom should we tax? From whom should we get the money in order to give it to somebody else? Under the present system, we rob Peter to pay Paul; it should not be necessary for those who are working at the present time to buy fewer products so as to permit older people to get enough. When you consider the present surplus of unsold products, it is obvious that the answer is no, but when you do not realize that it is simply because there is no money, then the supporters of the system foolishly answer yes.
It is not by increasing the cost of living and decreasing the purchasing power that we are going to satisfy people who are now doing without the necessities of life; with this plan in operation our governments are getting ready to pile up a great deal of money at the expense of the Canadian workers, because the cost of living will increase and the purchasing power will decrease.
Considering that the present system operates so as to keep the value of the dollar fluctuating, everyone will admit that you cannot buy as much with a dollar in 1965 as you could in 1935. And yet, the Creditistes are
Canada Pension Plan
not the ones who are managing the government.
Considering the rate of increase of the cost of living, what will the dollar be worth a few years hence, under a Tory or a Grit administration?
Instead of establishing a retirement pension plan, the government should seek to expand an assistance program for aged people by reducing the age at which they can receive benefits and by increasing the amount of the pension.
It would be much simpler to pay immediately the old age pension to people of 65 years and over without any means tests, than to work out a plan such as this one which seems to be put through in a great hurry, and which will carry with it a number of unforeseen mishaps and errors of all kinds. Small industrial and commercial businesses will have to set up a costly bookkeeping service and a host of civil servants paid through people's contributions will be hired to supervise the administration of the inquiry service. I recognize that there are well qualified and understanding civil servants.
But I know also that the instructions they receive compel them to follow a line of conduct that is not always attuned to human problems which stem from the administration of an act which is called social legislation.
We find that instead of protecting the citizens suffering hardship, protection is given to the fund. Unemployed people are paid the smallest benefits possible. In fact, that is what happens with most social laws. Disabled persons are paid the smallest pension benefits possible, the victims of accidents are paid the smallest compensation possible.


An hon. Member:: That is untrue.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Chairman, I know what I am talking about, having represented local 2617 when I was director of the social service of assistance to forest workers. I know what it is to comply with the requirements of various social laws.
These are the baneful results of a plan at variance with the economic realities of our times.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I wish to take this opportunity to express my views on the pension plan proposed by the government. I have listened carefully to this debate and read a great deal about the subject under consideration. When it was proposed that the plan should be sent to the committee for study I did not vote in favour of such a

Canada Pension Plan
course; neither did I oppose it. I expected, however, that the committee would study this question in great detail.
I have watched this measure go through the house during the last week or two. I have watched the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue try to answer questions- and at times try not to answer questions; they would just answer no, no, no. This does not satisfy me. I feel this plan is one of the biggest political frauds which a government has ever tried to foist on the Canadian people. It is pure socialism and I am a free enterpriser. I think the time has come to pay a little attention to the views of Mr. John Kroeker, the Canadian government actuary who labelled this plan as a colossal fraud on all Canadians. I think it is time this man was called before the committee. We should hear what he has to say about the plan, instead of firing him. Members opposite did not want to listen to him although he had put a great deal of work into this scheme. They did not want to listen to his views; they fired him. Dictatorship; arrogance. Why not call him before the committee to hear what he had to say?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He waited until it was over.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: What does the Edmonton Journal, a reliable paper favourable to the Liberal party, have to say about this pension plan? What does it have to say about Mr. Kroeker? I will read it to the committee.
Mr. Kroeker, a $15,000 a year man, has now been ordered by Mr. Gordon, the Minister of Finance, to resign.
Nevertheless, what Mr. Kroeker said deserves the thoughtful consideration of all Canadians. Their future is involved. He spoke very plainly.
At best, he said, the Canada pension plan is "well-intentioned bungling and, at worst a colossal fraud." It is a "creature of propaganda and fear."
It is "designed to charm money out of the people's pockets" by using the pension label to get development funds for the provinces.
It is unwarranted big government intrusion into the life insurance field-into private enterprise.
What politician can make a convincing rebuttal to Mr. Kroeker? For the Canada pension plan is clearly a huge new taxation scheme.


Mr. Byrne:: Are you going to vote for it?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: No, I am not going to vote for it. I am a man of conviction; I am not a trained donkey like you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am not going to vote for it. I speak for my people and I speak for the people of Canada. You are a trained seal.

You will do what you are told and you will vote for it.


Mr. Millar:: You asked a question; you got an answer.


Mr. Francis:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that remarks are normally addressed to the Chair; and if so, I think you should take exception to those remarks.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: What about your member; did he address his remarks to the Chair?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, there is the Liberal contribution to the pension plan. They get up on a point of order. I would like to hear the hon. member get up and give his version of this plan.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I did.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You have just got back.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think it might be just as well if we confined our remarks to clause 1 of the bill. I would ask the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose to continue.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand this is a general discussion. I have been very quiet throughout the proceeding, but if these Liberal backbenchers, the trained seals, want to interrupt, that's fine; I will have an answer for them all. Let them chirp up; it doesn't bother me a bit. I think it is my responsibility as a member of parliament to place my views on the record of this House of Commons. I am opposed to this scheme and I will vote against it. I am a man of principle; I am for free enterprise; and I am not a socialist.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Take your place with the Creditistes.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: There is the charming lady, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, babbling again. I don't know what she said, but I don't suppose it was very important.
I would like to quote from another very interesting newspaper article the view of the Canadian people. I will read from the Glengarry News. I want to get on the record what the Canadian people say about what is going on in this parliament, and their views about this particular vote catcher which the Liberals have. They are hoodwinking the Canadian people, and they will not know what they voted for until a few years from now, when their taxes go up and these deductions are made from their wages. This article says:

We've never met Miss Judy LaMarsh, who happens to be federal minister of health, and we were thinking that's a blessing when we read the opening lines of her speech in the House of Commons, Friday.
This pension plan could have been through, except for that speech. This editorial goes on to say:
The house had finished three weeks of pensions' debate during which the pension plan had been discussed clause by clause. It was moving on to discuss lowering the age for the present old age security pension, a change which is to be written into the bill, when Miss LaMarsh touched off a three-hour debate with a speech glowing with political and maternal pride.
This is what she said:
''I often see myself in a maternal role as mother of this, my baby".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Isn't that charming? Every baby must have a father. Who was he? Was it Tom Kent, Mr. Lesage, the Minister of National Revenue? Who was the father of this child?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It wasn't Robarts.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This is very interesting:
"Like a mother, I am fiercely jealous of my progeny, and I do not like people to call it misshapen or warped or anything but as beautiful as it appears to me".
She got so sentimental that she had us all crying over here. This editorial continues:
That's when we gagged and quit reading the gushing tripe. That's when we decided members of the house are earning their $18,000 if they have to sit and bear that mawkish pseudo-sentiment. That's when we made up our minds there should be a law against allowing single women to run for parliament, and a heavy iron curtain should keep them out of the cabinet.
They are more suspicious than I am:
This is her baby, this premature plan for pensions which is ill-conceived and which we cannot afford.
I agree with that:
IU-conceived it must be, for it is the progeny of a maiden lady.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This is interesting because it illustrates what the people across the country are saying about this plan:
Why should we the people be expected to support it when it is so palpably illegitimate?
The Commons should turn it over to the children's welfare or some other agency whose business it is to look after monstrosities. Prime Minister Pearson should provide a pup or a kitten for Miss LaMarsh; something to satisfy her maternal instincts.
Canada Pension Plan
That is what the people across Canada are saying about this plan. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a welfare measure and I know it is not popular to vote against welfare measures. But a welfare measure that leaves out hundreds of thousands of Canadians and imposes a huge burden on future generations cannot be accepted in silence. The government has plunged ahead with reckless haste in this measure. The minister was in a state of frenzy immediately after the election to get a plan, some kind of a plan, before the public. They brought forward a half-baked version that was immediately shot down in flames by business, farmers, labour and the provinces. They came out with another version that they could not sell to the provinces. Then Mr. Lesage got them off the hook by producing a version that was acceptable to the other provinces.
It was accepted because it offered a tremendous fund of $8 billion into which the provinces could dip with no federal control. This is one of the mysteries of this plan. I ask, Mr. Chairman, what control do we as a parliament exercise over the disposal of this fund? As far as I can see, the answer is none. Therefore we are taxing every person in Canada who has a job, or is in business, who is a farmer, a fisherman, or is on a payroll, in order to set up a huge fund with which the federal government can buy the support of the provinces. This fund will be set up with 3.6 per cent of the worker's payroll cheque.
People are being taxed twice what they ought to pay in regard to the benefits they are receiving, simply so this fund can be established. I cannot accept that it is parliament's job to set up huge funds having no defined purpose and to be spent outside the control of parliament, and that we should tax the Canadian taxpayer for such an unnamed and undefined purpose. I can say very definitely that people in my riding do not want to be taxed in order to set up a fund for provincial governments to play with. Thousands of people in my riding will derive little or no benefit from this scheme. In the first place, it leaves out the very people whose support the Liberal party sought when they promised a new pension plan in the last election. They were going to give to those people a new heaven and a new earth; that is, to the old age pensioners. Not one old age pensioner today will get any substantial benefit, except a slight cost of living rise, from this plan. No one now on old age pension in my riding will come under this plan.

Canada Pension Plan
In fact, no such person in all of Canada will come under this plan. This means that a million people will be left out. These are the very people the Liberals promised this new plan to; and now they have cast them aside.
I cannot agree with this procedure either by remaining silent or by voting in favour of the plan. As far as these pensioners are concerned, they are getting $75 a month now for the simple reason that we in the Conservative party, with no help from any other party in this house, forced the government to come through on their behalf. The Liberal party had left them with $46 a month, and even that was grudgingly handed out.
We raised it to $65 and hon. members opposite were going to leave it there; but we forced them up to $75. They showed that they had some sense of shame, which is something that has been lacking in that party ever since. Now they are leaving it at $75 and will leave millions of Canadians out in the cold.
I say that this is a crime against the present old age pensioners of this country. What of those whose incomes do not permit them to qualify? The sum of $600 may not seem much to hon. gentlemen opposite. I also realize it does not mean much to the Minister of Agriculture, after his having announced the farm policy for eastern Canada and stated that they could make a living out of six cows and two sows. Many people in my riding and the farmers of eastern Canada have not an income of $600 and they are going to be left completely out of this plan. Hon. gentlemen opposite have never thought of these people. They do not care about the small farmers, or the fishermen in Newfoundland, or the fishermen in all these places.
In view of these shortcomings surely it would be much simpler, more honest and easier to administer if the present flat rate pension were increased so that all those who are now on pension and those who would otherwise get little would at least get something under the plan which is not presently supplied.
I also understand that this plan will require every Canadian to carry a card with a number on it. This number will be supplied to the income tax department which will be collecting revenue for this plan. I want to say to the minister that I come from a long line of Canadians who are not accustomed to carrying cards with numbers on them. There are many people in my riding who have had experience in other countries of being required to carry a card bearing a number

and other identifying information. These people have seen the use to which these cards can be turned in exercising control over ordinary citizens. They do not like the idea of carrying such a card in a free country. If this government is going to force us to carry a card it is taking away our freedom. Out in western Canada they treat us like cattle. We turn the cattle out on the range in the spring, and we have a tattoo machine stencil a number on their ears. Perhaps the minister of national health would consider taking that step instead of requiring us to carry a card. They treat us like cattle anyway, so let them tattoo us on the ear and be done with it.
To these people from other countries the carrying of this card stands for regimentation and bureaucracy. This card will identify people for purposes of unemployment insurance, national revenue, social security and perhaps other matters. All the information contained in the files of other persons' incomes will be made available to these departments from the cradle to the grave. I and a great many other Canadians fear that by this process the government is erecting a gigantic system of regimentation and bureaucracy under which no person in this country will be able to call his soul his own.


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


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Certainly; I would love to have a question from you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I came down because I heard that the hon. member was speaking, and in view of his name I thought it was my duty to listen to him. I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman whether his soul is his own, or if it belongs to the Lord?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Well, I must confess I do not know how my namesake ever got mixed up with the Liberal party; the Lord only knows. But I can say that at the present time my soul belongs to me. I hope some day it belongs to the Lord, and I wish the same for you.
We know from the Minister of National Revenue that the annual cost of administration alone when the plan gets rolling will amount to $20 million. That is a lot of money. It will require 3,000 civil servants beyond the staff presently employed. These are figures we were given. Knowing the propensity of bureaucracy to multiply, I would say that these figures are only preliminary figures and that they will at least double in time.

Does that not look like regimentation to you, sir?
I should like to put some figures on record, because I predict that in ten years these figures will double. I went to the trouble to look into another government scheme under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, a scheme administered by this government, in order to prove what I am going to put on record. I got these figures from the P.F.A.A. The cost per claim in 1956 was $2.51. In 1963 the cost per claim had risen to $5.46, which is more than double. Therefore I say to the members of this committee that we will find that in 10 years the cost of this scheme will double, that taxation will go up and we will be putting a further burden on the future generations of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Hon. members opposite laugh.


Mr. Munro:: I am not laughing.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: We cannot tell whether you are or are not. As far as I am concerned this plan is an administrative monstrosity. It leaves out many thousands of Canadians. It does the most for those who need it the least. It leaves out those who need it the most. It saddles future generations with a tremendous bureaucratic load in addition to the load which Canadians are carrying now by way of high taxation. Whether you call it a payroll deduction or something else, it is still a tax at a time when taxes are already too high. There are millions of Canadians who would be satisfied with an increase in the present pension to $100 a month. To a man and wife this would amount to $200 a month, and it should be paid to everybody without distinction. That is worth a thought, because it is not the case under the plan today. We are leaving out millions of people who need help.
If this were done, Mr. Chairman, there would be room for consideration regarding medical care, which to many is at least as important as this present plan. The government has given no consideration at all to the Hall report and the drawing up of the plan on medical services. Once this present plan is in effect with its payroll deductions it will be most difficult to proceed with a plan to provide medical care service. The two should have been integrated toy the government. There should have been an increase in the present flat rate pension and the introduction of a new plan for medical serv-
Canada Pension Plan
ices. This has not been done. Therefore, I am compelled to vote against a plan that covers only half the field.
It leaves out more than two million people and it will cost a great deal of the Canadian taxpayers' money to administer. I am afraid that in accepting this plan we face the danger of imposing upon the Canadian people a gigantic system of regimentation which will leave the people of Canada at the mercy of a numbered card and a government computer.
The greatest task we have in this country is the development of our resources. How can we do this when we are diverting our national income into setting up a system which will give government final and ultimate control over the individual well-being of every citizen in this country?
Finally, I hope the government will give some consideration and thought to those millions of people who have been left out of this plan. I hope the government will give some thought to the future generations of this country who are going to be taxed heavily in order to carry out the plan. We all know it is election bait, but we are not concerned about that. I would sooner oppose it and get only 10 votes, because it is no good. The government is leaving out too many people in this country and is taxing future generations for years to come. I hope the government will give these matters some consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to take part briefly in the discussion on clause 1 of the pension plan.
Some may wonder why we from Quebec, who will not be affected by the federal pension plan, have any objection to it. The reason is simple, Mr. Chairman. It is because that federal plan was prepared in cooperation with certain people in the province of Quebec, so that the federal and the Quebec pension plans would be, in the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare herself, comparable or practically similar, in order to have a portable pension.
But we do not want a pension plan such as the one conceived, prepared and put forth by the federal or provincial government. And, I should like to take the opportunity which my presence in this house affords me to lodge a protest against this pension plan which will be imposed upon us later by the Quebec government; I also take the opportunity which is afforded me here, in Ottawa, to discuss this pension plan which is comparable

Canada Pension Plan
to the Quebec plan and to protest against the comparable plan which will be passed by the Quebec legislature.
Why are we protesting? The answer is quite simple. First of all, we are protesting because this plan tends to destroy the freedom of the individual since this will be a compulsory plan. Whether we like it or not, we will have to contribute to and pay taxes for the administration of this pension plan.
Take, for instance, a man 30 years of age who is suffering from cancer and who, according to the doctor, has but two years to live; this man will nevertheless continue to work for a year, fully aware that he will never benefit from the pension plan at 65 years. Nevertheless, he has to keep on contributing, knowing very well that he will get nothing out of it. This is the trouble with a compulsory plan. The individual is deprived of his liberty to act freely, to decide for himself what is good for him.
Mr. Chairman, we are against this plan because, first of all, it is a compulsory plan. We believe the Canadian citizen is intelligent enough to choose between various pension plans put forward by the federal or provincial governments or by private firms; he is intelligent enough to choose his own pension plan. We are against it because this is more or less a new tax and because we are trying to hide it in an hypocritical and sneaky way more than the others.
The government claims it is setting up a pension plan when, in fact, it is merely seeking to further deprive the public by accumulating funds in the federal treasury. It recognizes that there will be an accumulation of funds but it claims that this will constitute savings. That is what it calls compulsory savings. Savings for whom? For the man who will contribute, save and get benefits? If that were the case, the people could benefit from the scheme but no, it is the federal and provincial governments which will use those savings to make profits. This hidden tax will not benefit the citizen who will be forced to save but the government which will use those funds as it sees fit.
We claim that personal income is already overtaxed. Not so long ago, I pointed out that a 4 per cent old age security tax is levied against income. From now on, a further 3.6 per cent will be added for the pension plan. The private citizen has to pay unemployment insurance, union dues, and health insurance premiums; I am sure that before long most

Canadians will be more interested in getting their pay cheque stub than the cheque itself.
More money will be withheld than can be distributed. This is another tax which will not produce its equivalent for the individual.
We also protest against the fact that according to this pension scheme, too much is taken away as compared to what will be returned.
The other day the hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau) furnished examples of private companies' pension plans, and it was easy to see that with the same amounts of money being collected annually by the private companies, the individual received more, much more, at the age of 65, and that if he died before reaching the age of 65, his widow and his children received much more than under the federal plan or under the provincial pension scheme. Moreover, we protest against this pension plan since the well-to-do people, those who earn the higher salaries, will pay a lesser percentage of the taxes, under this pension plan, than those who earn smaller salaries.
Let us consider the case of an individual earning a yearly salary of $18,000. He is taxed only on $5,000, whereas the one who earns a yearly salary of $5,000 will be taxed at the same rate, on the $5,000. This means that the individual earning a salary of $18,000 will pay three times less, as a percentage, for his pension plan, than the one earning $5,000. The well-to-do will therefore pay a lower percentage of taxes-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am certain my hon. friend does not intend to mislead, but if the translation was correct he said in the flow of his oratory that an individual who made $5,000 would be taxed on the full $5,000. I am sure the hon. member for Beauce has told my hon. friend that the taxation is from $600 to $5,000 and not on the first $5,000.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there might be some mistake. A person earning $5,000 will be taxed on the minimum and maximum amounts of $600 and $5,000; someone who earns $18,000 will not be taxed on the amount exceeding $5,000 for the purpose of the pension plan. Therefore, an amount of $13,000, that is, the difference between $18,000 and $5,000, will not be taxable for the purpose of the pension plan. It is thus an advantage for those earning large salaries; the percent-

age of taxes will therefore be lesser on every $1,000 of their salary than in the case of the worker earning only $5,000.
I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) shaking his head, but this is exactly what the minister has just explained. As a matter of fact, a person earning $18,000 will be taxed on the difference between $600 and $5,000, but not on the excess from $5,000 to $18,000.
But, the individual earning $5,000 will be taxed on his whole salary, except $600. Consequently, it is easy to understand that high-salaried employees will pay a lower percentage of taxes for each $1,000 they earn, as compared to those who earn a salary lower than $5,000.
What is still more peculiar, is that the high-salaried employees will pay a lower percentage of taxes, but will get much more in return. Therefore, it is those people who are favoured all through their working years that will be most favoured when they reach age 65. The rich pay less but get more.
Furthermore, we protest against this pension plan because there are too many people forgotten. Thus, the worker who is unemployed for many years, and particularly during the last five or ten years of his life, and who has reached 65 years of age, will still suffer hardship, under this pension plan, while the other one who has earned a good salary all his life, who had a chance to put some money aside, will get a pension which will not be so very high, but at least he will get one. And, here again, the one who has lived in hardship all his life, who has received unemployment insurance benefits and social welfare allowances will once again be forgotten, at the age of 65.
Mr. Chairman, many reasons could be used to protest against this pension scheme, whether it is established by a provincial or the federal government.
We believe this measure has not been thought out long enough. It seems to us that the criticisms that have been heard in recent months should have opened the eyes of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and those of the Minister of National Revenue, so that they should have introduced a better plan than the one now under consideration.
As a matter of fact, why has not anyone thought of asking for suggestions from insurance companies? Why are no suggestions being asked for? I am sure the majority, if not all, of the companies that offer retirement plans would ask lower premiums than the federal
Canada Pension Plan
government is asking for at present. When an individual needs something, he should be free to approach those who can offer their services to him.
For instance, let us consider life insurance. The individual can choose his life insurance company.
Why should the same privilege not be granted a Canadian citizen respecting his pension plan? Why should the federal government not ask tenders from companies which offer pension plans and ask them the amount of their premiums toward a pension plan which would pay a certain superannuation to people who have reached the age of 65?
I am convinced that many companies would suggest premiums at a much lower rate, while offering higher benefits for a person reaching the age of 65.
However, tenders were not called and figures were not asked for. A system was established merely to accumulate funds, because at present the government is having difficulty in finding new funds. As a matter of fact, the government has borrowed so much over the last 25 years that it finds it practically impossible to do it today. Its only other source of revenue is to tax the Canadian people more, ostensibly to set up a pension plan, in order to accumulate funds to be used to develop some areas of the economy when the capital needed for the development of the Canadian economy should come from somewhere else than the Canadian taxpayers' pockets.
Mr. Chairman, we are not against the government finding capital to develop the economy, but we are against that capital being taken from the Canadian citizen. We are against that method because the Canadian citizens do not have enough money to five on as it is and more will be taken from them.
Mr. Chairman, on the motion for third reading, it is our intention to move an amendment to separate part IV of the bill from the three other parts, that is, we shall ask that the house vote on two different bills. First, the pension plan with premiums and benefits paid at the age of 65 and second, the continuation or improvement of the old age pension, such as it is now.
It seems to me that we should be allowed to vote on each part of the bill separately, since they do not have the same purpose, their terms are different, and they are not at all similar. We are going to ask that those two parts of the bill be kept separate and

Canada Pension Plan
we shall vote in favour of Part IV, while insisting that the old age pension be paid to everyone as of now, at age 65 without a means test, and at 60 with a means test.
Further, we shall ask an increase of the old age pension up to $100, and its payment to the wife as soon as her husand reaches 65 years.
Nowadays, Mr. Chairman, Canadian workers in industries, factories and other works are retired at 65. From then on, not only the husband but also the wife and all the family can no longer count on the salary of the family head because the latter, being 65 years old, is retired.
We suggest that the old age pension be paid to the husband and the wife as soon as the head of the family reaches 65 years old; that would solve the problem of the retired factory or industry workers. By giving $200 to a married couple the problem would be solved.
We then advocate the granting of the old age pension to everyone at 65 years old, without a means test, and at 60 years old following a means test, and that this pension amount to $100 a month and is given to both the wife and the husband when the latter is forced to be retired at 65 years of age. That would solve the problem and there would be no longer need for this pension plan and the taxes involved.
Mr. Chairman, we intend to move an amendment to that effect on third reading of the bill because we note that workers have continually fought for a salary increase. What is disgraceful is that the federal and provincial governments, municipalities and school boards all make a dash for the worker's pay cheque to try and take a little more out of it. So much so that when workers do get a raise, it does not show on their cheques because the government cashes in on those increases by levying new taxes. The government increases taxes and the pay keeps going down.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that in a country as immensely rich as Canada, a country with multiple and numerous possibilities, there must be enough to satisfy all Canadians at the age of 65 while leaving to the workers their whole remuneration for their work. There should be enough in Canada for people 65 years old to have a reasonable standard of living, as well as the workers.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not given enough consideration to her
[Mr. Gregoire.l
pension plan. She has gone the wrong way about it. This is rather a tax, and the plan was never a social security measure. On the contrary, it has always been a way of impoverishing the general public.
No one will ever make me believe that taxes make people grow rich and constitute measures of social security. I think taxes impoverish Canadian families. People will have to work from 18 to 65 years of age in order to pay taxes or contributions to this pension plan and once they are 65 years old, the amounts already paid will still not be sufficient to permit them to have a decent standard of living.
We ask the minister to consider this carefully.
On the other hand, through the House of Commons I ask the legislature of the province of Quebec to be very careful not to pass such a plan, because taxes in Quebec have gone up so much in the last four years that the population cannot stand further taxes. According to the minister this pension scheme will be comparable to that of the province of Quebec, and I believe I have the right to take this opportunity to request the Quebec government not to accept a scheme comparable to that intended for the whole of the country, since this will only bring about an increase in taxes and weaken the economy of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, there is enough for everybody. Why tax some to give to others? The Minister of National Revenue, who is always on the lookout for new sources of revenue in order to meet expenditures, should consider a new economic system which would make it possible to distribute today the existing wealth, rather than to take away people's salary today in order to give it back to them later on. There is now plenty of production and wealth in Canada. Then, let the worker keep his salary, because he earned it, so that he may buy the production which exists in our country at this time.
Under the present system, a part of the income of Canadian citizens is always taken away from them.
On behalf of Canadian citizens throughout the country, who are fed up with taxes levied by all governments and with having their salary stolen by the federal government and the minister responsible for federal income tax, we want to protest against this pension plan which, as has already been said, is nothing but a national barbotte to take money out of the pockets of Canadian citizens.


Mr, Langlois:: Mr. Chairman, I think as a member of this committee I have an obligation to point out my different objections to this bill, and I do so after having listened attentively to some of the speeches made on the first clause and some of the arguments presented on other clauses.
After looking over the bill as it is, I am more than ever confused. The first six months I was in the house I wondered why I was elected: Since then I wonder how anybody else was elected. With a bill like this I am positive there is something wrong. It is very complicated, in fact the most complicated lot of lies and bluffs that have ever been structured into a bill and presented to the house for adoption. That you can be sure of.
The people of Canada might not know what they have in front of them or what is coming upon them fairly soon, because as I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare last week on a television broadcast presenting this Bill C-136, the picture looked fairly good. I must congratulate the minister on the work done on that television program. I wish she could explain it just as well in the house, all the clauses of the bill as a whole. The picture was a colourful one, and I am sure brought a lot of honest thinking Canadians to the point of thinking that this was a good welfare measure and a good deed for them, and that it was another instance of the almighty Liberal government again dishing out goods and services throughout the country. But you can be sure that when this bill will come into operation the reactions are going to be somewhat different from what they are today.
In fact, if you inquire of some of the electors, the people of Canada, who will be affected by this plan, you will find that some of them are starting to have very serious doubts, and these doubts are going to be better and better founded as time goes by. The reason is not so much that they understand the bill as a whole but that they are catching glimpses of it here and there, and they do not like the smell of it.
Any hon. member who looks through it, and at its application now and in the years to come-more so in the years to come-cannot help having some objections to the bill. I for one am opposed to the principle of this bill because it is not one which permits a person to participate in its benefits because he wants them, but rather it is one from which a person will benefit because he has to. It is
Canada Pension Plan
only a different form of taxation. Look at it whatever way you wish, you still have a tax; and it is a strait-jacket, no matter how you look at it. It is a taxation method that is hypocritical and it is applied in the Robin Hood sense whereby you take from the rich and give to the poor.
This has been the general way of functioning of our government, that they tax the rich and give it to the poor-take away from Albert and give it to Peter; then take from Peter and give to Jacob; then take from Jacob and give it to the other guy. Finally you don't have any more interest in it-you just spread it around. That certainly does not help the situation any more. At the moment we are taxing sufficiently to build up a fund for the federal government varying between $5 billion and $7 billion. In fact I have an article here from the Winnipeg Tribune of February 25 that underlines this fact.
This bill is becoming the basis of a political auction to be used to attract voters in the next election. It is right here in the Winnipeg Tribune; this is the headline- "Social Security Auction". Most people, especially those who do not have a mathematical sense, do not understand exactly how large a sum $5 billion is; they cannot visualize it when they think only of a round figure with a "five" and nine zeros. It can be expressed in different ways, however, and this is what the Winnipeg Tribune does. Anyway, this is what the Tribune has to say about this particular bill:
Anyone who was naive enough to hope that the Canada pension plan would end political bidding in old-age security must feel sadly disappointed. Political parties and individual M.P.'s have responded to the scheme by initiating an auction for votes worse than anything in the past quarter of a century.
There are calls for blanket increases in amounts of pensions and for introduction of new categories of beneficiaries from all sides of the house. The result is that the plan is now a hopeless mixture of political insurance and political welfare.
The bidding can have very serious effects in future because of the vast sums of money involved. A recent issue of the "Mercer Actuarial Bulletin" gives an idea of the meaning of some of the figures being bandied about. Here is what it says:
The Canada pension plan is expected to create a fund which will reach $5 billion by 1975.
How much is $5 billion? Putting it in terms of time and terns of amounts we can better visualize, here are several ways of defining $5 billion.
If a 21 year old set out to spend $25,000 per hour, 8 hours a day, every week of the year, he would have to live to age 117 to achieve his objective.
That is an awful lot of money, and the government will have it in its treasury. It will accumulate, with interest upon interest,

Canada Pension Plan
and become an instrument oi enormous potential in the hands of any administration. Here is another example from the newspaper.
If you laid $5 billion in $1 bills end to end, they would encircle the earth at its equator 20 times.
A lot of money. Another example:
If a business had commenced operations in the year 1 A.D. with $5 billion capital and did so poorly that it lost $200,000 per month, every month, it could still operate for over another 100 years before it had lost its original $5 billion.
And so on. The article concludes by saying that even by current standards these figures are impressive.
To be sure they are. Yet this is what the government is imposing upon the Canadian people, and imposing by force-another tax totalling 3.6 per cent including what the employer has to pay and what the employee has to pay. Indeed, some hon. members have maintained during the discussion of one of the clauses in detail-I do not remember which clause-that the employer would have to pay more than 4 per cent rather than his share of the 3.6 per cent, because he would have to pay twice in the same year. This is a heavy burden to impose upon Canadian citizens who are already overtaxed and who are being squeezed out of the benefits which they could derive from Canadian production today because they lack sufficient purchasing power. Some people say we are facing overproduction today. This is not the case. What we have is under-consumption and the present bill will not help at all in such a situation.
As my hon. friend from Lapointe mentioned, there are wide inequalities in the rates of contribution according to the tax brackets within which individual taxpayers fall. This is sheer discrimination. If there is a principle involved, the law should apply across the board. This does not mean the law is a good one, but it is bad enough as it is without our making it worse. I do not agree with this aspect of the plan in its present form. First, there are far too many Canadian workers who do not have the possibility of earning $600. Again, those who do earn this sum and who work outside the country will not be able to benefit. I do not see the point of having a pension plan and advertising that it will cover all Canadians when in fact so many people will not be eligible. No matter how small a minority they represent, these people I have mentioned should be considered.

It is said that the province of Quebec will have its own plan. That is all right, but the plan has to be comparable with the one now before us. This will make them both bad. Today we heard the minister tell us that this bill is designed to ensure a decent retirement for our older citizens. As a result of this plan, she says, they can retire with a little ease and peace of mind. How can you talk about decent retirement when you have indecent living for 45 years of your labouring life? People have to slave each day of the year before reaching the age of 65, and by that time the cost of living will have increased so much that a new plan will be needed. Another thing which occurs to me is this: How does the minister propose to pay these pensions to all who will have retired in 40 years from now in view of the possibility -and the Financial Post talks about this- that only 20 per cent or 15 per cent of the population will be working, due to the impact of automation? Those workers will be contributing to the plan, but what about the rest? It was put forward with a tremendous fanfare and a great deal of window dressing. It was going to be good for the unemployed.
Since then we have unemployed; we have reached that stage today-and where do we stand? We are still standing in the same spot, off the road where we were standing when this program was set up. In fact we are worse off today because we have to pay them all. At that time we were thinking mainly of full time jobs, but today part time work has been brought in and these people are also receiving unemployment insurance benefit. What is going to happen to this plan when the situation comes about when we have only a small proportion of the people working because of automation and progress in this country? Are we going to do the same thing that we do now, put these people into holes for winter work and get them shovelling with long-handled shovels; because they have to work under the winter works program to get paid and get off unemployment assistance.
Things have not changed since the dirty thirties, as we used to call them. I think it was the hon. member for Chapleau who mentioned a little while ago that we like to call things by different names today from those that were used some years ago. This is a fact. In 1942 they did not like to call it conscription; they called it mobilization at that time. It was a better word because people did not know exactly what it was until they were brought in under it, and then they knew what it was. But it was the same thing. We

do not like to call these payments "relief', so we call it the winter works program. What is the difference between the relief of the 1930's and the winter works program of 1965? You still have to get out and shovel. Some of the work that is done today I saw done 20 years ago with mechanical shovels. Today it is all done with human arms and ordinary, long-handled shovels.
We will not solve these problems by putting on plasters of this sort; and this pension plan is just a plaster. In fact, it is more than a plaster; it is a plaster that sucks the Canadian economy dry, just as much as any bloodsucker could. When this Canada pension plan has been in operation for ten years, what will have happened to our Canadian economy? We will have a fund for the pension, but there will not be anything in the pockets of the people. Canadian production will surely be going up. You will have underfed people in the country. And we will be standing there like a bunch of ducklings, not knowing what is wrong or what happened to us. I am telling you now, Mr. Chairman, that this is the same procedure that has been applied in the past in a system that does not work, a system that is mathematically wrong. Today we are applying this pension plan in the wrong way. That is why I am opposed to the principle of the bill. After a man has worked from the age of 18 until he is 65-47 years-in this country

the best years of his life-working for progress, the welfare and the benefit of all Canadian citizens and contributing his share to our society, I think he deserves from this country a share larger than he will have been obliged to contribute in the form of a tax called a contribution under the Canada pension plan.
With regard to the proprietor or the owner of a company, this is what happens in their business; the more the company produces, the more profits he makes, the larger are the dividends to the shareholders. Why do we not operate this country in a logical way, in the way in which a private company is operated, namely in accordance with its development? Consider the debt this country has today. The Minister of Finance has just given us the estimates for the year 1965-66. If you look at the service on the debt of this country, what has to be paid out in interest and other forms of payment in respect of borrowed money-


Mr. Alkenbrack:: It is $1 billion a year.


Raymond Langlois: -we are paying over $1 billion a year, which is completely wrong.
Canada Pension Plan
If you consider all the debts of this country, private enterprise, provincial, school board, municipal and federal, you realize that we are more in debt than the amount of our gross national product. Where do we stand in relation to the time we discovered this country when the Indians had it? They did not have any debts at that time. They did not have anything else either, but they at least did not have any debts; they broke even. Today we are in the hole, after working for 200 or 300 years. The more we seem to develop this country, the deeper in debt we go. This is because something is wrong somewhere. We have enough natural resources in this country and enough potential to give everyone of the 19 million Canadians in this land the guarantee of three meals a day, whether now or at age 65. There are too many people in this country who are underfed and in misery at the moment. I say misery, Mr. Chairman, and it is a fact. They are underfed and have not the purchasing power to provide the needs for their families and themselves. We have this problem today, with 19 million citizens. What do we expect the position to be if our population ever increases to 50 million? We cannot look after the 19 million people that we have now, and therefore I do not see how we are going to look after 50 million. We have too many who are starving at the moment.
This pension plan is not going to help at all. At the moment it is a tax, but for how long? I know it is supposed to be paid at age 65, but at the moment it will permit the government to do anything it wants to do with this money-lend it, change it around, deposit it here, deposit it there, lend it to any cabinet minister and his ministry. In other words, the Minister of National Revenue should put on the tax himself and say it is just another tax. That would serve the same purpose as it is going to serve now. It is a far off election promise that when a man reaches 65 years of age he is going to have this pension; but it is just that. The people are going to find this out once they start paying into this octopus that will suck the Canadian economy dry.
The kind of pension plan that I would like to see operating in this country would be one based on national dividends. If a private company can pay dividends throughout the year, you should also receive dividends from the country. The more you develop your country, the more the dividends should be. It is a logical thing that the more you develop something, progress makes advances.

Canada Pension Plan
People who are working today, perhaps in five or ten years time will not be working because of progress and automation. Machinery will do the same work that human hands are doing now. They will do it cheaper and faster. And for whom will they be doing it? They will be doing it for the Canadian consumer. How is he going to buy the things he needs if he is not working? That is when the government will have to give him a national dividend with which to buy the production of the machines that will be functioning across this country. Such a national dividends system would replace this national octopus that we have today, which will squeeze, slowly but surely, the lifeblood of the Canadian citizens and the labour force across the country.
Whether it be a provincial or federal plan -a provincial plan would have to be comparable to this one-it would have the same effect. It would be cleaning the taxpayers' pockets more than at the present time.
The Liberal government knows that this is a tax. I asked the Minister of National Revenue in the house the other day whether it was a tax, and he said it was a contribution. He said to call it a tax or whatever you want, but it is a contribution. Then on the radio the same week end he said it was a contribution. It is a contribution put on the people by means of a strait-jacket and it operates as a tax. So why does the government not say so? You can call it a contribution but you are obliged to pay it. Let them come out squarely and say so. If they did, the people would then open their eyes to this pension plan and see what is at the bottom of it.
The government promised a pension plan during the last election campaign, but they did not promise what kind. They forgot to mention the kind of plan it would be. They did not say it would be a tax. If they had, they might have received further repercussions from the people at the time. Everybody thinks that the pension plan is a good thing, but when they get into it they will find out what it is. For once anyway I am glad I am on this side of the house.
Someone sitting opposite me, Mr. Chairman, keeps interrupting and seems to be having a regular good time with his jokes. He keeps ejaculating things into the subject matter which have no place at all. And furthermore, he is doing so from his seat, which is very unbecoming to the house. This sometimes happens across the aisle, when you get these interruptions from members in their seats,

which I do not like and which the house has to endure. But I am sure that some of these people make a more intelligent sound from their seats, regardless of where they are.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to complete my argument about a national dividend, financing the plan through the Bank of Canada, the surplus thus supplying to the Canadian people the purchasing power missing today. Some people will say it is impossible to do this. I know it is impossible under the Liberal government; but they can do this sort of thing when it comes to stabilizing the pound sterling in England; $200 million went across there to stabilize their currency. Why can we stabilize the pound sterling but cannot do this for the Canadian citizens who are calling for old age security? Instead of having this pension plan, why not increase old age security to a reasonable level with which we are sure the people could live? When the minister brought in the pension plan she was pretty well aware that they could not live on $75 today. Why not raise this amount to an amount which would permit the senior citizens of this country to live as they should, having worked in this country for 20, 30, 40, or 50 years, the best years of their lives? This is a plan to which I object. Some will say that I am speaking only as a member from the province of Quebec. But that makes no difference; we are all citizens of Canada, and wherever there is injustice it is our duty to denounce it-just as it is my duty and obligation to denounce this plan as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, I hear some hon. members say "Oh, oh." As far as I am concerned, they could say "Ah, ah." and it would not bother me in the least.
I should like the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), to realize that there is no joy in an easy victory. That is why I should like to be counted among those who will give her great joy when the bill is finally passed.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to state what my constituents and I think of Bill No. C-136. I should also like to put forward further arguments in support of the claims I made yesterday when I said that in spite of the numerous experts who testified before the committee, no one really knows where we will end up with Bill No. C-136 or what will be its effects on our national economy.

And to prove my argument, I ask my colleagues to refer to report No. 8 of the proceedings and evidence of the special joint committee, and more particularly to page 137 where can be found extensive statements by the deputy minister of finance and other actuarial experts employed by the Canadian government. I also suggest that my colleagues take a look at pages 404 and 442 and they will have an idea of the work put out by the experts to set up the pension plan which led to Bill No. C-136. If you refer to page 406, after a few remarks concerning the economic implications of the Canada pension plan, you can read this:
While it is not possible to specify the exact effects of these transactions, nor the reactions to them, it is possible to form some view as to the potential size of their impact on the economy under varying assumptions, and to establish a range for the orders of magnitude which seem likely to be involved.
That is proof that they are not really certain of the possible implications. At page 407, the same experts admit that the pension plan will change the rate of spending and saving within each of the three main categories, consumers, enterprises and governments. In fact, here is what they say:
For the consumer group, the effects are twofold. The employee's contribution to the pension plan represents a reduction in his income, and this initially must bring about either a reduction in his spending or in his saving.
So, the experts recognize that there will be a reduction in the income of the employee, which of course will bring about a reduction in his spending and saving.
And I continue:
At the same time, the benefits paid by the pension plan represent income for a different group of consumers, the aged (or the disabled), whose ratio of spending out of income is high, and whose saving rate is low, or sometimes negative.
The net effect is thus to transfer income from individuals working to a particular group of consumers having a low rate of saving. After this initial impact, of course, the employee may succeed in gaining higher wages, which produces further effects which are taken into account below.
For the business group, the employer's contribution represents an addition to business costs. This increase in costs would initially bring about a reduction in profits, and thus a reduction in business savings, or in dividends paid out to shareholders, except to the extent that it may be offset through consequential price increases or the granting of smaller wage increases than would otherwise be granted.
Therefore, experts recognize that the Canadian economy as a whole may be strongly affected.
On page 407, those same experts state:
Canada Pension Plan
Despite lack of knowledge of the shifting and incidence process, it is possible to make a broad quantitative evaluation of the effects of the pension plan under certain assumed situations.
Mr. Chairman, this is always based on assumptions. I quote:
This can be done by specifying the conditions which mark off the upper and lower limits to the shifting process, then working out the quantitative implications at these limits. This is the procedure generally followed in the examples which are given in appendix "B".
Consequently one refers to appendix "B" and one can see that our economic experts, those who went so wrong in the present financial system, realized that millions of Canadian citizens will have to depend on social assistance.
When analysing another problem, the same experts tell us, as reported on page 408:
In addition to the problem of incidence, there are two sets of reactions which are difficult to judge in arriving at some assessment of the impact of the pension plan. The first involves the amount of private saving that will be diverted to this public plan.
Mr. Chairman, it is known that lots of money will be diverted. I quote:
To the extent that saving which has hitherto taken place in the private sector is now stored in the public sector, there is no effect on private spending, but simply a transfer of saving.
The second reaction to be considered involves the use to which provincial authorities put the pension fund reserves. If provinces increase their spending as a result of the pension plan, this would involve a transfer from private saving or spending to public spending. Some comments will be made subsequently on both these aspects.
Therefore, unless they build up on assumptions, even experts do not really know where the Canada pension plan will lead us.
Mr. Chairman, could we have order in this house? If some Quebec members are not interested in a measure upon which they may be called upon to vote tonight or tomorrow, at least they could give others an opportunity to listen.


An hon. Member:: We read the report.


Gérard Perron: I heard one of my hon. friends opposite say that they read the report. Most of them murder English and cannot understand the English text before they have read the French translation.
Even the experts do not know exactly what the effects will be upon the whole Canadian economy. There is one sure thing: the principle of it, which almost everyone admits. I may be the last one to speak on clause 1, and this reminds me that most people admit that a post is made to tie something to it.

Canada Pension Plan
Everyone admits the principle, but most do not know what animal will be tied to it; they do not know if a horse or some other animal will be tied to it. But within the socialist doctrine, all those who are willing to accept this bill should realize the scope of this principle.
Mr. Chairman, I claim that the pension plan, the principle of which is about to be adopted by almost every party in this house, is a compulsory system which makes democracy as odious as a dictatorship. With hypocrisy added to it, a democracy which compels people leaves them only the opportunity of choosing their policemen, the tax-levying people who govern by decree-for instance, consider the unemployment insurance-those who will have the right to search your pockets or grab you by the scruff of the neck if you are bold enough to ignore the regulations and the prohibitions.
Of all the government's social security schemes that now exist, this is one of the worst with regard to the principle. The increasing interest the government takes in social security leads to a political and economic dictatorship.
All those plans appeal to the people when they are presented as an election promise, which is what happened in 1963 when the Canadian people as a whole believed that the Liberal party, if elected, would give to the poor a universal pension ranging from $75 to $250 a month. That was the bait, the hook.
That reminds me of the fisherman who uses a firefly as bait. The plan is attractive and you can tell the people: Bite without giving it a second thought; it does not matter if the hook chokes you and kills you, as long as you eat.
Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that even experts do not know exactly where we are heading financially and economically with this plan. Care was taken, I admit, to include in the bill an indexing which will permit an increase in pensions according to the cost of living index. I should like to attempt to explain briefly to the supporters of this legislation the opinion given by financial experts during the study of this bill. I see that the minister completely disregards the principles of economics and especially the principles of freedom to which Canadian citizens are entitled. I hope he will change his mind before the third reading. It was further stated:
According to the cost of living index, the benefits index will be increased.

That is a fine precaution when no one knows what will happen under the inflationary system supported by the three other parties except the Ralliement Creditistes.
For the past several years, those systems have reduced the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar and melted the savings of those who denied themselves in 1935, 1940 and 1945, to put aside a few thousands dollars to have a few more comforts in their old age and who now find that their $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 in savings are worth practically nothing in Canada.
Page 142 of report No. 2 of the committee proceedings deals with the effects of the ever increasing cost of living. That is precisely why, to justify itself, the government added to the bill the provision regarding the cost of living related increase. Reference is made to a large number of countries which have set up identical, similar or comparable plans-less complicated perhaps, but comparable-which are based on the same monetary principles and, probably, on the same policy.
I wanted to mention those especially, because Denmark's and Sweden's social security programs are often referred to as being excellent. For instance, on page 136, after having dealt with the cost of living index increase, we can read:
The changes in this price index and in the basic amounts of the national pension that have occurred in the post-war period are summarized in table 1. The national pension (excluding supplements) for a single aged person living in Copenhagen rose from 2,388 kroner to 3,660 kroner between April 1946 and April 1959.
This is a substantial increase.
People often boast about Sweden's social security programs being most generous.
In this connection, on page 139, it is stated:
The first of these quarterly increments became payable in November 1950 when the pension price index (with June 1946 = 100) reached 108. Three more increments were added in May 1951, when the index jumped to 122. Others went into effect in August 1951 (index, 127), November 1951 (index, 130), May 1952 (index, 135), and August 1954 (index. 140). The index did not go above 144 during 1955, so that a total of eight increments continued to be paid throughout that year, equal to 40 per cent of the basic pension.
The plan advocated by our opponents is not inflationary? No, not much. All over the world, where benefit increases are based on the cost of living index, minimum pension increases are noted. We have another example of that on page 141. Here is a young country which, for many years has had no old age

pension plan such as the one now under consideration. Here is what is found in the state of Israel:
The national insurance law of 1953, which introduced contributory old age and survivors' insurance in Israel, established a system of flat rate pensions. The basic old age pension is fixed at 15 Israeli pounds a month for a single person; it is increased to 225 pounds if the pensioner has one dependent, 285 pounds if he has two, and 34 pounds if he has three or more dependants.
There is added, however, to the basic amount paid every pensioner a supplementary cost-of-living allowance. This allowance has become substantially larger than the basic pension itself.
I would advise those who often laugh when we speak of monetary systems whose scientific theories would allow a constant balance between the purchasing power and the use of products, goods and services offered to consumers through compensated discounts, providing a fair balance of prices, enabling the Canadian consumers to use up intelligently the things they produce, they import, they exchange in raw material or import from foreign countries, to study it more thoroughly.
Those who make fun of our monetary theories should seriously consider where we are going with our present financial system based on a tight money policy, money entirely produced by bankers who ration it out in times of peace and who are becoming masters of our lives: family life, social life, while becoming at the same time masters of parliament.
Did the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, not say in his recent recommendations that we should use bold formulas, be inventive so that Canada's prosperity may match the hopes of the Canadian people, be inventive and not resort to nearly all the contributory pension plans of all the other countries already subjected to this rigid system, to introduce Bill No. C-136.
And it is claimed that people will accept it, as I said a while ago, by taking the bait whatever the size of the hook, which will choke us afterwards.
Mr. Chairman, once more I hope that before final passage of this bill I will see some of my colleagues of the other parties take seriously into consideration this new political philosophy to which parliament is committing itself today with Bill No. C-136.
I remember a year ago when the Minister of Finance spoke to us about an 11 per cent tax on building materials. For two days, a representative of the Conservative party rose and he kept the Minister of Finance on the carpet to claim exemption from this tax for grain wagons in all western Canada.
Companies Act
I wonder if it would not be a good thing to do the same today on the occasion of examination of Bill No. C-136 which commits us for the coming years to a direction rather different from that chosen by my friends of other political parties in the House of Commons, who are aware that freedom is as important as security and that security and freedom can especially be provided to all Canadians in this beautiful, great and parties except the Ralliement Creditistes. try with a tremendous potential.
While we are only a small country with 20 million people, must we follow blindly the political philosophies of Beveridge and Karl Marx?
We should have enough foresight and imagination to use the Bank of Canada and allow provincial governments to use it, because those governments are now short of borrowing power, and that is why they are ready to accept this bill, because they know very well that this would be another source of revenue.
Let us be logical and let us think about the serious implications this will have before final approval is given to Bill No. C-136.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


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


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.



COMPANIES ACT

Hon. Waller L. Gordon (for the Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-22, to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
On clause 1.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the Secretary of State, who would normally be piloting this bill, I presume the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance will be replying to our questions. At this moment I believe it is encumbent upon me to make a few brief remarks with regard to these rather extensive amendments, which do not amount to a reintroduction or complete revision of the past Companies Act. Perhaps this would have been preferable. I think that time has intervened, and rather

Companies Act
than perhaps go another two, three or four years, the officials of the registrar's branch of the Department of the Secretary of State have preferred to bring forward these amendments to what was the Dominion Companies Act in order to bring it up to date and to meet the requirements of today, as well as to meet some of the recommendations of the committee on the drafting of a companies act, which has been meeting, to my knowledge, since about 1957. This is a clear example of where lawyers meeting together did not enter into precipitate action. Certainly the members of the banking and commerce committee gave this bill very extensive examination, with regard to the registrar of companies, and outside representations made to them. There was also intensive study given to it in the other place. In fact they entered into what I feel is an unprecedented course of action by setting up a special subcommittee which made proposals for amending the act.
A number of amendments have been proposed since the bill received third reading in the other place. This chamber is going to be asked to accept certain recommendations of the committee on banking and commerce, and therefore the bill will have to go back for concurrence to the other house. But as is usual in this sphere of what one would call lawyers' law, there is agreement between the other house and ourselves, and I think it will be a mere formality.
The members of this party are in agreement with the amendments incorporated in Bill S-22, but if I might express some preferences I wish to say I feel that within the sphere of company legislation in Canada there is a difference between those companies which are incorporated under letters patent and those incorporated under a memorandum of association. The Companies Act as amended will try to get the best from both sides. It has drawn inspiration from some of the advances made under the letters patent type of incorporation, and some from the side where memoranda of association prevail. It is a very conscious attempt to bring the legislation up to the modern standards of the new Ontario companies act, and of course there is the new Manitoba companies act.
I was reassured by the registrar that very close attention had been paid to the draft companies act put forward by the committee on uniform legislation. In Canada, where we now have such an interchange and interplay at the corporate level, we know we must try to establish uniform standards and powers. Those of us who have had some

experience, to a greater or lesser extent, of incorporating businesses either under a dominion charter or some provincial charter, and then engaging in foreign registration, know too well that we have encountered some very frustrating differences of opinion and differences of provisions whether at the statutory or regulatory level in the various provinces.
From the point of view of doing business in Canada it is incumbent upon us at all levels, whether at the federal or provincial legislative level, to see to it that we get as much of a uniform companies act as possible. This is one of the areas which tend to inhibit company expansion, and when I talk about company expansion I am really talking about business expansion, because there is hardly any real volume of business carried out today except under a corporate structure.
Under the provisions of clause 2 the act is to be renamed the Canada corporations act. This is a change from the old idea of the Dominion Companies Act, but I think the explanations furnished by the registrar were quite satisfactory.
As we proceed we shall see how the act has been developed, but at this stage I will limit my remarks to indicate that we in the opposition are generally satisfied with the provisions of the bill and are prepared to support it. There may have been some changes made in the committee with which I personally would not agree, but these were decisions by the committee and I do not think much harm was done to the bill by the deletions recommended.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this opportunity to say a few words on what is to become the Canada corporations act-the amendments to the Companies Act-chiefly because at some time in the past it has been, and perhaps very soon in the future it will again be, one of the statutes which will have great effect on my professional career.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, this is not the optimum which company lawyers in Canada would have preferred. I think it is generally agreed that if it had been possible to obtain the uniform draft companies act which was worked out in the late fifties, and has been before the profession since that time, it would have been an immensely preferable solution to the problem.
The Dominion Companies Act was last substantially changed in 1934, completing changes which had been undertaken the

previous year. Company law and commercial practice generally have developed since that time. Many of the proposed changes are long overdue and I think this bill is a good solution to what has been a difficult problem. I am pleased to note that in the preparation of the bill and the amendments, inspiration was taken from the provisions of the Ontario corporations act, which was enacted into the law of Ontario some ten years ago.
I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West comes from a jurisdiction in which the memorandum of agreement form is commonly used. I come from a province in which the letters patent form is used, and I believe that the breakdown that took place in communication on the uniform draft companies act was really between bridging these two points of view. I would second the hon. member's remarks as to the desirability, not only from the lawyer's standpoint but that of commercial men, that company law should be made uniform throughout Canada, so that decisions of the courts and commercial practice may be the same throughout the country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-"Court".
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad to see that the territorial court of the Northwest Territories has been brought within the ambit of those courts which will have jurisdiction with regard to corporations. I think it is a commendable provision, now that the territorial court is at the superior court level that it should be able to deal with all questions of corporate law and need no longer have recourse to the courts of the province of Alberta to which reference is usually made.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Definition of "mutual fund share".
Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 11 as amended in the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I take it, Mr. Chairman, you are noting the recommendations of the committee. I believe there is an amendment to clause 11.


Lucien Lamoureux: It was called as amended by the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Companies Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I beg your pardon.


Lucien Lamoureux: I repeat-clause 11 as amended by the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 16-Name of company.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is one of the areas in which there may be some difference in practice between certain jurisdictions. During the discussions in the committee I was anxious to be able to establish that an incorporated company might be able to carry on business under a name other than its incorporated name. This is an old, common law right but I think the present wording of the clause precludes this practice.
I am thinking, for instance, of a firm like T. Eaton (Western) Limited carrying on business and issuing invoices in the name of Eaton's. I know that a number of corporations, foreign companies, are registered under such names as, shall we say, "XY Company Limited". But these are very restrictive names as far as their operations are concerned, and they would like to be known as "XY of Canada Limited" because that is the way they intend to operate. It is my feeling they might come a cropper when seeking to operate in this way under the Companies Act.
As far as I am concerned I subscribe, in this field which concerns the qualifications for directorship and a few other things, to what might be called the Delaware theory. In other words I like to make it as easy as possible for a company to operate, so as to encourage the incorporation. There is still ample control possible, but for heaven's sake let us not introduce artificial barriers by prescribing difficult regulations. I had hoped that in this clause 16, which is the new clause 22 of the act, we might have had a little more flexibility. Those advising the hon. gentlemen in the other place, together with the registrar and the majority in the committee, did not go along with me so I will simply take the occasion to register my lone voice in the wilderness and ask for improvements in the future. I hope we shall ultimately see these things made possible. It is harmless from the point of view of the public and it is most efficacious from the point of view of ease of operation, and I am in favour of anything which makes a business operate more easily.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Companies Act
On clause 35-Qualifying after election or appointment.
Mr. Lamberi:: This is related to remarks I made on a previous clause with regard to ease of operation. Here again I would have hoped for a provision whereby a director could be named to a Canadian corporation without his having to be a shareholder. I know this is permissible under the Companies Act, provided the articles of association so provide, and I concede that in the case of many corporations where the board wishes to have a solicitor as secretary or treasurer there is no need to go through the complexities and the artificial procedures of having the solicitor apply for a share, go through the sham of paying for it, be registered as a shareholder and then conclude a trust agreement in which he signs a transfer in blank back to one of the controlling officers of the corporation, with the result that he does not have one penny invested in the business. I think it is a sham and a waste of time to go through all this and again I incline to what might be called the Delaware practice -and it is the Alberta practice in this case -that a director need not be a shareholder. This is very convenient, and the situation does not lend itself to subterfuge; as a matter of fact it eliminates subterfuge. It may apply in other jurisdictions-


An hon. Member:: Not Ontario.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, perhaps Ontario will catch up to us in the west some time. Ontario makes you run through the hoops for nothing, then. I would hope that we could convince the Canadian Corporations Act authorities to adopt this. At the present time, again, this is perhaps a cry from the outer wilderness to advance to a certain position, and I would heartily commend it to hon. members of this house who have some knowledge of corporate practice, in the ultimate revision of the act. I am not saying it should come in now, but in the ultimate revision of the act I think it should be a provision.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 39-Books of account and accounting records.
Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West made some reference to the deletion that was made in the committee. I think he was referring to section 121(f) which appears under clause 39 of this bill. The reason for the deletion of that subsection in the committee was essentially to
[Mr. Lambert.)
permit the disclosure of information by the Secretary of State. I think this is an important deletion and it is one that should perhaps have a word of explanation.
The subsection which was deleted required the Secretary of State to obtain the recommendation of the chief justice or the acting chief justice of the court of the province in which the head office of the company concerned was situated, and he would not be permitted to make public the documents filed with the department until that had been done. I think it was the feeling of the committee that this should not be the case; that this should be public information. I believe that particularly the modern trend in company affairs is that we should have a better informed public. It seems that more sophisticated companies rely on more and more disclosure to their shareholders and to the general public, and the committee and I felt there should be this sort of disclosure. I would like to put on the record some remarks by Professor Williamson with regard to this clause. These remarks appeared in the Business Quarterly in the spring of 1963 when he was discussing take-over bids and insider trading. He said:
The recent wave of take-over bids for Canadian companies-offers usually made by a corporation directed to the shareholders of another corporation to buy up all or part of its stock-has shown the highly speculative nature, in many cases, of the decision whether or not to accept an offer, and has made clear the serious disadvantages from which the shareholder, who must make this choice, may suffer.
Complaints have been frequent in recent months that in some take-over cases, where the offer was to purchase less than all of the stock of a company, substantial profits were made by an inside group that was able to accept an attractive offer quickly while other shareholders were too late. In addition, the lack of information available to the ordinary shareholder who receives an offer for his stock can be a very serious handicap.
In another article on the securities regulations in Canada he also had this to say about the Canadianization of Canadian industry. This is from an article which appeared, again, in the Business Quarterly in the summer of 1964:
The "Canadianizing" of industry in Canada, currently so popular in government circles, may turn out to be one of the greatest disasters in Canadian economic development unless individual Canadians show a greatly increased willingness to invest in common stocks of Canadian companies. And if they are to be persuaded to buy common stocks then the image of the Canadian stock market will have to undergo a drastic improvement.

He was suggesting that Canadians could not be made to invest in Canadian companies unless they were given much more information than they have been up to the present. I believe this is perhaps one of the very important amendments which was made by the banking and commerce committee. We were unable to find that such a restriction had been written into any of the companies acts in any of the other jurisdictions, and the commitee and I felt this was a very important deletion.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak for a moment on section 121(f), the disclosure section. I think that, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough pointed out, this is an essential and momentous section within the bill, in that if we are to encourage the public generally to acquire more equities in this country rather than put their moneys into savings, insurance, etc., and if in particular we are to achieve the objective that the Minister of Finance has indicated is so essential, namely buying back control of our own industries which have fallen into the hands of persons in other lands, I think it essential that the corporate name and the ownership of corporate entities be made fair, open, clear and distinct.
I think one of the factors which makes it very difficult to sell equity shares to the general public is the lack of information and knowledge that they can have of the dealings of corporations at the present time. We have had examples in the past few years of takeovers where the ordinary shareholder had absolutely no information of what was being done by insiders who were taking over these corporations. I believe that so long as this situation is extant, we are not very likely to get the average saver in Canada to invest his money in equities. It also, surely, is tragic when corporations that control some of our wealthiest natural resources, our most fabulous corporations in the natural resource areas, have two different financial statements. There is one for their American shareholders which, according to their S.E.C. regulations, must disclose all insider trading and any benefits to shareholders and directors; so if a Canadian who owns equity stock in one of these companies wants information, he has to get hold of the American shareholders' report. The Canadian shareholders' report does not require as nearly comprehensive information. I think if we are going to prevent the secrecy of corporate trading, if we are going to encourage public information in these 20220-811
Companies Act
areas which will enhance the possibilities of the average person investing in equity stock, and ultimately, we hope, result in these equities and the control of these Canadian corporations being once more vested in Canadians, we need a great deal more in the way of disclosure.
It is unfortunate that the uniform act could not have been accepted by all provinces so that in this area of disclosure we might have gone a lot further and a lot more effectively than we can with the Dominion Companies Act, when there are, of course, ten different entities and ten different corporations acts. Some of this might have to be done by securities legislation within the provinces. But I think the minister is to be commended for bringing in, at least in the Canadan bill, disclosure sections which will make more and fuller disclosures available to the owners of equity stocks under the Canadian Corporations Act.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. As I read these clauses having to do with disclosure of a company's affairs to its shareholders, I notice it does not cover private companies. By private companies I mean those companies within the definition of the act where you have a limited number of shareholders and shares are offered to the general public. What happens in some of the smaller private companies, which may be family businesses which over a period of years may have been divided between two or more sections of the family, is that if the family shareholders control only 49 per cent of the shares they have no way under the present legislation of forcing the shareholders who hold 51 per cent of the business to reveal certain aspects of the company's affairs. I speak in particular of how much salary some of the directors receive as officers of the company, and so on. In this instance the private shareholders holding 49 per cent of the shares have absolutely no rights under the present statute. This primarily affects small family businesses across the country.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether these amendments contemplate giving more rights to minority shareholders in private corporations than they currently have, and if not, what is contemplated in the future? Because this subject concerns a lot of small family businesses across the country.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, first as chairman of the committee may I seize this

Companies Act
opportunity to express appreciation to the banking and commerce committee of the other place for the very careful and searching study they made of the Companies Act. May I also express my appreciation to the members of the committee, particularly to the hon. member for Edmonton West, for the very helpful and co-operative spirit shown throughout the hearings.
In reply to the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George, may I say that the sections deleted by the banking and commerce committee of the House of Commons, section 121 (f) (2) and 125A, removed the restrictive clauses placed there by the other place. While I cannot commit the government, I am hopeful that there will be meetings between the federal and provincial authorities which will lead to uniformity in the areas of disclosure.


John Napier Turner: Uniformity as between public and private companies?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 40-Annual returns.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the privilege of being in the committee so I am not familiar with what happened. This clause is the one which carries the sanctions in sections 8, 9, 10 and 11. What is the thinking behind this which is going to make these companies report? We now have a provision to dispose of a corporation after three years if it has not produced a statement. That seems to me to be a fairly unworkable thing. I do not see how the Secretary of State can suddenly dispose of a company because it has failed to report, although I agree that the penalty now is much bigger than before. What was the thinking behind this type of restriction for those who fail to report?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment is to give the Secretary of State's department more control over the companies which heretofore have been delinquent in making returns. This is putting teeth into the legislation so that these companies can be wound up if they do not comply.


William Arnold Peters: I believe it is generally conceded that the companies branch of the federal government has been the most inefficient branch in the government during the last four or five years. At any rate, that is my opinion. If somebody wants to know why I have formed it, it would be quite easy to explain and go into some of the personalities involved. But it is the fact that it has created

a great deal of ill will among the companies. Perhaps it would be wise to ask the sponsor of the bill what was the percentage of the companies which were supposed to report which did not report? What sanctions were taken against them and why were they not exercised?
I do not know whether this matter will come up again for a long time but there has been terrific criticism on the part of many persons of the inefficiency of this branch. Quite frankly, I do not understand the sanction now being imposed, which means that the government will be able to take over a company which after a period of three years has failed to produce the report required by the Secretary of State. I would suggest that the companies branch is not sufficiently competent or does not have the personnel to deal with this matter. In other clauses reference is made to auditors, and I am sure we do not have sufficient auditors to audit the reports which are being submitted. Many of them are filed away and not acted upon. It seems to me that we are making quite a change here and I am wondering whether it is feasible. I do not disagree with the sanctions being put on, but I do not think we are in a position to enforce them.
Perhaps this matter has been considered by the committee, but as I understand it over one third of the companies who were supposed to report did not report. Another third of them reported improperly or in such a way that the report served no purpose; and another third reported as requested under the previous act and were operating in what was considered to be an acceptable manner. But as I say, I am wondering whether we can enforce this change we are making without bringing other factors into play.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps some hon. members do not know the background to this, and I can explain some of the matters to which I am referring. In my opinion this state of affairs has been a disgrace for a number of years. Some years ago several hon. members made extensive speeches on this matter which indicated a complete breakdown in this department. Applications were before the companies branch for long periods of time without any attention at all being paid to them. For two or three years there was even no opportunity at all to make an application. Now we are saying in this clause that we have reached the stage where we not only

do the auditing and the supervising and granting of charters, but we are also going to be able to exercise some type of winding up control over companies, which I presume would be administered under a public trusteeship until they are disposed of. Frankly, I am not willing to have this section pass without some assurance that there has been some change made because I can assure you that if the situation is as it was a year ago this is not feasible.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concern of the hon. member for Timiskaming. I might point out for the information of the house that it may have been that in the past we have been somewhat neglectful of the Companies Act, bearing in mind the fact that in Canada at the present time, as I understand, there are 28,746 corporations carrying on business and of that number 24,758 are under provincial incorporations and only 3,988 under federal charters. It is my understanding that due to the wording of the act there was some question in the past whether the companies branch here could dissolve a company or merely transfer its name for failure to comply with the regulations. It is felt that this section does put more teeth into the act so that the Secretary of State can dissolve a corporation that is delinquent. The committee felt it would make it much stronger and more effective and accomplish the very point that the hon. member has raised.


William Arnold Peters: Is it thought that the applications section has been broadened and strengthened so that applications will not be so long delayed? The point, as I see it, is that even in the case of good companies that made their reports we did not have anybody to go over them. It seems to me this does not say that you and I as individuals can walk in and have a look at companies' statements that are filed. What it does say is that the Secretary of State shall be responsible for seeing that they are properly administered and operated, and under certain conditions a judge can allow someone to look at particular files. But we are really setting up a government agency to assure that the terms of the Companies Act will be carried out in relation to these matters, and this means personnel. In my opinion, although I may be wrong, the personnel have not been available in the past. I have had no complaint in the last four or five months and if the parliamentary secretary says that the situation has been taken care of I would tend to believe it may have changed. If the parliamentary secretary is of 20220-8114
Companies Act
the opinion that we can now supervise these companies properly, I am willing to accept his statement, but I think the practice in the past has fallen into disrepute in that some companies were compelled to make their reports in an honest and straightforward way and others were not. We have looked rather silly. Some of the provinces-I know that Ontario is not one of them-have been able to enforce their acts but the federal government has not been able to. There has been justifiable criticism of this branch over a period of four or five years.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I just want to say again that I think the point raised by the hon. member is well taken, but I believe that the section has been reworded in such a way that it will accomplish the purpose that he has brought to our attention.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: I should bring to the attention of hon. members that clause 41 has been deleted and all the subsequent clauses from 42 to 52 have been renumbered.
Clauses 41 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I suppose we have now reached the end of the road with regard to changing the names of corporations incorporated under private bills. Under the provisions of this legislation a company may carry on under its French name or under its English name and may apply for a change of name without an act of parliament. I think this will save a great deal of time.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the passage of any bill but I think it is a mistake to rush third reading through when extensive amendments have to be reprinted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will start-


Mr. Macquarrie:: It is not eleven o'clock yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house that the Chair call it eleven o'clock?

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will call third reading of the Canada pension plan first, and then the opting out legislation. I would hope we would have a good day tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the other day I received a written answer to a written question relating to an allegation that the Royal Bank of Canada forged a particular document by changing the date on it and by so altering it as to make it appear that it was signed on behalf of a limited company by typing in the words "Tipton Cattle Company" and the word "president" after the signature of the individual. As a consequence of the allegation that the Royal Bank of Canada had forged a document, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were contacted by the individual concerned, namely, Mr. Tipton of Francois Lake, B.C.
My inquiry of the minister and the answer are found on page 12330 of Hansard, and in my view the reply does not truly reflect the facts as they have been indicated to me. The reply to part I of the question contains the following statement with reference to Mr. Tipton:
He advised that all documents were in the hands of his solicitors, that these solicitors were taking necessary steps to bring the matter before the courts, and that they, the solicitors wished that any action with respect to Tipton's complaint be held in abeyance.
Mr. Tipton has advised me that is incorrect and does not truly reflect the conversation he had with the R.C.M.P. in that all he indicated to the R.C.M.P. was that they should deal with his solicitors and await a written reply from them. So, in that respect, I submit the answer is incorrect and misleading. It does not truly represent what took place.
The second part of the answer is, I submit, equally misleading because it reads as follows, and I quote:

The solicitors Indicate that the whole matter is subject to civil action and, therefore, no action can be taken by the R.C.M.P.-
I have here a photostatic copy of a letter dated September 25, 1964, directed to Sergeant Gordon, N.C.O. in charge, R.C.M.P. detachment, Burns Lake, British Columbia. It is headed, "Re:	Lorenzo Tipton & Norman
Tipton and the Tipton Cattle Company Ltd., Francois Lake, B.C." The letter reads in -part as follows, and is from Cullinane & Greene, solicitors, in Prince George, B.C.:
I wish to confirm that we are the solicitors for Mr. and Mrs. Tipton in the matter of a civil action which has been commenced against them at the instance of the Royal Bank of Canada. Bums Lake, B.C.
This is an indication that whatever civil action took place, or is still before the courts, was taken at the instance of the Royal Bank of Canada and not an indication, as the answer would lead us to believe, that the whole matter is subject to civil action. Perhaps I should read the entire letter into the record so it will be all here. I continue:
I understand that you recently saw Mr. Tipton with regard to a possible investigation of a document which was signed by Mr. Tipton and which Mr. Tipton assures me has since been altered by means of typing above his signature, the words "Tipton Cattle Company Ltd." and his signature is followed by the words "Press."
The fact is that on the date of this document, which is dated February 26, 1964, Mr. Tipton was in the city of Ottawa and did not actually return to the Bums Lake area until the evening of March 1st.
As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm this because Mr. Tipton was with me on that particular date. I continue to quote:
We do not have the original of this letter and can only supply you with a phQtostatic copy thereof but even examining the photostatic copy you will note that the words "Tipton Cattle Company Ltd." and the words "Press." have been typed with a different typewriter than the remainder of the document. Mr. Tipton's concern here is that on the basis of this changed document the Royal bank presumes that it is able to justify the wrongful seizure and sale of cattle belonging to the Tipton Cattle Company Ltd. Also, the actual date that Mr. Tipton signed this was March 19, 1964 which was almost a month after the cattle had been wrongfully seized and sold.
I understand from Mr. Tipton that he was a little reluctant to discuss this matter with you when you requested him to do so very recently, for reason that he had placed the matter in our hands. We wish to assure you that we have no objection of this matter being fully investigated by the R.C.M.P. as we feel that the person who altered the original document was acting most improperly and very much to the detriment of the Tiptons and the Tipton Cattle Company Ltd. We are prepared to cooperate fully with you in any way in this regard.
Yours very truly,
Cullinane & Greene

I submit on the basis of that letter, Mr. Speaker, that the second part of the answer is misleading. The solicitors do not indicate that the whole matter is subject to civil action. They merely pointed out that the Royal bank commenced civil action. I submit also there was an indication given to Mr. Tipton by one officer of the R.C.M.P. that they would be pleased to investigate this matter. This was subsequently countermanded, presumably by a senior officer on the force. I say that not only is the answer given by the parliamentary secretary misleading in that it did not fully represent the facts, but also that the R.C.M.P. have been negligent in their duties by trying to pass over their responsibility by refusing to investigate a matter when it was requested of them, a matter of a criminal character relating to an allegation of forgery of a document on the part of the Royal Bank of Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will realize upon reflection that the dispute in this case, the subject of this particular discussion, is as to the facts involved in this particular matter, which I would point out is a matter under the control of the provincial authorities.
The R.C.M.P. in this particular case are acting as the provincial police of the province of British Columbia, under the contract with that province, and the ultimate choice as to whether or not a prosecution is to be carried out is under the direction of the attorney general of B.C. Under these particular circumstances, with respect to the allegation by my hon. friend that there is negligence on the part of the R.C.M.P. all I can say is that that allegation, if there is any substance to it, should be laid at the doorstep of the provincial attorney general who, having jurisdiction over the prosecution of offences under the Criminal Code, has a responsibility for prosecuting in this particular matter.
As to the facts set out in the answer I can only repeat that this information was furnished through the police, acting as the provincial police in the province of B.C. We are relying on the police report. I do not think there is really much point in trying to enter into a debate on the facts. I am sure the hon. member's observations will come to the attention of the authorities in the west and I am sure they will want to take such appropriate action as is indicated by the facts.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-POSSIBLE DAMAGE ACTION BY MEMBER FOR LAPOINTE


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, last February 16, the House of Commons heard the most fantastic, extravagant and false statement ever uttered. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for Lapointe claimed that the R.C.M.P. had treated him roughly and broken his watch. Falsehoods and lies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
hon. member for Lapointe rising on a point of order?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I think that the President of the Privy Council referred the statement to the privileges and election committee which considered it and submitted a report. However, the Chair has not yet put a motion to the house concerning the adoption of the report. On several occasions I asked that the report of the committee proceedings be translated into French-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I have only seven minutes and I don't see any point of order in what the hon. member is saying. I need my time to explain and to ask the question which I want answered.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member is doing that on purpose because he does not want me to use my time. I have some important things to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The Chair will decide whether or not the hon. member for Lapointe has a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I think you should decide-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The thing is that I am most anxious to see this motion on the committee report
12822	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion debated. I realize that, according to our standing orders, everybody should have the opportunity to discuss this report. Nevertheless, as long as the motion to discuss the report of the committee on privileges and elections has not been introduced, I feel that the hon. member's comments are out of order. I maintain that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly.
I note also that the hon. member has just used the words "lies and falsehoods"-


Auguste Choquette: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, he has no right to do what he is doing. He wants to cut my time and I need it because I have some important things to say. This man lied to the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the hon. member for Lapointe has made his point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am going to rise on a point of order. The other day I had some remarks to address to the house on a very serious occasion, about the use of certain language in the house. I think appropriate notice was taken of that, perhaps not by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette); but before the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) rightfully drew to the attention of Your Honour the use of certain language, it had been my intention to rise and say that the language used by the hon. member for Lotbiniere was entirely uncalled for and inappropriate at this time, and has been for a long time, much longer than the hon. gentleman has been here. It is not the custom of this house to use the words "falsehood" and "lies" and I think any member who uses them should have them rejected in his teeth. The hon. member is forbidden to use them by the usage of this chamber and I think it is incumbent upon him to withdraw the words as used.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the words concerning the fact that he lied, but I will say that his statements were not in compliance with the facts.
I will refer to his statement-not the one he made on February 16, because before making it in this house, he gave it to the press on February 14, 1965, when the house was not sitting. In his statement the hon. member for Lapointe alleged that he was molested


by the R.C.M.P., who manhandled him and broke his watch.
Mr. Speaker, there are three grounds for damages, for those who know the law-and the hon. member is not learned in the law. First of all, there is physical violence and pain suffered by the victim; second, moral prejudice, because the person whose dignity was affected suffered great frustration, and third, a material injury which justifies laying a charge for damages. This is what I wish to know from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) or from his parliamentary assistant: Did the hon. member lay a charge on those three grounds of damage suits against the R.C.M.P.?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is discussing beforehand the motion which will be brought before the house, and in my opinion it is contrary to the rules to discuss the report of a committee before the motion for concurrence has been introduced.
Instead of taking a devious means, I hope that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will insist upon the motion being introduced before this house without delay.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere does not speak any more about the question that was asked in the house yesterday, but rather about the report of the committee on privileges and elections. The remarks he is making now are not in order. Therefore, I would ask you to call him to order.


Auguste Choquette: I want to speak to the point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Will both hon. gentlemen sit down. I can understand the hon. member for Lapointe rising on a question of privilege but during this period of restricted time I hope any point of order he raises will be as brief as possible.
[Trans lation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order. I maintain that I am not discussing the motion to be submitted later. I am not referring to the report of the committee on privileges and elections,

but actually to a statement made to newspapermen after the hon. member had spent a few hours in jail and went to see members of the press gallery.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this question of the Minister of Justice concerning that statement to newspapermen: Did the hon. member take legal action against the R.C.M.P. or did he take refuge behind the noble cause of bilingualism in order to cover his turpitude, his infamy, to cover his violations of the law, because he is a known law-breaker, and his action is disgraceful and unfair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Lotbini&re that the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, as I seek to carry out my responsibility at this point because I am not sure what the question was. However, I gather from a combination of the remarks made this evening and the question which was put the other day that I am asked to say whether or not civil litigation is taking place between the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. My information is that there is no civil litigation taking place and it is my belief there will be none. I would refer to the report of the committee which is to be found in Votes and Proceedings at page 1141 as tabled on March 19 to the following effect:
The committee is convinced that the conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was entirely correct and that they did not act in a shameful and brutal way as was stated by the hon. member for Lapointe in his question of privilege.
I do not believe I am entitled at this stage to go into the merits of the case but as far as I understood the question there is no litigation proposed at the present time.



AIR TRANSPORT-POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO SECONDARY AIRPORTS

Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I raised with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) the urgent question as to when the government would announce a regional air carriers' policy for this country. My only purpose tonight is to put it again on the record in the hope that it will spur the minister and his government into some kind of action on a matter that is long overdue. This question was raised as
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion long ago as July 12, 1963, and it can be found on page 2133 of Hansard for that date, when the then minister of transport said this:
I believe that some clarification of the relationships and future role is essential-
The minister was referring to regional carriers:
-to meet the rapidly changing technical and economic circumstances of aviation-
He went on to say this:
-I hope to make some changes in this regard in the relatively near future. When I say that I mean within a very few months. It is one of the matters I consider of utmost importance.
Then speaking in the house, again, the then minister of transport, at page 2149 of Hansard for July 12, 1963, said this:
I would anticipate that it would be another two or three months before it would be possible to make the kind of complete statement that is required in order to deal with it in an adequate and proper way.
Later, at page 4794 of Hansard-this time we have gone from July to November of 1963-the then minister of transport said this:
I hope also, before the end of the year, to be making a statement on air policy.
Later on-and we know that there was a shift in portfolios necessitated by the need to elevate the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) into a new experience as house leader-the new Minister of Transport, the present minister, said this:
The whole question of future air policy is, as I think the hon. gentleman is well aware, under very active consideration at this time.
That can be found on page 256 of Hansard for February 26, 1964. Then he said:
However, I may say that no conclusions have yet been reached. As soon as they have been reached they will be made known to the house and to everyone else concerned. I hope this will be before too long.
It is over one year ago that the Minister of Transport said this. Subsequently, on April 21 of last year when the matter was raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) as a grievance, he received no answer at all from the Minister of Transport. On April 27 I asked the Minister of Transport when he would announce the regional air carriers' policy, and the answer can be found on page 2599 of Hansard:
Whenever the policy has been devised.
Then we go to April 30 of last year, which was the night the minister took to television when, through sloppy management in this house he had been unable to make a statement on motions and he tabled his non-policy,

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion as he called it. The minister said this, which is to be found on page 2855 of Hansard:
-a reasonable role for regional air carriers providing scheduled and regular air service must be established-
That was 11 months ago when he said that we must establish a regional air carrier policy. Subsequently, in July of last year, at page 5811 of Hansard, the minister replied to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer):
I intend to announce it just as soon as it is formulated and agreed to by the government.
The hon. member for Three Rivers had asked when the minister would announce his new national air policy. In September of 1964 the Minister of Transport, speaking on the estimates of the Department of Transport, said this at page 8162 of Hansard:
I am going to keep right on pushing just as hard as I can for the achievement of this-
That is an air policy. Then listen to this pious statement:
I hope before the end of the year I will be able to make good recommendations, too, about air policy.
In February this year, it will be found on page 11518 that I repeated the question and asked when we would have an announcement as to a regional air carriers' policy. This is what the Minister of Transport said:
I do not think, sir, I can say anything useful about the time that would be done, beyond saying that it will be done just as soon as we think we have something to communicate to the house which will really work.
Then again today I raised this question in the hope that it might sink into the minister's head that the regional air carriers of this country, as the former minister of transport said almost two years ago now, essentially require a policy enunciation by the government. The regional air carriers of the country want some kind of statement from the minister. They are worried about what
might be behind the minister's reluctance to say anything at this time. They are worried because they well know the kind of manoeuvres he can perform, especially at a time when he is anticipating an election. They are worried that he is holding up an announcement of a policy which has been arrived at in order to dangle before various regional carriers in this country some sort of carrot immediately prior to the next election.
It is not good enough for him continually to be saying "before the end of the year". This has gone on for two years now. This government must take the step of making an announcement and carry out that grand promise of the Prime Minister, that the actions which his government would take in the months ahead would excite the daring. Well, it is time we had a little excitement from the Minister of Transport in terms of a regional carriers' policy.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport said in this house today, this problem is in his mind constantly and he is pushing and working hard to come to a solution with respect to it. May I remind the hon. member of the basic principles recommended by the minister as a basis for a regional air carriers' policy for Canada, as set out by the minister on May 15, 1964, and as reported in Hansard at page 2855:
A reasonable role for regional air carriers providing scheduled and regular air service must be established: this role must provide for a relationship between the regional air carriers and T.C.A. (and any other licensed main line transcontinental carrier) which will give the regional air carriers a reasonable chance to operate without government subsidies.
We are endeavouring to carry out that policy.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.26 p.m.

Friday, March 26, 1965



TRIBUTES TO MEMBERS COMPLETING 25 YEARS OF SERVICE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the normal course of procedure in the house the most difficult and painful task for any Speaker is to be forced to the extremity of having to name an hon. member. Today I consider it my duty to name five hon. members. However, I do so not to cause their suspension from the service of the house, but on behalf of all its members to honour them on a quarter of a century in its service. In the circumstances perhaps the house will waive the provisions of standing order 34(2).
I name you John George Diefenbaker. I acknowledge your service to the country in war and in peace. As prime minister of this country you have held the highest office within the gift of the Canadian people. You gave your fellow citizens their own bill of rights. As leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition you have vigorously asserted those rights and privileges that are the hallmark of our parliamentary system of government.
History will record and do honour to your achievements as leader of this nation through six significant years but we, your fellow Commoners, can pay you no higher tribute than to say you are, and have been, a House of Commons man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I name you, George James Mcllraith. You have served as parliamentary assistant to ministers of reconstruction and supply, trade and commerce and defence production. You now hold the high office of President of the Queen's Privy Council. As government house leader you have brought patience, intelligence and good will to a most difficult and delicate assignment.
As the hon. member for Ottawa West you have also enjoyed a distinction which must be unique among us, that of having parliament in your own constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
I name you, Lewis Elston Cardiff. For 25 years you have served the historic and ancient
riding of Huron and have been a great credit to this house. You have represented the interests of an important agricultural area, and as parliamentary assistant to the minister of agriculture you have influenced the development of policy in that field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I name you, Raymond Eudes. You headed a delegation to the economic and social council of the United Nations. Here at home in your quarter century of service you have represented the men and women of Hochelaga creditably and well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: And I name you, George Ewart Nixon. You have represented the government of Canada at the international labour organization in Geneva, and have been a delegate of Canada to the United Nations. As the member for Algoma West you have lived in the shadow of a most distinguished colleague to the east, but I am sure the Prime Minister considers it an honour to share with you the representation of this important part of northern Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have named five hon. members of this house. They were first elected on March 26, 1940 in those perilous early days of the second world war, a war which was fought to preserve freedom and the institution of parliamentary democracy. Happily they have remained in the house to play their part in the remarkable post-war developments which have made Canada's name honoured among the nations of the world. I would ask all hon. members to join with me in marking this important anniversary and paying tribute to these our colleagues on their quarter century of service to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps you would permit me, the leader of the government, to say just a word, Mr. Speaker, on the matter you have brought up, though perhaps this could more properly be done by the father of the house, my deskmate

Tributes to Members
the hon. member tor Essex East, who has been here now, I believe, since 1935.
Mr. Speaker, you have named five members, but 1 hope you will not follow up their naming by asking for their withdrawal. If they have offended by being here for 25 years I am sure they will not do it again. I think we all join in the tributes which you have so effectively paid to those of our colleagues who are today celebrating their silver jubilee, the five survivors of the election of 1940 and of seven subsequent elections, if I may use that word "elections" without misunderstanding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The member for Huron, the member for Hochelaga and my friend, neighbour and colleague the member for Algoma West have served their people effectively and well; they have won their loyalty for longer than 25 years-and that is no mean achievement-and they have also won the respect of all members of this House of Commons for their sincere, quiet and effective work here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As to my colleague the member for Ottawa West, I have not enough time in which to outline all his Scottish virtues.
He has been punished for his service over 25 years by having been made recently the house leader, where he is showing, I believe, an agreeable and conciliatory doggedness which is required for that position- in the present circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As for the member for Prince Albert, what can I say? There are times when one's emotions are just too deep for words. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo, in all seriousness, what you have said; that he has become one of the great, and remains one of the greatest, parliamentarians in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been said that Sir Winston Churchill took more satisfaction out of his reputation as a great House of Commons man than from any other of his unparalleled achievements; and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition certainly has the right to that same satisfaction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, what would this House of Commons be like without him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a rhetorical question which I have no intention of trying to answer. But I would like to say to him-and I speak on behalf of us all, I am sure, when I say this-that we wish him health and happiness indeed as he enters the second 25 years of parliamentary service to his country, for which we are all grateful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder, Mr. Speaker,
whether the five hon. members whom we are honouring today would accept a little token of our affection and respect and wear, with pride, a red carnation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party, and speaking personally as one who tried to get here 25 years ago today but failed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -may I join with Your Honour and with the Prime Minister in extending our warmest and heartiest congratulations to the five members this house is honouring today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express to those gentlemen the admiration of the party I represent, because 25 years in the House of Commons is quite a feat, for one has to face not only his colleagues in the house but also the voters. It is therefore a great honour for those who have accomplished such a feat, and I hope that in the years to come others will also make it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the others and pay tribute to those who are today celebrating their 25th anniversary in the House of Commons.
Twenty five years is a long time, but I am sure it must bring back fond memories to those concerned.
We believe those five hon. members of the House of Commons have well served their land, their country, and have worked with sincerity and dedication for the interest of the people. We wish them many more years among us for we, the younger members, do benefit from their experience and this helps and encourages us to pursue our political careers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether I have ever risen in this house with the same feelings that I have today. It is difficult to express to you, sir, what your words mean to me, and I know as well to my colleagues whom the house has honoured today in a way that I have never seen equalled in the years that I have been here.
I say to the Prime Minister that his words bring to me a re-emphasis of the pride that those of us who sit in the House of Commons understand. People outside cannot appreciate how from day to day we can face one another in the most difficult forum of all and retain a feeling of admiration for those who do not see eye to eye with oneself. There is no other legislative body like it, having to the same extent the tradition of the House of Commons based on the British model. Last week was the seven hundredth anniversary of the first parliament at Westminster, which has been our model since. That was the parliament that brought together the love of liberty of the Anglo-Saxons and the dedication to freedom of the Normans of French origin. We bring these two together within this institution.
All I can say is that occasions such as this, where warmth takes for a time the place of the harshness of debate, add to one's pride in this great institution. We stack our weapons and substitute verbal garlands. We seek to make parliament worth while.
I also want to refer to the dean of parliament, a parliamentarian who as the dean of the five new members will be for them a second Dizzy Dean, a great philosopher and a connoisseur of words.
The Prime Minister today epitomized the finest traditions of parliament when he added the query, what would the House of Commons be without me. I was reminded of an occasion when that question was asked by a former prime minister, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, some years after he had been in the House of Commons but before he went to the Senate. He had met with that great wit of parliament, S. W. Jacobs, K.C., in Toronto, and asked him "What is it like in parliament without me?" to which Mr. Jacobs replied "It is like Hades would be without Satan". That is one way of describing parliament.
Sir, I can only say this, and this is not a swan song. I hope to continue in the days ahead in this house, to join with all members
20220-812J
Tributes to Members
of all parties in doing my part with them to maintain and preserve the freedom that is ours. From the bottom of my heart, sir, I thank you for your words on behalf of the house. To the Prime Minister I can only say that the kindliness and generosity that he has shown is entirely reciprocated in every way. To my hon. friend the parliamentary authority in this house, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and to the hon. members representing the Social Credit party and the Creditistes I say, thank you all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it has not been very often during the last 25 years that I have found myself joined with the Leader of the Opposition in action by this house, but I now desire to express my appreciation to all hon. members in the house for their generous attitude today toward those of us who have been here for some years.
I recall in those early years that during an election campaign, local members who supported today's official opposition party said that I was too young to be a member of the House of Commons. Today I feel very grateful for that expression to which they gave vent in those years.
I find the statements today rather refreshing, because it has seemed to me that in the last few months or years it has been a rather popular pastime outside the house to attack this institution. My observation, for what it is worth, has been that, in spite of our weaknesses and suggestions that we are unable to perform the business efficiently at times- in spite of a desire by some of us to have reforms made-the institution itself is the best institution I know for operating the government of a country. It provides that degree of liberty and freedom of the individual subject that is required and, I am sure, desired by all hon. members. I cannot help feeling that nothing I have seen in my life leads me to doubt for one moment that this is the system which best guarantees the right of the individual to freedom and liberty.
So today, when I hear the house express itself so unanimously and so kindly, I find it refreshing to see the capacity of the house to come together and reveal its own inner self. I should like, with great warmth of feeling, to thank my colleagues in this chamber for their very kind expression.

Tributes to Members


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to thank you for your kind sentiments. I have, throughout the years, tried to be a man amongst men, and I have found the House of Commons a very good place to attempt that. I was brought up a farmer and I am still a farmer. In those days we had to work very hard. I was not very old when I tried to take a man's place.
Then when I came into parliament I found a different sort of work that had to be done. I think the most difficult job I tried to do after coming here was being whip of the largest government party we have ever had in Canada, 208 members. If you do not think that is a man's job, just try it. I am sure the whip on the government side right now with 130 members thinks he has a man's job. It is very easy to get along with men who are men, but even amongst members of parliament we sometimes get a few who are rather difficult to handle. During my term of office as whip I only had trouble with one man out of the 208, whom I had to put in his place, and I really put him there pretty hard. It did him a lot of good and I got a good deal of satisfaction out of doing it.


An hon. Member:: Name him.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, I will not name him. Old as I am, I should like to remind my friend sitting across from me not to start something he cannot finish.
I should like to thank everybody for the treatment I have received in this House of Commons, from all sides of the house, during the 25 years I have been a member. I think I have friends on all sides of the house. I want to thank everybody for putting up with me for that length of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the others in thanking you for your kind words. It is a privilege and an honour to become a member of parliament. It is a much greater privilege and honour to be a member for 25 years. I was asked this morning what seemed to stick out in my mind most during that time. I think I recall the first campaign best, because at that time I recall having to campaign through my riding travelling by train, by car, by horse and cutter, by snowmobile and by snowplane. The night before the election we had one of the worst storms in our area. So I remember that election campaign of 25 years ago.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
May I just say that I feel we are fortunate in living in a democracy where we have the freedom to vote and elect a member of parliament or to leave him at home. I think we are most fortunate when we consider that. May I say how grateful I am for all the friends I have made here and to express again my thanks for the kind words and thoughts on the 25th anniversary of the five of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present, in English and in French, the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth reports of the special committee on procedure and organization.
The seventeenth report is largely concerned with improvements in Hansard and other parliamentary publications. The eighteenth report recommends the revision of standing order 65 to provide for a new structure of standing committees. The nineteenth report provides for the referral of estimates to the new standing committees and for a time limit on the discussion of the main estimates in committee of supply. The recommendations contained in both the eighteenth and nineteenth reports would be on a trial basis for the duration of the next session of this parliament.
The twentieth report recommends the extension of the use of electronic recording and transcribing equipment.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to announce our new dairy policy. Just before I do that I should like to say one word as the youngest colt in this house. I have never seen the house just like this, so it seems to me I am learning something. I should like, as I say, to announce our new dairy policy which has to do with culture, the greatest of all cultures, agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: This pertains to the new dairy policy without which none of us could live.
The objectives of our Canadian dairy policy are twofold. The policy is designed to provide

dairy farmers operating economic units with an adequate income, while at the same time assuring the Canadian consumer a constant supply of the highest quality dairy products at stable prices which will ensure optimum consumption.
Because of its geography and climate Canada is a relatively high cost dairy producing country. Except for certain specialty products, such as mature Cheddar cheese, we cannot hope to be a significant competitor on world markets with dairy products from countries with lower production costs arising from milder climates. Because of our climatic disadvantages in dairy production it would be unrealistic to provide a level of support on all milk produced that could result in surplus production and a possible return to a costly accumulation of stocks.
A further objective of a national dairy policy must therefore be to maintain a reasonable balance between production and disappearance of milk and dairy products, account being taken of export possibilities and of imports. To this end it is proposed that government supports will apply only to domestic utilization as related to a base period. The policy will also recognize the interest of Canada's trading partners in the Canadian market for dairy products, and will permit imports to share in future market growth.
Last year Canada imported a record 17 million pounds of cheese. This was more than balanced by Canada's growing cheese exports of over 30 million pounds.
As an efficient exporter of agricultural products like cheese and wheat, Canada has a vital interest in obtaining better access to foreign markets, and in its own policies must therefore recognize the corresponding interest of other efficient agricultural exporting countries in being able to compete for a share of the future growth of the Canadian market.
To attain these objectives, and as part of the government's long range dairy policy, legislation to establish a Canadian dairy commission will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. This commission, working in co-operation with the provinces, would have responsibility for the over-all relationship between governments and the dairy industry.
The interim policy, to come into effect on May 1 for an 11 month period pending the establishment of the Canadian dairy commission, will follow the principles of the long range policy. The interim policy is being put into effect on May 1 for 11 months in order
Dairy Policy
to facilitate a widely supported change In the dairy support year to align it more closely to the milk production cycle. Starting next year the dairy year will begin on April 1 instead of May 1.
Two separate and distinct programs will be instituted. The first will provide for a basic support through a deficiency payment plan, coupled with direct subsidy and export assistance. The other will comprise a direct supplementary payment to producers. The over-all effect is intended to be a national average price for manufacturing milk used domestically and based on 1964-65 production of $3.50 per hundredweight.
The agricultural stabilization board will be authorized to provide an effective support level of 64 cents per pound for creamery butter, basis Montreal and Toronto. This level will be maintained, as it was last year, by authorizing payments to producers equivalent to the difference between the support level of 64 cents and the board's buying and selling prices. As at present, these payments will first be made by the processing plants to the producers. The plants will then be reimbursed by the board. This action, along with export assistance, is expected to maintain an average factory price to producers of manufacturing milk of between $3.10 and $3.20 per hundredweight.
At the same time the board will determine actual prices paid to producers, by processors, for manufacturing milk and will be authorized to make a deficiency payment direct to producers, equivalent to the amount by which the national average price for manufacturing milk falls below a prescribed support level of $3.30 per hundredweight. In other words, the goal of the deficiency payment plan will be a national average of $3.30 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk.
In accordance with the over-all policy, this price guarantee of $3.30 is to be extended only to that portion of manufactured milk used domestically. Accordingly the amount of any deficiency payment will be reduced by the cost of export assistance. This will mean that if manufacturing milk production and domestic use are in balance producers will, on the average, receive the full $3.30 per hundredweight. Should production exceed domestic use, the effective support level would in fact be reduced by the difference between the domestic price and the export price as determined by the cost of moving the surplus into export.
For example, if it were found that a national average deficiency payment of 15 cents per

Dairy Policy
hundred pounds was to be paid under this plan, and it the deductible cost of exporting surplus production amounted to 5 cents a hundred, the actual deficiency payment would be 10 cents per hundred. This follows the principle inherent in the long range plan under the proposed Canadian dairy commission that government supports should apply only to domestic utilization of Canadian production as determined by a base period.
Surplus milk produced by fluid milk shippers contributes to our total dairy stocks and hence to any amount that might need to be exported. Therefore any deduction of export costs from the deficiency payment fund would not include the cost of exporting surpluses arising from the fluid milk industry. The cost of export subsidies chargeable against the deficiency payments will be reduced by the percentage of the total supply of manufacturing milk which is represented by that produced as a by-product of the fluid milk industry.
In order to provide comparable assistance to cream shippers, any deficiency payment to shippers of manufacturing milk will also be made to cream shippers on an equivalent basis.
During the coming dairy year, pending establishment of the Canadian dairy commission there will be a supplementary payment to producers. It will approximate, in total, the difference between the $3.30 support level and $3.50 per hundred of milk, based on 1964-65 production of manufacturing milk.
Producers who during the base period marketed less than 10,000 pounds of milk or an equivalent amount of cream will not be eligible for the payment. Since that is less than the production of two very average cows or one good cow, the government does not believe they can rightly be considered dairy farmers.
In order to ensure a relatively higher level of assistance to our many eligible smaller farmers, this payment will be at a rate per hundred pounds that decreases as production rises. For eligible producers, that is, those marketing at least 10,000 pounds of milk last year, the rate of payment will be 25 cents per hundredweight for the first 47,999 pounds of milk marketed. It will be 20 cents per hundredweight for the amount between 48,000 and 95,999 pounds, and 10 cents per hundredweight for all milk marketed in excess of 95,999 pounds.
Thus a producer who in 1964-65 marketed 50,000 pounds of milk will receive a lump sum payment of $124. A producer who mar-

keted 100,000 pounds of milk will receive $220, and a producer who marketed 200,000 pounds of milk will receive $320. The estimated average payment per producer across Canada is slightly over $100. Payments will be made to cream shippers on the same scale, assuming an average fat test of 3.5 per cent. As in the past, producers who normally participate in the fluid milk market will not be eligible for direct subsidy payments nor will they be eligible for the supplementary payment.
The application of the program to major dairy pool areas will be consistent with the interpretation of manufacturing milk which has been used as a basis for the support program for the past two years.
In the interests of our producers I think I should remind them that under the new program it is as important as ever for them to negotiate the best possible price for their milk from the processing plants. The deficiency payment will be based, as all are, on a national average price obtained by dividing total returns to all eligible producers by the total number of eligible producers. Those producers who make good deals with the processing plants will lose none of the benefit of their own private enterprise. If, for example, the deficiency payment came to 15 cents per hundred pounds, the producer who averages $3.20 per hundred from his plant will average a total return of $3.35 per hundred. On the other hand, the producer selling to the plant for only, say, $3.10 per hundred would gross $3.25.
Complete details of the program are being developed by the agricultural stabilization board and will be made known to producers and the trade at an appropriate time.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, you will admit that it is very difficult at this moment to assess the scope of the new dairy policy which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) just announced. One would have needed an IBM machine in order to note all the data which the minister gave this house and make the necessary calculations to determine exactly the benefits the milk producers of this will derive from industrial milk during the 1965-66 dairy year.
At the outset, and on behalf of my party, I would like to point out to the minister that the dairy producers only asked for a minimum price of $3.50 per hundredweight of industrial milk shipped to processing factories.

We do not yet know if the dairy producer will get the requested minimum price, that is $3.50 per hundredweight, but the Canadian federation of agriculture, the farmers' unions and the catholic farmers' union informed us that if the price under the new dairy policy is $3.30, $3.35 or even $3.48, strong protests will be made with the government in order to get this minimum price of $3.50 which is absolutely necessary for every dairy producer.
We heard the minister mention $3.50 per hundredweight. Later he mentioned a price of $3.30, $3.35 applicable to a certain quantity of pounds of milk. But as I just said, one must make all those calculations before knowing exactly what the dairy producers will derive from this new policy.
As the minister mentioned the possibility of establishing a Canadian dairy commission, I must add that we, on this side of the house, had already requested it and even started working on it in February 1963.
Furthermore, since then we have repeatedly requested the establishment of such a commission as soon as possible.
As a matter of fact, in July 1964, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), official spokesman for the Conservative party in matters of agriculture, stated in the house:
Such an agency should be set up in Canada as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle also stated in July 1964:
As 1 am aware of the cost price of milk, I would say, moreover, that any government that does not give milk producers across Canada a minimum price of $3.50 per hundredweight is unfair to that segment of the population.
That was the attitude of the Conservative party in July 1964, and we still consider this matter as most important.
Furthermore, in July 1964, we had requested a special grant of 35 cents per hundredweight of milk for last year's production, and up to 100,000 pounds. We were also requesting that this grant be paid to all milk producers in eastern Canada, for they certainly need federal assistance.
As the minister knows, 3 per cent of the total government budget will be going to agriculture. These expenditures could be increased, taking into account the importance of agriculture.
In fact, according to statistics published in the Toronto stock exchange bulletin of September 1963, agriculture accounts directly or indirectly for 40 per cent of our gross national product. Now, if, as the bulletin claims,
Dairy Policy
agriculture provides directly or indirectly work for 35 per cent of our labour force, I feel that the federal government should not hesitate to increase the appropriations of the Department of Agriculture.
Considering that the United States earmark 8.2 per cent of their budget for agriculture as compared with 3 per cent only in Canada, it is easy to understand why our budget is not as it should be.
The minister also mentioned exports. We do not know whether the government intends to restore the subsidy on cheese exports, especially to the United Kingdom, but we know that the subsidy which was 4 cents a pound at the beginning of 1963, was reduced to 3 cents a pound by the present Liberal government that same year, and then to 2 cents a pound last year.
We do not know if the government intends to restore the 4-cent subsidy. We ask the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that it is restored.
Last year we shipped 30 million pounds of cheese to the United Kingdom. We could export much more because if we consider that in the first decade of this century we were selling almost 100 million pounds of cheese, there is certainly a need to find foreign markets which are there, close at hand, in order to help agriculture throughout Canada as well as the economy of the country.
In closing may I say that we will study closely that new dairy policy and that if the minister or the government do not provide for the country's dairy farmers a minimum price of $3.50 per hundredweight, the Conservative party will not be satisfied, nor will the dairy farmer. I can assure the minister that if that minimum goal is not reached a congress of the dairy industry will be held here in Ottawa in April.


William Arnold Peters: The
farmers have waited until quite late in the year for this announcement to be made. It should be borne in mind that the dairy policy is to change by May 1, and if this statement is correct I doubt whether the minister will have the regulations ready by that time.
I believe the farmers of this nation, particularly those engaged in the production of secondary milk, would take the view that when the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made its recent presentation asking for a base price for secondary milk of $3.50, it was not being unreasonable. But the minister has weaseled and finagled on that amount. I

Dairy Policy
understand that the highest amount to be paid will be $3.50, but I believe this will be paid only to the wealthier farmers. It seems that the Minister of Finance is not interested in the small farmer who, it may be, has an old age pension and a couple of cows to supplement his income. But, though the minister may not know it, it is the people with two, three or five cows who made the agricultural policy of eastern Canada. The minister may not know this, but it is a fact.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the two pigs.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me that another factor is involved. We have a committee on agriculture which has met to consider other subjects during the present session. I am sure the members who serve on that committee are in a position to be of some assistance to the minister in the development of this program. We talk about deficiency payments; we talk about trying to establish a parity price taking into consideration, as correctly pointed out by the minister, the fact that we are a high cost production nation and that we have a climate which makes it difficult to maintain production on a year round basis. But this is all the more reason why we should take a look at the fundamental principles upon which our agriculture policy is based and, in particular, do something to stabilize the dairy industry. It seems to me that the government shows an unhealthy disregard for the agriculture committee when they do not trust and respect the judgment of even their own members by not referring this matter to that committee.
The solutions the minister has mentioned really have accomplished very little. The base cheese price has been left the same; the butter price, at 64 cents, has been left the same. The minister did not go into the aspects of the butter support price that was transferred from a producer subsidy to a consumer subsidy, the role this has played and what change should be made in this field. He has said there will be a two price system for the dairy industry, which of course relates to the industry as it affects domestic consumption and that part of the industry that goes into exports. But he has not said how this is going to be done; he has not indicated whether there is going to be an export agency established for dairy products.
He has said there will be a Canadian dairy commission and that this will co-ordinate the federal and provincial marketing agencies. This is to be highly commended, because it is the fact that two or three of the agencies

have really shown some initiative. I speak of the Ontario cheese producers as an example. This government, as the previous speaker said, cut the subsidized price, the floor price of cheese by 2 cents. The Ontario cheese producers were still able to go to England and sell their unpasteurized Canadian Cheddar in the English specialized market, but at a disadvantage of about 4 cents compared with some of the other countries with which they are in competition.
We know there is friction developing between the provincial agencies that are in the marketing field. The minister has not really said that the Canadian dairy commission is going to act as an agent. I think what he has really said is that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the interprovincial farm union, when they both asked for a base price on secondary milk of $3.50, were stating a reasonable, fair and acceptable figure. But he is now saying that this government, in a niggardly way is going to renege on the request that was made after careful consideration, not by one agency but by all the agencies, in trying to establish equality in the dairy industry in Canada.
I think this statement will not be satisfactory, and I believe the Prime Minister should give some consideration to the problem that has developed; because it is a very serious problem and one that we have not been able to solve. The problem is twofold. First, the secondary industry is facing a terrific handicap in competition with the fluid milk industry. Incidentally, the fluid milk industry built up its own negotiations over a period of years and has been able to establish a fairly decent farm price for milk; and at the same time we are producing milk as a valuable commodity for the consumers at a high farm subsidized rate and selling it at a very low price because of the way it is bought.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister should give some consideration to this problem because it does involve the establishment of a national marketing agency. It is the fact now-and I think everyone will agree-that there are no surpluses. The minister seems to be interested in the top end of the field, helping those farmers who need it least; but there can be much more production in the agricultural field and it becomes a national responsibility of the government to sell that production.
I think the Prime Minister has a responsibility in this matter, because this is a major change. I suggest that the minister consider

referring this matter at the next session to the agricultural committee, where the whole question can be gone into and witnesses can be heard; because I have met many farmers in Ontario who are completely dissatisfied with the method we have been using for the past few years and the operations of the stabilization board itself. It seems to me that this matter has been referred again to the stabilization board for them to make the decision which in my opinion should be made by the members of this house and the committees which operate in the house. I think the minister is being unfair to the Canadian people, unfair to himself and unfair to the House of Commons in not referring this important matter to the committee for immediate study.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party agree with the two objectives that were outlined by the Minister of Agriculture when he announced this new dairy policy; that is, that we need to have economic dairy units established in Canada, and having done that to then have a price structure that will give them an opportunity to operate these units profitably. Whether the regulations respecting deficiency payments will in fact achieve those two objectives is questionable, but I am prepared to wait until we see the details of the administration of this new policy before either commending or condemning the minister in this connection.
The time is long overdue when the domestic market for dairy products and all other agricultural products in Canada should be insulated from the surplus or dumping prices in the international markets. Almost all the other countries in the world have already done this and it has, in their opinion, been an advantage which has worked to the good of the whole nation. Therefore I am pleased to know that the minister is accepting this principle in setting up agricultural policies and federal government support for the price structure within Canada, particularly within the domestic market.
This new dairy commission that the Minister of Agriculture is suggesting is probably a good thing, but I would like to mention that it is going to be necessary for this commission to work very, very closely with the milk and dairy control boards in all the provinces, because under our constitution agriculture is one of the few areas where there is joint responsibility spelled out.
The dairy farmers of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have asked for a support price at the level of $3.50 per hun-
Dairy Policy
dred for manufactured milk. It does not appear, from the few details we have received this afternoon, that this base or minimum price is going to be achieved. However, Mr. Speaker, I do realize that there are some problems involved here because of the matter of overproduction and the need to establish quotas. I think the minister's suggestion that they use the 1964-65 production as a basis for the quota, if you like, is a good one. Whether he is on firm ground when he suggests that it will not be paid to anyone producing less than 10,000 pounds of milk a year, I am not sure. I do not know whether that is a good feature of it, but perhaps there is some credence in his contention that if you do not produce that much you are really not in the dairy business anyway.
We will wait with interest to see what the details of the regulations will be, and we hope the objectives which the minister mentioned at the beginning of his speech will in fact be achieved by this new policy.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words about the dairy policy announced by the government this morning under the form of a report that we from the province of Quebec, had been awaiting anxiously.
Actually, we were expecting more improvements in the dairy policy in general. Just the same, I am pleased that the minister announced the setting up of a dairy commission.
After hearing the members of other provinces, especially those of western Canada, express their complete satisfaction at the establishment of that commission, I must say that we from the eastern provinces, and especially from Quebec, will be satisfied as long as there will be a specific section for the province of Quebec within that commission to deal with a special policy for Quebec.
More and more, in fact, we realize that what is often good for the western provinces is generally not good for eastern producers.
The thing is that, in Quebec our production methods are quite different from those used in western Canada and our dairy policy is not the same. To give but one example, I would ask the minister if he has thought of dealing with a problem which promises to be crucial in our province. I refer to manufacturing milk subsidies. Over 50 per cent of our milk producers in Quebec will sell some milk to consumers and ship the rest to processing plants.

Dairy Policy
At the present time a Quebec farmer who sells part of his milk on the fluid milk market cannot get any subsidies for the milk he will be sending to processing plants, simply because he is selling part of his milk on the fluid milk market. I do want to call publicly the attention of the minister to that matter which I already pointed out to him.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a glaring injustice for the Quebec farmer who has to operate both ways, which is probably not the case for the western producer who sends all his milk to the processing plants because there is a larger market for manufacturing milk in that region.
It is for that reason that the minister must absolutely do something in that regard. The farmers who send their milk surplus to processing plants should be allowed to get the same grants as farmers who send all their milk to processing plants. I think that the contrary would be an anomaly.
The minister said in his report that a farmer will get the subsidy if he sells a minimum of 10,000 pounds of milk. Now, most of those farmers sell much more than 10,000 pounds of milk to processing plants after supplying dairies catering to the fluid milk trade.
I urge the minister to take that matter under consideration and I am sure that with some good will he will be able to do justice to that group of milk producers. At last, this morning, an announcement was made which we had been looking forward to. But our expectations were not fulfilled. The support price which has been announced will deceive, I am sure, most Quebec farmers.
I just happened to travel with the president of the federation of the catholic farmers' union who felt sure that the Department of Agriculture would accept a support price of $3.50. That price was not the one suggested by that organization. The initial price it suggested was $4. I am convinced that in the province of Quebec a farmer cannot economically produce milk unless he receives a support price of $4. This figure of $3.50 was a middle-of-the-road price arrived at after discussions with the department. I realize, today, that the minister has not accepted this figure which he had led the organization to believe would be the case, because this morning he has been talking about a support level of $3.30.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the farmers will react violently, because I feel the minister could have made an effort to give them satisfaction since the catholic farmers' union had

done their share in reducing their demands to $3.50. He should have made an effort, at least, to grant a minimum support price of $3.50.



On the orders of the day:


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell us what the estimated cost is for the first year of operation of the new dairy program just announced? Perhaps more accurately I should say for the first 11 month period during which he stated it would be in operation.


Harry William Hays: Between $65 million and $70 million.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether he is now in a position to inform the house as to what complaints were received from the vice president of the United States, from the governor of Minnesota or any other official, respecting the denial of admission to Canada of Professor Sibley in order to keep his appointment in Winnipeg.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before replying to this question may I take this opportunity, as the youngest member of this house who has been here the longest, to offer to my right hon. friend, to my colleague the President of the Privy Council, to the hon. member for Algoma West, to the hon. member for Hochelaga and to the hon. member for Huron my warmest congratulations on this important anniversary which marks their membership in this House of Commons for a quarter of a century, during which time all of them have given to this country distinguished public service.
In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, we have no record of any representations having been made by the vice president of the United States. There have been representations from the governor of Minnesota and from the president of the University of Minnesota in the form of telegrams which were directed to our embassy in Washington. These telegrams have been acknowledged by

the embassy. However, there have been no representations made directly to the government of Canada by the government of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to reply directly to the very kind references made to me and my colleagues this day by a great parliamentarian and, indeed, a great friend, let me say that I deeply appreciate his remarks. I say that advisedly, indeed, as he was the first one to offer his congratulations to me this morning by coming to my office.
May I now ask whether there were any informal representations made by anyone in the administration in Washington asking for an explanation as to what had taken place?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such representations, but I will make inquiries to ascertain whether in fact any were made. Perhaps my officials in the gallery will take note of this reply and make an inquiry immediately so that I may be able to give an answer this morning.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the representations made by the governor of Minnesota and others, to whom the Secretary of State for External Affairs has referred, has the minister or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration decided to yield to the dictates of common sense and allow Professor Sibley entry to Canada for the purpose of making lectures and speeches, without the necessity of a formal inquiry under section 23 of the Immigration Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me a similar question. He inquired as to whether consideration was being given to the admission to Canada of Professor Sibley without the necessity of holding a special inquiry. I assured the hon. member that I would answer his inquiry today.
As hon. members are aware, I made a full statement on March 24 regarding this case, in the course of which I referred to the desirability of amendments to the Immigration Act, and stated that pending changes in the law I intended to do what I could within my existing legal authority to follow an administrative course which would reduce to an absolute minimum the danger of conflict with considerations of free speech and the rights
Inquiries of the Ministry which are involved not only for visitors but all Canadians who choose to invite lecturers from outside Canada to address them.
On the basis of the information then available there was a doubt as to whether Professor Sibley was admissible and, pursuant to the requirements of the Immigration Act, arrangements were made for a special inquiry to be held. In the meantime there has been an opportunity for me to consider, in consultation with all the administrative officials concerned, all the relevant information. Pursuant to the assurance I gave in the house on March 24 that I would do what I properly could in cases of this sort, I am now in a position to announce that Professor Sibley will be permitted to enter Canada when he appears at one of our border ports, to fulfil speaking arrangements made with the Voice of Women and the student union of the university in Winnipeg. The superintendent in Winnipeg has been advised accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, concessions are always acceptable, even if they are made under pressure. I should like to ask the minister what different information he now has than that which was available to him, which he received from Mr. Clarke in Winnipeg, on Thursday before the arrival of Mr. Sibley. What has happened in the meantime to make it possible that he who was unrespectable, suddenly can receive official approbation regarding his respectability?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman thought that he was speaking accurately, but let me state unequivocally the department received no information from any Mr. Clarke in Winnipeg. The flow of information was in the other direction. An inquiry was received from Winnipeg and information was obtained here which was then passed on to the officer in Winnipeg, resulting in the action that was taken.
While I was in Winnipeg I checked that information. Since I have returned I have spent several hours in consultation with the different administrative officials concerned. I might add that in doing this I am exercising a ministerial discretion. I am not criticizing the departmental officials for what they did. I have a ministerial discretion, and I am exercising that discretion because I feel that the situation warrants it.


John George Diefenbaker: Five days late.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister admit that in the first instance the advice he received from his officials was poor advice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said that on the information that was then available my officials acted properly.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State, but in his absence I will address it as notice to his parliamentary secretary.
Could he tell the house how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could announce yesterday the construction of a pavilion on the world fair grounds, at a cost of $10 million-$4 million for construction and $6 for equipment-by means of funds not yet voted by parliament?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the Secretary of State, who undoubtedly will bring it to the attention of the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



GATT-CONSIDERATION OF CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, asking him whether he is aware that the 15 member committee established to examine the accord involving reciprocal easing of tariffs on cars between Canada and the United States has reported that this accord would clearly be a violation of GATT's most favoured nation rule, to which both Canada and the United States have agreed. If so, what is the Canadian position now in respect of this tariff accord which was signed between the two countries in January?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the GATT committee has been examining the


provisions of the Canada-United States agreement in the light of the GATT agreement, and in particular to discover whether the United States position, which differs from the Canadian position, may require special GATT action. The committee which has been looking into this matter has not yet reported its findings.
So far as the Canadian government is concerned, the right of duty free entry of automobiles and original equipment parts extends to all countries without discrimination. The Canadian government has therefore expressed in GATT its firm belief that Canadian participation in the agreement is fully in accord with its GATT obligations. It might be noted that the press item, from which my hon. friend has presumably obtained his information, raises no question in this regard.


Alfred Dryden Hales: My
question is supplementary to the one just asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. On March 5 I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance and asked if Canada had received protests from members of GATT concerning Canada's stand on this automotive pact. He said yes, protests had been received. Could he advise me from whom those protests were received and what action was taken?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to obtain the information and advise my hon. friend next week.



SUGGESTED EMBARGO ON IMPORTS FROM SOUTHERN UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In order to express the sympathy of Canadians toward the civil rights struggle in the southern U.S., has the minister received any representations from any organizations or groups urging that an embargo be put upon imports into Canada of manufactured goods from those states?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR QUEBEC WINTER GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?

Respecting the Quebec winter games organization and the holding of interprovincial winter games in Quebec city, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare have an announcement to make this morning as to whether a federal government grant, so anxiously awaited, will be provided?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have great satisfaction in announcing that the government of Canada and the Quebec government have agreed on a financial support formula for the organization of the first Canadian winter games, proposed for 1967.
The federal government will pay to the First Canadian Winter Games Corporation an amount of $700,000 for the organization of the games, while the Quebec government will look after capital expenditures, which will be larger than the federal contribution.
I want to thank the members of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport, those of the Canadian federation of amateur sports, the officers of the First Canadian Winter Games Corporation as well as all those who, in Quebec, have contributed to the development of this project, especially the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who worked with much interest and success.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
I congratulate her for this commendable effort to speak French. Since she is not at her seat I shall put my question to her parliamentary secretary.
Does this announcement she has just made of a federal government grant mean, as we had anticipated for a long time, that this move will prevent the holding of the winter games in 1966, as requested in the last two years?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may direct a question to the Minister of Justice. At the outset may I say
Inquiries of the Ministry we are pleased to see him back in his place in the house. My question is this. One of the principles to which the hon. member and his party adhere is that the greater the reward, the greater the enticement. I wonder, inasmuch as the $15,000 reward offered for the capture of Rivard seems to have failed in its purpose so far, if there is any intention of increasing that enticement.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: The
matter has not been considered, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. Was the minister informed on August 12 last by the mounted police of the possibility of a conspiracy to get Rivard out of Bordeaux jail? Did he receive that information from the mounted police, and what action did he take to discharge his responsibility of assuring the availability of Rivard for export under extradition and to assure that the conspiracy would not succeed?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is one, which according to our standing orders, is not in keeping with the practice to be followed in this house. I am of the opinion that a minister should not be called upon to report to the house on conversations he may have had with senior officers responsible to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Having received an admonition from the Minister of Justice as to the kind of questions to be asked, now I ask him, did you know in August that there was danger of Rivard getting out? That is the question.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I abide by the answer I gave a moment ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That is some admission, that is.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Since the minister is very much interested in the section of Bill No. C-136 dealing with

Inquiries of the Ministry an increase of the benefits based upon the cost of living index, would the hon. lady consider an amendment to the family allowances legislation to provide for an increase based upon the cost of living index, in order to restore to those family allowances their 1945 purchasing power?

Mr. Speaker, as I did not understand the eloquent answer made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to my first question, I will put this other question to her. Is it her intention to increase family allowances on the basis of the cost-of-living index, as has been the case for the benefits paid under Bill No. C-136, in order to give family allowances the purchasing power they had in 1945?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should think that after he has been at least two years in the house I should not have to inform my hon. friend that the things he is now discussing are matters of policy which should not be raised on orders of the day.



ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION ON CARS COSTING OVER $5,000

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address another question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in his last budget the minister made impossible, or at least attempted to stop, the importation into Canada of cars of the value of $5,000 and over by making it impossible for Canadians to claim depreciation on such cars for income tax purposes, is he considering removing this cross-purpose legislation in view of the fact that his colleague, the Minister of Industry, allows these cars to come into Canada duty free?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, that was one of these clear, crisp and sharp questions we are getting accustomed to, and I would like to give a similar answer. This would be a very good point to bring up in the debate on the budget and I hope very much, in the interests of the country, that we get on with the business and get the budget before parliament at an early date.


Alfred Dryden Hales: As a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, can he advise the house whether the same value of car can be im-

ported into the United States from Canada free of duty?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly it was asking whether a car in excess of the value of $5,000 can be imported duty free into the United States. The answer is that at the present moment there is a tariff against Canada, against the entry of cars in excess of $5,000 value.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: As
a supplementary to the Minister of Finance, could he assure the house that this matter of depreciation, in connection with high priced cars used for business purposes, will be given serious consideration when his next budget is prepared?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a supplementary question I would ask the Minister of Finance what date has he in mind for the presentation of the budget?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Just as early as possible in the new session, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I desire to reply now to a question from the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria of which I took notice on Tuesday last. The question presumed to be critical, both in respect of time and amount, of the winter works program in the parks of the Atlantic provinces.
I have had an opportunity of checking what we are doing there. I find we are spending no less than $789,000 on winter works for a total program to provide 32,448 man days. Up to the end of February, the last date for which I have figures, we had expended $488,000.
I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that because of extensive snow in the area it is very difficult indeed to produce a cost benefit ratio of advantage to the parks there. In the light of experience in past years, and the amount we are doing this year, I hope he will give us commendation instead of criticism. The program is not yet completed. As of the end of February we have about $140,000 or $150,000 yet to expend on the program,

which is going quite well. We have difficulty in getting a return in that particular area due to the fact we have difficulty in getting value for the money expended.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): May I ask a supplementary question. May I thank the minister for his very kind reply, and ask him at this time if he can tell me why there are so few employed in Cape Breton Highlands national park this year compared with previous years, in view of what he has said?


Arthur Laing: Of course we have to have work to do, and the work has to be laid out. We have had a considerable expenditure in Cape Breton Highlands, over $100,000 to date. There are one or two of the parks in the Atlantic region on which we have a proportionately smaller expenditure, which indicates to me there is not a great deal of unemployment in those particular areas.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have reluctantly abandoned my hope that he would lead us into the organization of American states. I ask, therefore, if it is the intention of the government to send observers to the upcoming conference in Rio which will be dealing with the tremendously important program of the alliance for progress.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Finance might be able to answer. Will he inform the house whether the government is prepared to assume responsibility for the cost of building a tunnel to Toronto island? I understand the metropolitan council of Toronto claims that this was entered into in 1913, and they raised the matter yesterday.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend will appreciate that this is a matter in which I would be very interested. I shall be glad to go into it and try to get an answer for him at the beginning of the week.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary could take it as notice. Has the minister plans to have the annual examination of Air Canada by the parliamentary committee at an early date?


Jean-Charles Cantin: I shall take the question as notice.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask whether the atomic energy control board has recently issued a premit to ship uranium to France.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the subject of uranium policy is under consideration by the government. With regard to the specific question asked by the hon. member, this should be directed to my colleague the Minister of Industry, who has responsibility for the atomic energy control board.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: As a supplementary, then, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a week ago the right hon. Prime Minister, in response to a question of mine regarding a study in connection with the Alaska Panhandle and means of access through it, said

Inquiries of the Ministry he would make a statement at what he considered would be a very early date. May I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who has an interest in this matter, whether he would try to communicate with the right hon. Prime Minister and see when that statement might be ready?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the hon. member originated from remarks I made in respect of the Panhandle, and I think I would be entirely within bounds to suggest that the Prime Minister will be making a statement on that subject in a matter of a week or ten days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked a question wtih regard to members of the militia being called up under Canadian army order 94-2 and being subsequently released without pension or other benefits. I took the question as notice.
The answer is somewhat complicated, as there are different categories of call-outs. In the first place, a call-out from the Canadian army reserves having previously established entitlement to an annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act must have served a minimum of one year as a call-out before he can augment his annuity. During his first year of service sufficient funds are protected in his pay account to pay for his C.F.S.A. contributions in respect of that service in the event that his call-out service extends beyond a year.
In the case of a call-out from the Canadian army reserves having previously established an entitlement to a pension under the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, he may elect at the commencement of his call-out to augment his pension in respect of the call-out service. The third case involves call-outs from the Canadian army reserves who have never established an entitlement to a pension or annuity. No contributions are deducted from the pay of such men during the time of callout, and no pension or annuity is payable in respect of this service.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to ask the minister whether it is not a fact that quite a number


of men called up from the reserve have served for a great number of years with the regular army. Second, whether or not they have established pension rights, is it the intention of the department to release these men, or any of them, simply on 30 days' notice?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics with me at the moment in respect to how many have been employed and for what period of time. My hon. friend may be referring to those who have been called up to serve in armouries in support of militia units, and in those cases notices are being given and also supplementary benefit on termination of their employment.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Sienson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but as it pertains to the 11 per cent sales tax maybe I could direct it to the Minister of Finance. Now that we know that the imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada has worsened this past year to an amount of almost $500 million, does the minister know whether United States industry has such a discriminatory tax as the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery that we have in Canada?
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could leave this until we get into debate on an early budget.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, slightly over a month ago the Minister of Labour promised to make a statement in regard to the employment situation in Cape Breton and the Atlantic provinces. The minister is absent from the house today on official business and I thought I should pose a question to the Prime Minister, but he has had to go to his office. May I now direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that the latest figures indicate that 13 per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic provinces is unemployed, a total of 78,000 persons, would the Secretary

of State for External Affairs, who has great experience in many fields including that of unemployment, urge the Minister of Labour to initiate measures as soon as possible to alleviate the situation which sees 5,000 more unemployed in the Atlantic provinces this year as compared with the same time last year?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all regret the unemployed condition of any single person in this country, but I know my hon. friend would agree with me that under the policies pursued by my colleague, the Minister of Labour, the improvement in the unemployment situation in this country has been truly remarkable.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he considers it appropriate that a minister who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should deny the evidence given by his senior advisers, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner of that body, as reported in newspapers where an account has been given of the evidence presented before the Dorion commission?


Guy Favreau: Never was there any contradiction between the testimony of the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and myself. I never did deny any of the allegations which they made under oath, and my own testimony under oath contained no such contradiction. The implications of the question are such that the question is really tantamount to an insult to one of the members of this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is unusually touchy. I am simply asking for information to which we and the public are entitled. May I ask this question of the minister. Are we to rely on the information given in the newspapers with regard to the evidence given before the Dorion commission to the effect that the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P. have said that the minister instructed them, or that they considered he had instructed them, to cease making further inquiries with regard to the Denis affair, and a further account in the
Inquiries of the Ministry newspaper that the minister has denied discontinuance of this inquiry?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the only advice I can give to the hon. member is to go by official records and to read, before making any insinuation, the minutes of the evidence given during the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that on this day of all days we might terminate this morning's proceedings on a happy note. I have the greatest doubt whether the first and second questions were in order at all. They concern statements made outside this house. The minister has given a clear and concise answer. It does seem to me we are going down this road a little too far and too fast to a conclusion which is not in order at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I may raise this issue with you on a point of order. The minister has accused me of making insinuations. I made no insinuations whatever. My question relied on reports published in the newspapers. The minister may say those reports are wrong; but he said I was making insinuations, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


George James McIlraith: On the point of order, the position is really a little different from that set out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. If he relies on statements made in the newspapers, he must take the responsibility should there be any discrepancy or inaccuracy in the description of the proceedings; it is not something he can shift from himself to the Minister of Justice. The hon. member asking the question is the one who must take the responsibility for the accuracy of the material he relies on in the house.
My second point is that the proceedings before a royal commission are sub judice, and surely it is not competent for us to embark now on a re-examination of testimony by a witness before that commission before the commission has reported. I think this attitude should be taken by all members of the house. Otherwise it would be quite impossible for a royal commission to carry on.


William Arnold Peters: Before this breaks into war, let's go to lunch.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The President of the Privy Council has now given us a lecture. My point

Inquiries of the Ministry of order was this. The Minister of Justice has accused me of making insinuations. I deny that allegation. I think that statement of his should be withdrawn. I made no insinuations whatever. If he believes the newspaper reports are inaccurate he may say so, but there were no insinuations in my question at all. I was making no allegation. I was simply asking for information to which we and the public of Canada are entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have respectfully asked you, Mr. Speaker, to request the Minister of Justice to withdraw his statement that I made an insinuation. That is the point at issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the point at issue is a wider one. The word "insinuation" was used, but I am sure in my mind it was not intended in the way the hon. member feels it was intended. Under the standing orders given to me the question originally asked was not in order, because questions should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct. Nevertheless the question was asked, and it seems to me that a clear and concise answer was given. I think we should leave it there, and I am sure the hon. member should not take it to heart in the way he seems to be doing. I am quite sure the word "insinuation" even if it was used was not intended in the way the hon. member seems to think it was.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I respectfully suggest it is very difficult for Your Honour or anyone else to interpret what is in the mind of the Minister of Justice. I am referring to the record in Hansard which will show that the Minister of Justice accused me of making insinuations. I say this is wrong and that the statement should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given the house, if I may be facetious, the benefit of my views. In any event, a decision has been rendered and it being one o'clock I do leave the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that I should call orders of the day before leaving the chair?


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Paul Joseph James Martin: the third reading of Bill No. S-22, to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might just say a word here, not to prolong the passage of this bill but to say that last night when I asked that the bill stand over for third reading today I was under the impression that we had the authority to do the reprinting. However, it has come to my attention that it is a Senate bill and the amendments recommended by the banking and commerce committee and passed by the House of Commons will be referred to the Senate for their consideration, and the reprinting of the bill in its final form rests with that body.


Mr. Speaker:: I would inform the hon. member that the bill has passed.



PENSIONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading 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.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is first on the list of speakers on this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a number of observations in connection with this legislation. Over the years I have spoken on the subject of old age security and

social welfare, and today I intend to review some of the things that have taken place over the years and then direct my attention specifically to the bill in question which is now before the house. My first words must be of commendation to the committee of both houses which over so long a period devoted itself to one of the most complicated and difficult pieces of legislation with which the present parliament has been asked to deal; indeed, it is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation to come before the house for a number of years. That committee met for a lengthy period of time. It met not only while the house was sitting but also during the period of adjournment, and to each and every member of that committee the house and country owes its gratitude and thanks. It is a committee that had a very difficult job to do.
I think at the same time I should mention its members. Instead of all the members I would mention those in Her Majesty's loyal opposition who sat on that committee and gave the benefit of their contributions to the examination of the bill. I mention particularly the former minister of national health and welfare, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), whose devotion to the question of social security is not of recent birth; it represents a lifetime given to a consideration of the problems of those who are underprivileged, and particularly those Canadians who are casting a larger shadow toward the east. That hon. member had with him the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chat-terton), who made a long and careful study of this matter in all its aspects. With those hon. members were the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon), the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), the hon. member for Wellington-Huron (Mr. Howe), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) and the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns). Each in turn and in co-operation with members from other political parties endeavoured to bring about recommendations as to changes to be made in the bill accepted in principle by the house.
I have read the evidence and I have also carefully studied the various amendments suggested. I believe there were amendments suggested that deserved a better fate than was theirs in that committee-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -for too often there was on the part of those members supporting the
Canada Pension Plan
government an unbending attitude against amendments however beneficial or necessary they may be. I am not one who is a great admirer of committees in so far as the work they are able to achieve is concerned. None the less, I do say that this committee in its lengthy and comprehensive examination of this great problem approached the task, carried on that task and completed it in a way that does indicate that committees can become effective. At the same time I am concerned, as I read the fate that was suffered by various amendments made, that too often those amendments were turned down on a party basis, which of course is a denial of the purposes for which a committee is set up.


Stanley Ronald Basford: What about your members?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from Vancouver, and it just shows how even a voice from the far Pacific can be heard clearly on occasion. No federal legislation has been subjected to more far ranging criticism and condemnation than this plan has from across the country. Criticism has forced the government on several occasions to produce new and altered versions.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to review the kaleidoscopic changes which have taken place, except to say that when mark I was produced, the first of these bills, the relationship that it bore to mark III is restricted almost exclusively to the acceptance of the name. We in this party have throughout the years always advocated that there is a major national responsibility to ensure the social welfare of the Canadian people. I refer particularly to those who because of disability, illness, age and the like are unable to have for themselves a reasonable and a fair share of the good things of life.
As for myself, when the family allowance bill came up there were some in my party, and in others, who were not agreeable to its provisions. I knew what it would mean. I took a strong stand, which ultimately was accepted by the Conservative party as a whole, and we joined in that legislation, recognizing that there is no limitation on the desire of everyone, regardless of party, to assure that we should achieve for all Canadians freedom from being victimized, if I may use the term, by social and economic forces beyond the control of the individual.
In the field of a national system of contributory old age pensions, in 1962 we placed on the order naper an amendment to the

Canada Pension Plan
British North America Act so as to permit of a comprehensive national contributory pension plan. It was our information from the law officers of the crown that to bring this about required an amendment to the British North America Act. Reading from Votes and Proceedings for October 1, 1962, we introduced an address to amend the British North America Act and have a new section 94, declaring as follows:
-that the parliament of Canada may from time
10	time make laws in relation to
(a)	old age pensions, and
(b)	pensions and other benefits incidental to, or conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions, but no law made by the parliament of Canada under the authority of this section affects the operation of any law enacted by the legislature of a province in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
I personally introduced this address. Before it received the attention of the house, the government was defeated on a vote of nonconfidence.
Now, sir, having said that we favour the whole field of social security legislation receiving its proper and considered place, I might begin by setting out a short chronology of the progress of this Canada pension plan. It was introduced by resolution on June 21, 1963. On July 18, 1963 the house was in committee on the first version. On October 29,
1963	the minister explained the delay resulting from the announced intention of Quebec to have a provincial plan. On December 2, 1963 the Prime Minister announced the possibility of changes resulting from the considerations being given by federal-provincial conferences.
On January 10, 1964 what I might call mark
11	was produced, the watered down version, which was set out in a letter by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to the premiers of the provinces. On March 18, 1964 the second version was unveiled in the Commons and the first white paper was attached thereto. On April 14, 1964 version No. 3 was announced resulting from alterations in version No. 2 to match the plan which was going to be brought into effect in the province of Quebec. On August 10, 1964 white paper No. 2 was produced; and on November 9 the fourth version of the plan was introduced in this house.
No one knows the reason for the metamorphosis of this plan. There have been all kinds of explanations as to how it came about. The Toronto Star for November 12,
1964	contended that the minister was, more

or less, no more than a nurse to the plan; that during the five days during which the Kent and Premier Lesage talks went on in Quebec and Ottawa, she was unaware of what was going on. Indeed, the record as set out in the article to which I refer would indicate that the plan was evolved as a result of the diplomatic capacity of Mr. Kent. However, others who were closer to the matter might be able to outline some additional information in that regard.
Anyway the plan is before us. I need not give evidence in support of the contention that I made a moment ago, that the Progressive Conservative party strongly favours social security; because during the period I had the honour to be prime minister, from 1957 to 1963, this country made the greatest advances in social justice ever seen in our country. During that period of time payments to Canadian citizens in the field of social justice increased by more than 53 per cent.
As far as old age security is concerned, the old age pensioners of Canada do not forget that when in 1956 the government of that day decided to increase the old age pension by $6-indeed, contended that any other increase would be unjustified-we took strong exception thereto; and when we came into office we increased the old age pension very materially from $46, finally to $65 per month. We made changes in the residence requirements so that pensioners were permitted to receive payments on a permanent basis abroad.
We increased old age assistance payments by 50 per cent. We raised the income ceiling by 3 per cent. We greatly increased blind and disability pensions. All these things were done during that period when we were in office. During that same period the national hospital plan was brought into being. The legislation was passed by the previous government, but the financing had to be undertaken by the Conservative government. Hospital construction grants were increased by 301 per cent, and national health grants were increased by 27 per cent. Indian and northern health services were greatly extended. I could go on reviewing what took place during that period of time when we were in office.
I mentioned a moment ago what happened in respect of old age pensions. When the present government came into power it received a great deal of support across the country by a promise of a $10 increase to old age pensions. However, it took a long while before we were able to get the government to take action. The answer given by the

government to our suggestion was that this field was not unequivocal. But when one reads the statement of policy which was issued then by the Liberal government he will find in the fine print that the $10 was only to be paid in the event a contributory pension plan was brought into being. We did everything we could to bring about the $10 increase, and finally on October 1, 1963,1 moved the following amendment during our consideration in committee of the whole of a resolution to amend the Old Age Security Act:
That said resolution be amended by striking out the words "effective October 1. 1963" in line three thereof, and substituting therefor "and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence as of April 8, 1963".
That has reference to the increase of $10. The chairman ruled that amendment out of order and we appealed his ruling. The Liberal members as a whole voted to uphold the chairman's ruling, but finally as a result of continued pressure put on the government we were able to bring about the introduction of the $10 increase, which raised the old age pensions to $75 per month.
A minute ago I mentioned our general stand in connection with the contributory pension plan. We had legislation ready in this regard when we went out of office, but we desired to provide for survivor benefits, without which the contributory system would not be effective. I mention these things so that no one will be misled by the propaganda which is raised from time to time to the effect that we are in opposition to social security measures. No party has a monopoly in this regard. I believe every party is composed of men and women with common objectives in so far as social security is concerned, each following the course which in its opinion will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
Sir, I could deal further with this subject but I think I have generally pointed out what is the fact, that our attitude as a party toward this problem was conclusively and absolutely proven during the period we were in office. I am not going to rehash the arguments which have been raised from time to time, but it does seem clear that the first version of this pension plan and one or two of its successors were concocted hastily and on an insecure basis, designed to dazzle the electorate. These plans had to be amended; yet today we are told that this pension plan is the proven child, the peerless offspring, of planned political parenthood. However, it
Canada Pension Plan
has had its insecurities during its existence. Efforts have been made to make changes so as to remove those things that were bad and those provisions that were weak. All I can say in that connection is that we believe there should have been a number of other changes made to assure that this legislation would have been universally effective, fully portable and based on the assurance that Canadians as a whole would receive equal treatment.
The committee of the Senate and the house on old age security met and heard many arguments as to how it should be financed.
I	should like to read a few of the views expressed by some members who now sit in the treasury benches. These views were given a few years ago by two of those hon. members who now occupy positions in the cabinet. The question to be answered at that time was, how should the pension plan be financed, and whether it should be done by payroll deductions. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) gave evidence before that committee in 1950, and is recorded at page 949 of the proceedings and evidence as having stated:
The fundamental characteristics of a pay as you go system is that those who are working pay the cost of providing pensions for those who have retired. The financing of a pay as you go system is a matter of distributing the current cost of pensions over the population in what is considered to be a proper way. In other words, it is essentially a revenue problem, even though the scheme may be contributory in the sense that it is paid for in whole or in part by a special levy or contribution.
Then Mr. Sharp, director of the economic policy division of the Department of Finance, as he was referred to at that time, said:
I think it is pretty clear that a tax on wages and salaries would have a very direct effect on cost of production. I would think if there were a payroll tax, paid by the employer, the tendency would be for it to be passed on in prices immediately. There would be certain deterring factors and this is one of the difficulties of payroll taxes; if they do not apply on imports, you put the local producer at some handicap compared with his competitors abroad.
That is interesting in connection with the
II	per cent sales tax, to which the hon. member for Wellington South referred today. Perhaps this quotation will give him an answer to his question.
Mr. Sharp then continued and said:
However, I would think in general a payroll tax would tend to be passed on to the consumer and in that way it would have a direct effect on prices. It would not, of course, apply to everything purchased, it would apply only to goods and services that were taxed. It would not apply

Canada Pension Plan
to rents except in so far as they reflect the higher cost of construction in houses____The tax on incomes cannot be passed along so readily.
Then, finally, he said this:
Since the payroll tax is placed on all exports, it enters into the cost of producing goods for export. The sales tax is rebated. Now, a sales tax may have some effect on increasing the cost of living internally, thus affecting the wage rate, but it does not have the same direct effect a payroll tax has.
Then, the chairman of that committee at that time was Hon. Jean Lesage, the present premier of Quebec. He asked this question:
Mr. Sharp, what would be the economic effect of putting the sales tax on building materials, for instance? I am taking it as an example there.


Mitchell William Sharp: The effect certainly would be to increase the cost of production.
The present Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne) gave his views on financing and old age pensions and I quote from page 1035 of the committee report:
Obviously, the tax on payrolls will add up to a larger amount in those industries utilizing a large labour force in proportion to the machinery used. The possibilities of proflt in these industries will be reduced unless some way is found to avoid the tax.. .Capital may even leave the country, seeking profits in those parts of the world where the living standards of the workers are lower and where no such taxes on payrolls present restrictions to profits...
The immediate result of the tax will therefore be a fall in industrial production, especially in those industries which employ a large proportion of labour.
I have left out portions in between, but hon. members can read them.
The conclusion seems inescapable. The tax on payrolls will fall back on the workers in the form of unemployment or a reduction in wages.
Now, those were the views of the present Secretary of State in 1950. In addition, he said:
We therefore conclude that the workers will bear nearly the whole cost of social security.
Then, the present Secretary of State gave a considered observation when he said:
-I do not believe in the balanced budget, and I think we will experience deficits in the near future.
Well, all of this is tremendously interesting and indicates the change in attitude of ministers today as compared with the views they held when they were economic advisers. It is well to give consideration to these matters because that committee was set up to endeavour, through discussion, to bring about the very best legislation possible. I could deal with the evidence given by Mr. Kent and others. I have it here, but I do not want to

take up too much time of the house. I did want the house to have the benefit of the economic views those gentlemen expressed in 1950 relating to the effect of a payroll tax.
Now, sir, this tax begins at 3.6 per cent on payrolls. Will it bring about the results that were pictured by Mr. Lamontagne, as he then was, and by Mr. Sharp, as he then was? Naturally, those are questions we ask, and I am sure the government, having given the fullest consideration to this matter with its economic advisers, will be able to provide the assurance that the black results to the economy expressed in 1950 will have been dissipated in the light of passing years. We in this party have placed our views clearly and definitely before the committee. We believe in a comprehensive contributory plan. We believe that no plan brought into effect should have in it inherent dangers that have not been fully viewed from every economic angle and the assurance that no ill results will follow.
On the basis of our belief in such a plan, we have given our full and complete support to the objective of a portable, contributory retirement plan for all Canadians. I say to you, sir, that one million Canadians, approximately, at present in receipt of old age pension are excluded from the plan. This plan, therefore, falls short of the objective I have mentioned. Persons in the greatest need, such as those already retired and those with small incomes or casual employment, will never benefit. After all the plan that is evolved should certainly assure that those in the greatest need will not be forgotten. Furthermore, it is proposed that those who will qualify will yet receive completely inadequate benefits, and our committee members advocated various changes.
They advocated that all persons over 70 receiving old age security benefit should receive an additional $25 per month being paid from the Canada pension plan fund when the first benefit payments are made from that fund. Today the old age pension is $75 per month, but the cost of living is rising very rapidly. The Liberal party promised that they would bring in a cost of living proposal so that, from time to time, the pension would be equated to the rise in the cost of living. This will not be the case until 1968. This gives no hope to those who today are struggling in the face of the rising cost of living to make both ends meet.
Furthermore, we recommended that all persons between 65 and 70 who meet the requirement test and who elect to draw the actuari-

ally reduced old age security payment should receive a minimum benefit of $25 a month to be paid from the plan. I mentioned a moment ago that there are thousands and thousands of Canadians who will reap no benefit. We believe that all persons qualified for any benefit under the Canada pension plan should receive, where a single person, a minimum pension of $25 per month. We contend that no one, regardless of the smallness of his income, should be placed in the position of a pariah. In other words, they should not be excluded from having pension rights.
We advocated, too, other necessary changes that we believed should be made, and these other suggestions will be brought to the attention of the house during the course of the discussion. What I am simply doing is outlining our views in regard to this problem.
There is no question but that today the old age pensioner is in great difficulty. Rents are up, prices are up, and there is grave need among tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners who find themselves in a position bordering on penury. Yet there is no hope for them in this plan. They are just going to stumble along to the end of the road on the basis of a totally inadequate payment today.
I am not one of those who do not realize that costs must be considered, but this plan over a period of years will build up a terrific fund, and there is no reason why those who most need an increase over the present rate of $75 should be placed in the position of being denied any consideration for such an increase.
We also know that members of the committee advocated that to accommodate persons such as students, who may enter the labour force after 18, and people such as teachers and firemen who retire early, and people who suffer illness and unemployment, the number of zero years of earnings be increased by 25 per cent. All these things are designed to make the plan effectively workable.
We want a plan that is not an illusory one, that brings to those who do not examine it the visual effects of a mirage. Many Canadians who have not received a full explanation of the plan think the day of utopia is here; but the day of reckoning will come when the scheme goes into effect and those who need it most find themselves unqualified to secure their need.
As I have said, my purpose is simply to outline some of these things so that there will be a basis for the arguments that will be
Canada Pension Plan
advanced by others in this party, others with a fuller knowledge of the subject, others who have given it a more intensive study than I have been able to give it, others who belonged to the committee, and others outside the committee who gave this matter the fullest and most complete consideration. Therefore, while in every way desiring and being most anxious to assure that the legislation shall go through, we still hope that the hearts of those opposite can be softened to the extent that they will be prepared to allow this bill to go back to the committee for further consideration in another form.
Anybody who would disagree with that must recall that when plan No. 1 was produced we were told that it was the greatest thing that the mind of man, or even woman, had evolved. It was the summum bonum of all the perfections, but it died a natural death on examination. Along came the second edition and it went the way of all flesh. Then No. 3 came along and it represented the repairs that were made in drydock. They were not sufficient and the present plan, beneficial as it is in many areas, still deserves to receive further consideration.
It is not a matter of a long delay. This legislation will not come into effect until the beginning of next year. Another two weeks of consideration, with the members of the committee freed from any parental control or direction, or the suggestion of it, would be able to bring about changes that would remove any suggestion that any of the matters to which I have referred are final and absolute.
Somebody might say, "If you move an amendment you are going to kill the legislation." Nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker. I say immediately that in the amendment I am about to move I make very clear this fact, that in no way is it to be considered as a vote of non-confidence or a vote disapproving of this legislation.
We are trying to assure that mark IV will be improved. Members of the committee tried without success. Always when they introduced amendments somebody seemed to be looking over their shoulders saying, "No, no don't take that." I do not say it happened because I am sure the committee members were free and untrammelled, and not subject to psychological influence, but the fact remains that for some reason the Liberal members opposed every change that was asked for by opposition members, and I think I can say that without exception.

Canada Pension Plan
I make it clear immediately that in no way is this amendment-and it is the only way 1 can bring it before the house-to be considered as killing the legislation. As I said a moment ago, in no way or by any interpretation is it to constitute a vote of nonconfidence. The purpose is to see whether parliament, whether this house can bring about what the members of the committee were unable to bring about; in other words, so that the House of Commons will speak on this and so members will have an opportunity to stand up and be counted.
I am sure that if the Prime Minister would only announce a free vote, and there is no reason why he should not, it would not take very long before the suggestion I shall offer in the amendment would receive support. I have talked to members in that informality that has always existed among members of the house, and I know there are members in all parts of the chamber who would like to see changes made. In order to give that opportunity, and so that there will be no mistake as to the consensus in parliament, and so that members may have the opportunity of voting without in any way being considered as against the government or for the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
That Bill No. C-136 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole so that the government may give consideration to and introduce amendments to the said bill to provide for a minimum payment of $25 per month out of the Canada pension plan account to all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years who are retired from regular employment, and also to provide an increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all those now 70 years of age or over.
I submit this in both official languages of the house, and before it is read, Mr. Speaker, might I make this observation, that it will be seen that in no way are we directing the government what it should do. In no way are we determining this question.
We are suggesting that the government might give consideration to this and introduce amendments to provide those things which are generally being asked for today across this country, and reasonably so. As far as further argument in connection with this matter is concerned, my colleagues to whom I have made reference, as well as others, will I am sure place before the house their views on this subject because there is no question before the Canadian people today which is more representative of the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
general views of Canadians as a whole than that which is embodied in the amendment which I have the honour to move.


John Carr Munro: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit me to ask him a question with respect to his remarks? The right hon. gentleman suggested that the committee, and especially the government members on the committee, did not give ample consideration to improvements to the bill and suggested changes in it. I wonder if he would consider the many improvements which were suggested in the committee and adopted by the committee? The majority of them were adopted by the government and I wonder if he would not agree they amounted to substantial benefits. I am referring, for example, to benefits for orphans, the fact that we are giving benefits to disabled contributors and the fact that we agreed to do away with one residence-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the parliamentary secretary asking a question, now?


An hon. Member:: Just sounding oft.


John Carr Munro: No answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What was the question?


John Carr Munro: I did not receive an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I never got to the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the house proceeds, I wonder whether any hon. member wishes to address the Chair as to whether the proposed amendment is in order or not.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Question; let us vote on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am wondering
whether the house understood the Chair a moment ago when I sought advice from hon. members as to whether this proposed amendment is in order or not.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would suggest that the amendment is in order. It suggests that the bill should be recommitted to the committee of the whole, and such motions are standard practice on third reading. It asks that the government should take a certain matter under consideration and that the government should introduce certain amendments.
I would refer to the ruling of the Chair the other day that this was a money bill. With the greatest deference I have made

some remarks since then to indicate my feeling that this bill does not affect ways and means in any way and is therefore not in the category of money bills. This measure sets up a Canada pension plan account from contributions. Citation 415 or citation 423 of Beauchesne covers the situation. I would suggest to Your Honour that the question of whether this is a money bill is extremely pertinent. I put it to Your Honour that there is nothing in this bill, that is, in parts I, II and III, which in any way affects ways and means. I think the Chair should take this into consideration.
In any event, I think we can go back to a large number of precedents over the years and find that this is the standard form. I am sure Your Honour will be faced with similar types of amendments from other quarters of the house for consideration on third reading and I put it to you that the amendment is in order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can understand the difficulty you may be faced with, Mr. Speaker, in deciding whether or not the amendment is in order. As usual, in order to make this kind of idea known, the amendment is very cleverly worded. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a money bill. A money bill is clearly defined on page 204 of Beauchesne's fourth edition in the last paragraph of citation 243.
A money bill was defined as follows in the Parliament Act, passed in the British house in 1911:
"A money bill means a public bill which contains provisions dealing with.. .money provided by parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt,-
And these are the important words-
-custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money."
Even though the charge which would be made on the Canada pension plan as a result of the acceptance of this amendment might not come directly out of consolidated revenue, it would certainly come out of a fund of which the government has custody. Citation 243 clearly defines a money bill as including any fund which is within the custody of the government.
The second problem is presented by the words "that the government may give consideration to". This is, perhaps, the standard practice, because the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is in fact in keeping with what is described in citation 415 where it says;
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third
Canada Pension Plan
time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
The problem is that this amendment goes further than referring the question back to the committee of the whole. It sets out the kind of amendments which should be made to the bill when it does get back into committee. These words "the government may give consideration" are there in the amendment to gloss over or cover up the fact that only a minister of the crown may move an amendment which involves the expenditure of money, and the money involved in this case is money of which the government has custody, in accordance with the citation I read from Beauchesne.
I am not completely convinced that this amendment is out of order. It represents one of the things we have had to put up with over the years, with its clever wording. But it is known perfectly well that private members cannot move, for example, that an increase of $25 be granted, though they may insert these words requesting the government to give consideration to such a step.
If this amendment becomes an order of the house, I respectfully suggest that the balance of the amendment, spelling out in detail the nature of the amendments asked for, then imposes almost an obligation on the government to move this kind of amendment. Putting that alongside the well established practice that no member other than a minister of the crown can move this type of amendment, it is a kind of left handed way of putting an obligation on a minister of the crown to move it.
While I know we have been through this before and perhaps we could even find precedent that the wording of this type of amendment has been accepted before, I think it is really out of order because it is trying to do, in an indirect way, what members of the house other than ministers of the crown cannot do directly.


Mr. Chatterton:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the contention of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) I would respectfully suggest that if Your Honour declares this amendment in order and if the house approves it, there is no order from the house to change the balance of ways and means; the order of the house would merely be that the committee of the whole give further consideration to this matter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole would have to give consideration to it, by order of

Canada Pension Plan
the house, but it need not adopt the recommendations contained in the amendment. The house in committee could, after consideration, reject the proposals contained in our amendment. So I suggest that even if this is considered to be a money bill, the adoption of our amendment would not in any way affect the balance of ways and means.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) that a member of this house other than a member on the treasury benches has no right to move an amendment respecting a money bill, even for the consideration of the house.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would bring to your attention, along the lines of the argument of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), that this amendment does in fact go considerably further than just the suggestion of the element of consideration. It states that "the government may give consideration to and introduce amendments to the said bill", and I would think that this quite definitely casts an obligation upon the government to introduce amendments to the bill. The amendment stipulates that consideration be given to introducing amendments to provide for a minimum payment of $25 a month out of the Canada pension plan account to all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years who are retired from regular employment, and also to provide an increase from $75 a month to $100 a month for all those now 70 years of age and over.
I think both those latter elements under the heading of introducing amendments do bring into focus the particular restriction in the rules that such amendments which impose upon the government obligations to increase expenditures, which expenditures will be derived from general revenue, are out of order. This is quite clearly the case here and is a matter that has already been ruled on, namely that increased charges on the Canada pension plan account are in effect charges on general revenue. This is all set out and has been argued before this house in connection with the financial provisions of clause 110 of the bill. Subclause (4) of clause 110 states:
No payment shall be made out of the consolidated revenue fund under this section-
And so on. All through these financial provisions there is reference to the consolidated revenue fund. It is quite clear from the financial provisions of clause 110 that any charges on the Canada pension plan account
fMr. Chatterton.]
are in fact charges on the consolidated revenue fund and that the Canada pension plan account is a bookkeeping entry in the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt at all that any amendment that is advanced which does require, or cast an obligation upon, the government to accept amendments which have the effect of creating additional charges on the Canada pension plan account cannot be considered anything but contrary to the rules.
I would also point out that when we talk about advancing an amendment such as this, namely that we refer this matter back to committee with definite instructions to create a charge on the Canada pension plan account, it is contrary to the resolution brought in by the government in introducing this particular bill; because it is quite clear from reading the resolution introducing Bill No. C-136 that all these moneys that go into the Canada pension plan account are moneys derived from contributors, from wage earners, and it is to those people that all benefits are to be payable. This amendment, of course, if accepted would cast an onus upon the government to use these funds, that are quite clearly stated to be for the benefit of wage earners and contributors, for the purpose of making payments to those who never would be covered under the Canada pension plan and who would never contribute to the Canada pension plan. That is precisely what this amendment would do in providing flat rate benefits payable out of this account in respect of moneys that come from contributors and for which benefits are to go to those contributors. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this amendment runs contrary to the resolution introducing this particular bill.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat quoted many citations to Your Honour with respect to this question. I would refer the house to citation 249 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
"No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money."
Again I would argue, Mr. Speaker-and I believe it has been accepted already in a previous ruling on this bill-that there is no question that this amendment involves public money. This citation continues:
"No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer".



26, 1S65

[Stage Direction]
I would now refer to citation 250, part (2) thereof, at the bottom of page 215 in the same edition of Beauchesne:
An abstract resolution does not-
I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is analogous to that:
-finally bind the house to make the grant, and it imposes upon the government the responsibility of either accepting or rejecting the recommendation.
Then the citation goes on:
Addresses to the crown requesting an issue of public money must originate in a committee of the whole house.
I say that this is precisely what this particular amendment does; it is an address to the crown requesting an issue of public money and as such, in accordance with that citation, it should originate in a committee of the whole house. I would now refer to page 216, citation 250 (3), which says:
No amendment affecting the purposes for which the grant is recommended by the crown can be allowed.
This is what this particular amendment does; it alters the purposes of this particular bill and is contrary to the resolution introducing the bill because it would, in effect, create charges on the Canada pension plan account for the benefit of other than contributors. This is against the whole theme of the bill. It is certainly against the first three parts of the bill, and it is against the resolution which introduced the Canada pension plan bill. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to Beauchesne, citation 250 (4), which says:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that would apply here. Again for the reasons I have already stated. For those reasons I would argue that this amendment is completely out of order and should be rejected.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on the same point of order, approaching the principle enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) from a different point of view. I agree with the submission he has introduced to you, supported by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), that this amendment affects the balance of ways and means in an indirect way instead of directly, which is prohibited. I refer to 20220-8134
Canada Pension Plan
citation 406 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
Amendments are out of order if they are-
(b)	inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as agreed to by the committee;
(c)	inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment;-
I suggest to Your Honour that since the principle of the bill involves a universal portable contributory plan, any amendment which would have the effect of adding noncontributors to that plan offends against the principle of the bill as accepted by this house both on second reading and throughout the committee stage of the bill. The two citations to which I have referred go to that point.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would invite your review of the proceedings during the committee of the whole and ask Your Honour to inquire whether or not an attempt to add non-contributors to the bill has not already been made in committee of the whole and the amendment defeated by this committee. If that is so, this amendment attempts to achieve the purpose of an amendment which was rejected by the committee and therefore is inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
If Your Honour would be good enough once again to turn to citation 415 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, as found on page 287, paragraph 4 reads:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approval on the second reading.
My submission to Your Honour is that the principle approved on second reading was a principle of a contributory pension plan, and I submit that this amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) would offend against the principle of the bill by adding non-contributors to the bill. According to the citation it would go beyond the principle of the bill already approved by the house both on second reading and in committee of the whole.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the arguments adduced by the three members who have preceded me would be very weighty if they were related to the subject matter of the amendment, but I think they have gone very far afield. I suggest to Your Honour that this amendment is in accordance with amendments on third reading which have been considered valid by the Chair for many years. It is part of the custom and tradition of the house to move amendments in this form.

Canada Pension Plan
I suggest there is no direct order being given by the house to the government as mentioned in citation 249 (3). That we cannot do, and we are not giving a direct order. There is no suggestion in this amendment of a money resolution, which can be brought forward only from the treasury benches.
This amendment is contrived to determine what is the will of the House of Commons, and to bring to a vote the issue that is before us, so that there may be a distinct understanding as to what the house as a whole desires to do with the bill. I do not see that that is in any way altering the principle determined on second reading.
There are two matters in the amendment which have been repeated on many occasions in amendments on third reading. The amendment says "so that the government may give consideration to" and so on. That is not a direct order other than asking the government to have another look at the bill; that in view of the house there may be some changes which the government might take into account, having considered the debate which has progressed this far. So the request is simply that the government "may give consideration to". Then it goes on to say "and introduce amendments to the said bill". I emphasize the word "may". In other words, the house is simply saying that if the government will give further consideration to this bill and it finds on that further consideration that amendments are necessary to alter the financial matters in the bill, then the government itself is asked to introduce amendments. So that this amendment is drawn up with the fact in mind that no direct order is being given to the government, no change in the principle of the bill is being suggested, and no attempt is being made to interfere with the proper rights of the government in money matters.
All we are asking here is that the government reconsider the bill. If on reconsideration it finds that the suggestions made by the members of the House of Commons are reasonable, then the government itself, we suggest, may introduce certain amendments in accordance with the figures we have set out in the amendment.
I conclude, sir, by suggesting to you that this amendment is in order and that it follows a well recognized practice in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I would rather be speaking to the merits or otherwise of the amendment than to its propriety in terms of procedure. Of course if

the amendment is allowed I will have an opportunity to do so, and to express our views as to what this kind of amendment would do to the Canada pension plan. However, at this point the question before us is one of procedure.
I have before me something that other hon. members, except my own colleagues, do not have, namely the draft of an amendment that we ourselves propose to move, if the opportunity arises, on third reading. It is precisely because we have taken particular care to make sure that our proposed amendment will be in order that I see faults in the one proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I thought I should get that on the record so that hon. members will not say later that that is the reason for the stand that I now wish to take.


John George Diefenbaker: It makes you a rather prejudiced witness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the amendment which we will propose, if we get the chance to do so later, we ask that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole house so that that committee may reconsider it.


An hon. Member:: That is what we say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says from behind the curtain "That is what we say". The official opposition would refer the bill back to the committee so that the government may do something. This house has no authority to instruct the government what to do. But this house does have authority to ask its own members in committee of the whole to reconsider the matter.
I think that that is the first fault in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. He would refer the bill back to the committee of the whole so that the government may do something. It is the government to which the instructions are given-"that the government may give consideration", "that the government may introduce". In my submission, Mr. Speaker, if this amendment were to be carried, despite all the niceties of its language, it would in effect be an instruction by this house to the government to take a certain course of action in the committee of the whole.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member then suggest that the word "government" be

deleted and the words "committee of the whole" be substituted therefor?


John George Diefenbaker: How can a committee spend money?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly think it would be better if that were done, but we have an even better amendment which we will move when it is our turn. I think the amendment would be better if the word "government" was not included, and it referred the bill back to the committee of the whole to do things that a committee of the whole can do. What are the things that the committee of the whole can do? It can do those things that a committee made up of ordinary members can do, but all of the restrictions that we have been confronted with before are still in existence.
I shall not re-read the citations that have been read, but I should like to draw attention to one or two that have not been mentioned. Citation 246, paragraph (3), in Beauchesne's fourth edition reads:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
The proposal included in this amendment is that the house should consider altering the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the Canada pension plan account. What has been laid down in the original resolution was on the financial initiative of the crown, and it is my submission that the house does not have the authority to change that unless there is another message from His Excellency the Governor General. I would point out that there is merit to citation 415, paragraph (4) read by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), which deals with third reading and states:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on second reading.
However, I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. member that citation 406 applies, because that citation is in the context of what happens in the committee of the whole. I see the hon. member nodding his head in agreement. Apparently he got ahead of himself.
Citation 415, paragraph (4), deals with the situation on third reading. Perhaps I should also read a portion of citation 418, which is as follows:
Canada Pension Plan
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
The amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asks the government to consider putting something into the bill which has not been there at all, namely the paying out of moneys from the Canada pension plan fund to persons who have not contributed to it. I am now getting very close to the substance that I should like to argue, that I think this amendment is one that is unfair in its purposes because it takes money out of the Canada pension plan fund to be used for something else. I do not think that is the way to solve our problems but perhaps I should not get into that discussion.
Mr. Speaker, we must stay with what has been the practice on third reading. When the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) spoke he said something I shall probably parallel. Neither of us expected this argument, so we have not got our precedents here. The hon. member said that the amendment is in line with traditional forms that have been used on third reading, but he did not produce any examples. I will follow suit and say that the amendment is in line with amendments of the kind that have been ruled out of order, but I do not have my precedents with me. The fact is, however, that any attempts on third reading to move a bill back into committee with instruction to introduce the expenditure of money have been ruled out of order.
Hon. members may be wondering how we are going to move an amendment. I say that our amendment is simply going to ask that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the basic amount of the old age security pension set out in a certain clause. We want to refer it back to the committee, but we are giving no instruction. We are setting no amount or dollar figure. We are simply asking that committee to consider something in a particular clause.
I mention that fact, not in an attempt to announce in advance what we intend to move but to indicate the kind of thing that can be done on third reading. On third reading one can move the reference back of a bill for consideration without going into detail, but one cannot move a reference back, supposedly for reconsideration of a clause but actually giving instruction or asking for an expenditure of money in a way in which a

Canada Pension Plan
private member is not permitted. There is no use trying to fool ourselves about this. An amendment or a proposal which would mean taking money out of the Canada pension plan fund to be paid to non-contributors is foreign to the provisions of the bill in the first place. On the other hand, what we will propose is entirely within the ambit of part IV.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you will have to look very closely at the terms of this amendment because it does seem to go beyond the kind of amendments that have been allowed on third reading.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps presumptuous of a new member in this house to follow an act such as we have just witnessed, and I use the word act advisedly. During the short time I have been a member of this house I have never before heard a member argue against an amendment by announcing a different amendment which he himself proposes to move at a later stage. However, I am sure you have been assisted by that hon. member's contribution, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to comment briefly on the statements made by government spokesmen to the effect that this amendment is out of order in that it somehow or other sins against the principles of the resolution and that, indeed, it is foreign to the very spirit of social security of this kind. I believe that when reviewing this amendment one has to take into consideration the statements made in the white paper which give some guidance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering now whether the hon. member is discussing the principle of the whole resolution rather than the point of order which has been raised. I certainly appreciate the hon. member's comments and advice on the point of order, but perhaps he will restrict himself in that regard.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am commenting on the remarks made by hon. members opposite to the effect that this amendment would have the effect of giving moneys from the Canada pension plan fund to non-contributors and, therefore, it is out of order. I am attempting to restrict my comments to the Chair to precisely that point.
The spirit of this legislation, as set out by the minister herself when she introduced this resolution to the house, was stated to be that all Canadians would, by the provisions of this plan, be enabled to retire in security with dignity. All the proposed amendment would

do is refer the bill back to the special committee for reconsideration in an attempt to design the resolution in such a way as to carry out the government's intention. Anyone who attempts to propose the argument that $75 per month would provide security in retirement with dignity is simply overlooking the very purpose of this legislation as announced by the minister.
Mr. Speaker, that is my contribution to this debate.


Mr. Winkler:: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but I am prompted to speak by the words of the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Turner). I should like to review what he said when he referred to the fact that we have a reason for presenting such an amendment. I should like to outline the reason the amendment should be allowed. First of all, the key word in the amendment is "consideration". I believe the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George indicated we were suggesting a change in the principle of this legislation. I say to you that is very unfair of him because, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), we are in agreement with the principle. It is not the principle, therefore, that we are amending. We are amending a specific part of that legislation. We wish to assist the government in correcting any failures through the use of this word "consideration".
Certainly, the specifics in the amendment are not new to the house nor to any of the members of the house, nor any members of the committee, because of what took place during the discussion of this bill. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Although he did not read his entire amendment, he certainly got as much of it into the record at this point as he possibly could. I hope he is not suggesting that by referring the matter back to the committee we are suggesting the committee has any particular power to deal with the money aspect of the matter. He seemed to indicate this to me. We are well aware of the fact this is not within the competence of a private member to make any changes concerning the financial aspect of the bill. We have, of course, used the word "consideration" and I believe he used the word "reconsideration". When we use the word "consideration" we are referring simply to an attempt to improve what we consider to be the basic failure of the legislation.

I might say to the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre that most Canadians who will be the benefactors of this legislation- I do not wish to become irrelevant-in the age group from 45 on, I believe would gladly forgo a portion of that extra benefit they are going to receive in order to bring about this particular change. The hon. member knows very well how I feel because of the debate that has taken place thus far. I am simply saying to you at this stage of the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I feel the wisest course to follow would be to permit discussion on the terms of the amendment and reserve your decision until Monday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I might refer hon. members to standing order 34(1) which suggests that discussion on a point of order should not be too long, once the Chair has been sufficiently advised and informed. I do feel that some of the leading lights in the field of procedure have contributed to the debate up until this point. I might say, in view of the fact that the amendment before us was introduced by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, it may be somewhat more difficult for the Chair on this particular day to find fault with the amendment he has proposed.
I have been rather impressed by the arguments advanced by a number of hon. members on both sides of the house. I should like to review these briefly. In my opinion, in spite of what has been said in explanation of the amendment, it seems to me it is not merely an instruction to the committee to consider a certain proposal. There is more to this amendment than the ordinary motion referring a matter back to committee on third reading. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce says the essence of this amendment is that the government give consideration to something. This is not the way the amendment is worded. It says that the government may give consideration to and introduce amendments; in other words, that the government introduce amendments to the said bill to provide for a minimum payment of $25. In my opinion, this goes beyond the type of amendment that can be proposed at this stage, and which as I have had the opportunity to judge during the last hour or so, has been moved on previous occasions.
I should like to refer hon. members to citation 220, paragraph (1) of Beauchesne which refers to the fact it is possible to give instructions empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do. Here,
Canada Pension Plan
again, these are instructions to a committee, not instructions to the government. It seems to me that on this ground this proposed amendment is faulty.
If the amendment is adopted, I am sure hon. members will recognize that it would really be inescapable for the government to introduce financial proposals. If the amendment means anything, then it instructs the government to introduce a financial proposal. This seems to be contrary to a number of citations. Citation 249 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraphs (2) and (3), read as follows:
A motion requesting the government to introduce immediately legislation granting retirement allowances to all citizens over 60 years of age is out of order because it involves an expenditure of money.
An amendment declaring that government action in any matter should be taken forthwith and giving a direct order which, if approved by the house, would compel the government to adopt measures involving an expenditure of public money, could not be moved by a private member.
In spite of the argument to the contrary put forward by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, I am impressed by the submissions made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Turner) when he referred to citation 406(b). The amendment, inasmuch as it goes beyond the terms of the proposed bill, which is a contributory pension plan, would appear to be out of order and actually be, as I said, against this principle, and also in opposition to the terms of the resolution because the resolution certainly is strictly limited to a contributory pension plan.
Citation 415, paragraph (4), was referred to also by a number of hon. members. It is to the effect that the principle approved on second reading should not be contradicted by an amendment. Here again, it seems to me that this proposition is contradicting the principle as approved on second reading. I do feel that this amendment cannot be accepted by the Chair. I have looked at it as objectively as I could and for the reasons I have just expressed, in view of the arguments advanced by a number of hon. members which impressed me and which I adopt and make my own. I must say that the amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would Your Honour permit a question, just for clarification of your ruling?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre can put a question if he so desires, but he realizes it is not in order

Canada Pension Plan
to discuss a ruling which has been made by the Chair or to question the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the question arising is as to the clarification of your ruling, if I may, with respect, put it that way. I refer to the first portion thereof, as to whether the wording of the resolution is a direction to the government. All I am asking is whether or not Your Honour has taken cognizance of the word "may" as well as the word "consideration".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I do not think the hon. member would want to discuss the ruling. I feel he will want to accept it and I suggest he should not ask for clarification. The ruling speaks for itself. It may be bad; it may be good; but it is the ruling of the Chair and I would not think it would be in order for hon. members to ask questions of the Chair to explain particulars of the ruling that has been rendered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I then, with the greatest respect, appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
"The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows.
To the motion for the third reading of Bill No. C-136, an act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition moved in amendment the following:
'That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
That Bill C-136 be not read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole so that the government may give consideration to and introduce amendments to the said bill to provide for a minimum payment of $25 per month out of the Canada pension plan account to all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years who are retired from regular employment, and also to provide an increase from

$75 per month to $100 per month for all those now 70 years of age and over.'
The Chair ruled, in effect, that the amendment was not an instruction to the committee of the whole but rather an order to the government, and as such it would infringe the financial initiative of the crown; and also that it would have the effect of suspending in part the principle of the bill as approved by the house in giving second reading thereto."
Whereupon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre appealed to the house against the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not the regular procedure in this house that all hon. members in the house must cast a vote one way or another? To accept any other principle would be to agree that hon. members could sit in the house and not cast a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that in recent years this has been left to the discretion, or perhaps conscience, of hon. members. That is as far as I can go.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Forbes:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Harley:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the desire of this house that the Chair call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, before you call it five o'clock I should like to propose this widely publicized but well worded amendment on third reading-
Criminal Code


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is now five o'clock. The hon. member will perhaps have the honour of calling it five o'clock.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



NATIONAL FLAG


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I would ask that order No. 15 on the order paper, Bill C-83, an act to adopt a national flag (Canadian red ensign) be discharged and that the said bill be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to withdraw the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-35, to amend the Criminal Code (habeas corpus).


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the originator of this motion would like to speak to the amendment that has been made by the Senate. It is a substantial amendment and I should like to give the hon. member the opportunity to explain, if he so desires.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Following careful consideration, Bill No. C-35 was given third reading in the house on May 22, 1964. The bill then received most careful consideration in the other place for a period of ten months where several scholarly speeches were made by skilled and experienced lawyers who are members of that place. The bill has been considered carefully in committee with the assistance of certain experts and departmental personnel, and I am satisfied that the amendment is procedural in character and does not in any way alter the purport of the bill.
Bill No. C-35, as produced to this House of Commons in the form it was originally, simply provided an appeal on habeas corpus.

Criminal Code
Now, the amendments that have come back from the other place after this thoughtful scrutiny do precisely this: They define habeas corpus in a definitive way as being habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, thereby distinguishing this remedy from the ancient rights that are available under the writ of habeas corpus ad justijicandum which required the person to whom the writ was directed to be present and give evidence before the court of issue, and habeas corpus ad respondendum, which required the production of the named prisoner lawfully detained in order that he might answer further charges to be laid against him.
This, of course, is not what I, as the mover of Bill No. C-35 had in mind; it was simply to provide an appeal in the case of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Otherwise, what is provided in the amendments is simply to spell out succinctly the procedure that I was satisfied, in the former bill, would be determined by the courts as the cases were heard. I am quite satisfied with the amendments that have been made and would respectfully ask the concurrence of hon. members in approving same.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in studying this amendment it appears to me that we have been given what is, in effect, an entirely new bill. Ten months ago the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) introduced Bill No. C-35 to this house and suggested in that bill an amendment to section 691 of the Criminal Code, subsection (1). This was the addition of three words. Incidentally, it is beyond my understanding why a bill which passed this house on May 22, 1964 and was referred to the Senate should return to this house on March 24, 1965. I was not aware that the other place was so heavily involved in business that it could not give attention to this particular matter without the lapse of such a lengthy period of time.
In examining the amendment submitted by the other place, I find that they are not amending section 691, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code but are amending subsection (2). It appears to me that the whole substance of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Leeds has been changed beyond recognition. The amendment of three words has become, in the hands of the Senate, an amendment of six paragraphs. I would have thought, in the circumstances, the hon. member for Leeds would ask to withdraw his bill and reintroduce it at the next session which
I understand is not going to be delayed too long.
There are quite a number of private bills that have been introduced in this session suggesting amendments to the Criminal Code. I wonder why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has not undertaken to deal with some of these. I wonder why he did not deal with this particular amendment, to which he gave his approval last May. In fact, he stated that he would have liked to introduce it himself. I do not know why he did not. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to make improvements, if required, in the Criminal Code. He might want to have another look at it now. I notice that last May he said that the only means of getting directly out of prison is by using the procedure of habeas corpus. We have had a somewhat different example given us recently of how you get directly out of jail by a person with whom the Minister of Justice was concerned.
I question the procedure, sir, of a bill going from this house to the other place, ostensibly amending a certain section of the Criminal Code, and coming back to us with an entirely different amendment to a different section. Under the circumstances, I wonder if it is right for us to consider this as actually an amendment to Bill No. C-35. Had the other place modified the wording of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Leeds directly applicable to section 691, subsection (1), then it would be understandable. However, when they have modified subsection (2) of section 691, and when they could have gone on to other subsections if there are other subsections there-I have not got the Criminal Code in front of me-then, we have a different bill. I think, under the circumstances, that this should stand for serious consideration by the Minister of Justice. In fact, he is not here to comment on the bill as he did on the original bill in May of last year. I should like to know from the Department of Justice and from the minister if the proposed amendment from the other place meets with the approval of the Department of Justice. Have the legal advisers in that department considered this and made any comment to the Minister of Justice or is this just being moved through the House of Commons without full consideration?
Let us just look at what is facing us, Mr. Speaker. The original bill said that subsection (1) of section 691 of the Criminal Code should be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

An appeal lies to the court of appeal from a decision granting or refusing the relief sought in proceedings by way of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition or habeas corpus.
Those last words, "habeas corpus" are the addition suggested by the sponsor of the bill. Now, what has come back from the Senate? This is what has come back from the Senate, and it is shown on page 1161 of Votes and Proceedings for March 24. I quote:
Strike out clause 1 and substitute therefor the following:
1. Subsection (2) of section 691 of the Criminal Code is repealed and the following subsections substituted therefor:
And right there we have a different bill. Then we have five more paragraphs dealing with important matters in connection with habeas corpus, which I do not deny at all, but I do not see where the relationship is between the amendment proposed by the Senate and Bill No. C-35 which went forward from this house. Under the circumstances, what are we to do?
In May 1964 we had the benefit of the advice of several members who spoke on the bill, and we had a summing up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Is the minister prepared to give us a summing up with regard to this? If he considers that the change proposed by the Senate is more acceptable than the one of which he approved in May 1964, what are the reasons?
There appear to be substantial changes in the amendent sent to us from the other place. Under the circumstances should not the Minister of Justice have suggested to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) that he withdraw his bill, and give him a promise that in the next session, which is not far removed, the minister himself would introduce a suitable amendment to section 691 of the Criminal Code.
What we have in front of us is a very substantial rewording which should be subjected to scrutiny by the law officers of the crown and the Minister of Justice. It would be quite wrong for us on a Friday afternoon to rush through a bill of this nature, which may have more far reaching effects than we appreciate.
I listened to the arguments that were presented in May 1964. I fully appreciate the fact that some change with regard to habeas corpus is desirable and has been advocated by a number of very distinguished people, but is the change now in front of us the one that was in the minds of those people who debated the issue in May 1964? At least three 20220-814i
Criminal Code
of the hon. gentlemen who spoke on that occasion are missing from the chamber this afternoon. I would suggest to the hon. member for Leeds that he should allow this to stand for the time being, and I believe the debate might suitably be adjourned by someone, so that we could consider the matter at a later period, with the Minister of Justice present to give us his advice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the chief point in the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) seems to be his concern that the house is being asked to approve an amendment which had not been considered by the law officers of the crown and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Perhaps I can allay that concern by saying that the rewording submitted and approved in the other place was given very extensive consideration by the law officers of the crown, to which the Minister of Justice himself was privy. I therefore give the assurance that the rewording has been subject to scrutiny by the Department of Justice.
The amendments put in here are essentially procedural in character, providing more elaborate methods of procedure to the basic substance that existed previously. In fact these amendments meet with the approval of the law officers. Substantially they allow for appeal in cases of habeas corpus. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the very protracted discussion which took place in the other place, and I assure hon. members that this does have the support of the Department of Justice, the approval of the law officers, and I therefore ask them to support passage of this worth-while legislation this afternoon.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, during the discussion that took place in this house on the previous occasion a great deal of credit was given to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) for the simplicity of language he had used in the bill. If that hon. member now tells me that nothing has been added and nothing taken away, then it seems one of our former attorneys general in the province of Ontario is very wordy. There is a lot of redundancy in this type of amendment and I think the parliamentary secretary on that score should be in favour of rejecting it.
If nothing has been added, and if it has not clarified anything, why should we clutter up the Criminal Code with a lot of verbiage?

Criminal Code
Again we see lawyers playing with words and dressing up something that could quite easily be handled without the extra verbiage that has been added in the other place.
I have an interest in this because I have noticed the same hon. gentleman who moved this amendment in the other place do the same type of thing on a number of occasions over a period of three or four years, not to help anybody or clarify anything, but to confuse the matter. I do not believe age gives anyone the right to have his opinion accepted in its most flamboyant and extensive wordage when something simpler will do.
The hon. member for Leeds was congratulated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) for having said exactly what he wanted to say, without complicating it with a lot of words. A lawyer would have a lot more fun with these extra six paragraphs than with the three words originally proposed by the hon. member for Leeds. They were in Latin and I am not precisely sure what they meant, but I believe they were precise in their meaning. These six paragraphs have confused me and I am informed that the third one does not mean what it says.
This section of the Criminal Code is not as unknown as people might imagine. This is the section used by many persons detained in prisons in order to obtain a change of address for themselves for the purpose of defending themselves somewhere else. It is a method used to have the body produced in a particular court, and it is an important part of our system of justice.
The parliamentary secretary is being foolish when he says he is quite willing to accept all this verbiage because it accomplishes nothing that was not originally accomplished in three words. I know the hon. member for Leeds says this amended bill accomplishes exactly the same thing, but it is the result of the wrong functioning of the other place. This is not a sober second look at legislation; it is just confusion running rampant. The bill has been extended out of all proportion and I would hope the Department of Justice feels the same as I do about it.
Rather than adopt this phraseology we should revert to the original wording, which seemed to me and to most members of this house on a previous occasion to meet the need. While I am opposed to the amendment, I think it does some credit to the hon. member for Leeds that he has been able to arrive at a formula which says exactly the same thing

only in a long and protracted way. Nevertheless I hope the representatives of the Department of Justice will not hasten to accept this amendment and endorse it as being more acceptable than the original form. It is my view that the Criminal Code should be kept as precise and simple as possible because it is something which affects the rights and liberties of all our citizens.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could tell the hon. member that what I said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary has already spoken in this debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, I was rising to speak under the terms of standing order 37(1) because my remarks had been misquoted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary will have that right, but that does not mean he can speak immediately. I suggest he will have an opportunity to speak after representatives of some other parties have expressed their views.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the parliamentary secretary rises to clarify the remarks he made a minute ago I hope he will make a point of telling us why he thinks these 242 words are better than the 28 which were in there, or would be there if we accepted clause 1 and the addition of three words as suggested by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), and passed by this house. I can understand the statement that these six paragraphs substituting for words in the Criminal Code in section 691 consist of wording of a technical nature to spell out the method of applying for an appeal to the court. But if the hon. member for Leeds was satisfied, and if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) were satisfied that the 28 words were sufficient, in what circumstances would these extra words be considered necessary? I could not agree more with the hon. member for Timiskaming, that it is good for us to have laws as short and clear as possible. If the 28 words do the same thing as the 242 words, I am very much in favour of using the shorter phrases. For this reason, if the parliamentary secretary intends to speak again I hope he will give us good and sufficient reason why 242 words should be added to section 691. If there is no good reason, I suggest we reject the amendment. I was under the impression there was a technical problem which needed to be spelled out in

more detail. If this is not true I should like the parliamentary secretary to say so, or to tell us that the original wording was not sufficient and that we do in fact require the 242 words so that there may be no ambiguity and no confusion about what this section means.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: There seems to be a principle involved here. I think the house should give consideration to this subject. It has already been touched on and I should like to add to what previous speakers have said.
This measure was brought in first of all by a private member. It should have been brought in by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). The Minister of Justice is not here today to answer questions or to give explanations. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), the sponsor of the bill, did make a brief statement, but he made no attempt to explain the Latin phrases in the 242 words which are being substituted here for the original 28 words. In other words, this is a departure from the procedure normally followed in this house. For this reason I do not believe the bill deserves to be given approval by the house at the present time. It should be allowed to stand, and I think the hon. member for Leeds would be the first to want it to stand rather than have it talked out.


John James Greene: Shame.


Reynold Rapp: You should be the last to say that.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The words we have been given here are not at all clear. I studied Latin for two or three years but I still do not know what these words mean. I know what habeas corpus means but I do not know what the other two phrases mean. We are supposed to write our laws so that any man, not necessarily a lawyer, can understand what is written in the Criminal Code. But I am certain that if you take a census you will find that 99 out of 100 people in Canada do not know what "mandamus" or "certiorari" mean. If one does not know the exact meaning of a thing he cannot talk intelligently about it. I have in mind now what the man in the street will think. I believe laws should be written in such a way that they are easy to understand and no chance of misinterpretation arises. To substitute all these words and a bunch of Latin for something which was perfectly clear does not seem to me to make sense. I therefore think it is unwarranted to bring forth an amendment to such
Criminal Code
an important document as the Criminal Code, particularly at a time when there are less than 15 members on the government side of the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How many on yours?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I say that if the mover of such an amendment is thinking properly he would allow it to stand, and put it on the agenda for consideration at some other time when the Minister of Justice is in his place and when we can get answers to some of the questions I should like to ask on this subject. I would require answers to these questions before I would be in favour of voting for this amendment and seeing it passed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A number of members opposite have raised questions as to the wording of this amendment. I should like the opportunity to explain my earlier remarks with relation to it.
If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would just make reference to the amendments as they appear on page 1161 of the Votes and Proceedings. First, with respect to the provision under-


Frank Howard: You are making two speeches.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am rising, as I explained before, to clarify the remarks which were misquoted or perhaps misunderstood by your colleague.


Frank Howard: You are talking the bill out.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The question was raised, first, as to why there was the need for this additional wording. I would assume and hope that hon. members opposite would favour the addition of twice the number of words, provided it would thereby be made more certain that justice and liberty could be granted to an individual when he appeared before the courts, and expeditiously at that; also, that his right of appeal, if necessary to the highest court of the country, would be assured. Mr. Speaker, I point out to hon. gentlemen that if they will look at the explanatory note-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman is now making an argument and is thereby engaging in a second speech, which he has no right to do. He should confine his remarks merely to clarifying any misquotation of his words, and should explain only that part of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Under the usual practice of this house, a member who makes a speech and feels afterwards that some explanation is necessary is permitted, under our rules, to make such

Criminal Code
explanation; but in making that explanation our rules do not provide for him to go beyond the subject which he wishes to explain. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice to observe these limitations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) there was obviously a very basic misunderstanding of the remarks that I made, and perhaps I will have <to go to some lengths to try and correct this misunderstanding. I think it would be helpful to the house and justice generally if this question was made clear. The hon. member inquired as to the purpose of the additional words.


Frank Howard: The parliamentary secretary is still making another speech.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I notice that hon. members are attempting to prevent me from speaking, Mr. Speaker. There is what is referred to in the legal world as shopping around for habeas corpus.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, could I rise on another point of order, which is that we are simply trying to get the parliamentary secretary to conform to the rules. He just levelled the accusation that we are trying to prevent him from speaking. He had the opportUntiy to speak earlier. No one objected at that time, and now he is trying to speak all over again. We are merely endeavouring to get him to conform to the rules. He had his chance to speak once before, and I think he should be bound by the rules, the same as everybody else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Perhaps I could read to the house standing order 37(1), which says:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, paragraph (3) provides a solution in this regard. As I was saying, lawyers, on behalf of a client, can shop around from judge to judge, which has been the practice in the past, and this practice will now be dealt with under the detailed provisions of new subsection (3). I would also point out that under paragraph (4) of the amendment it is made clear as to who may exercise the right of appeal, which was a question that was left
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).)
open and was doubtful in the wording of the amendment which first came before this house.
I would point out, also, that paragraph (6) makes it clear that not only are these rights available, but the courts must make it possible for an applicant or those acting on behalf of an applicant to have the matter tried at an early date. I would agree with hon. members opposite who are not members of the legal profession that it would be desirable to try to keep the wording as simple as possible. We are, however, making an amendment in a very complex and technical area of the law on the advice of the law officers of the crown and, as I said originally-1 perhaps the hon. member did not follow me-[DOT] these words will fit the procedure more precisely into the law and would most assuredly give to people who require the habeas corpus remedy the opportunity of appearing before the courts and obtaining that remedy or, if they fail to do so, having the right to appeal and at an early date.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary a question. Is there any place in the bill which explains these Latin terms, so that the general public can understand them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, do I have the consent of the house to reply to the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I imagine that the terms the hon. member refers to are "mandamus" and "certiorari", which are not interpreted in this particular bill. I would say that generally speaking there is no statement in the Criminal Code as to what the terms mean. They are highly technical terms which have a meaning in accordance with the cases that have come down through the years. I can assure the hon. member that there is not one place in the Code where one can put one's finger and say, "This is the meaning of 'certiorari'; this is the meaning of 'mandamus' ".


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, is it not true, then, that these amendments are not just expanding on the question but are introducing new subjects? I think these are major amendments and are not just explanations. There are three new ideas here, according to the parliamentary secretary. I do not want to misinterpret him, but is it not true, as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) said, that in the original bill that was introduced, containing the right to appeal, this question

was dealt with simply; but what is being done here is giving direction to the courts. This is the type of information that the courts would have available from other bills in other areas. It is the fact, is it not, that British justice says that justice delayed is justice denied, which is actually what the former attorney general wrote in section 6. This is redundant. The simple wording of the hon. member for Leeds in the bill conveyed all these things, or else I misunderstood either the hon. member for Leeds or the parliamentary secretary. What the parliamentary secretary is doing is giving an interpretation to this that is not really implied. This should be an explanation, and only an explanation, of the original wording.
If it is, I might be willing to accept it. If it is not, and if what he said in his explanation is that these things have been added -which perhaps I misinterpreted-that will provide other safeguards, limitations or extensions of what was originally in the bill, in my opinion it is new. You cannot have it both ways. I think the two explanations are very different and do not mean the same thing. If the first explanation is correct, then I am of the opinion, as a layman, that the simpler we keep it, the better it is; and that the precedent laid down by British justice which I just quoted, namely that justice delayed is justice denied, should be followed.
This is true in regard to every section of the Criminal Code and any civil case, and it does not have to be written into the act. In fact, we do not write it into the act, any more than in union contracts we write in that it is an act of God and therefore does not apply to anybody. These things do not have to be written in, because they are part of our law. I think we are now thoroughly confused because of this explanation as to what was originally intended, or at least I am confused as to what was intended.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the purpose of putting in the additional provisions was to give clarification as to the effect of the broad purposes the hon. member had in mind when he first introduced this bill. It could be entirely possible to have argued that in the original draft the courts could have arrived at. a conclusion in accordance with the terms of these amendments. However, out of an abundance of caution, and on purely technical grounds, seeking to provide the intention of the hon. member in his bill, it was decided that the original wording should be changed. This was done on a purely technical basis.
Criminal Code
As the hon. member mentioned, in the mind of the former attorney general there were areas of doubt that the courts might arrive at a decision which was not in accordance with the purpose of the bill.
The addition, therefore, was to make more clear the circumstances under which the original broad purpose would be carried out. It is to make quite clear what I think many people would, from an assumption of the purposes, conclude anyway; for example, under paragraph 6, that the justice was to be expeditious, and that a case was to be tried at the earliest possible date.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I do not
want to interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily, but I would remind the house that we are perhaps now adopting a rather irregular procedure for second reading. It might be as well if we remained with the question before the house and observed the ordinary rules on second reading. This is not a question period, of course, as might take place in the committee stage.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to make further remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is not here I think there are certain matters concerning the bill which we should ask the parliamentary secretary to make clear. I should like to ask him a supplementary question. As a matter of fact, I have three I want to ask. The first is in connection with these 28 words. I want to know whether it is his thinking that these Latin words inserted in the bill, which most Englishmen and Frenchmen cannot read, although we have bilingualism in this house, in their context take the place of other words and properly explain the section to the man in the street who reads it. If they do, then what is the meaning of these Latin phrases in English and in French? Some of us might be in a different position from the man in the street, even though we have not taken law. At the same time, our laws, and above all the Criminal Code, are written so that the man in the street can understand them and does not have to hire a lawyer to get an interpretation.
Therefore, I say to the parliamentary secretary that before this bill is passed we must

Criminal Code
know what these words mean. Their meaning ought to be spelled out and made clear. This has not been done, and I am inclined to think that the parliamentary secretary himself does not know the meaning
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeenal: Mr. Speaker, one brief comment without trying to provoke any additional debate. I know that the sponsor of this particular bill is vitally interested in having it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has already made some remarks on this bill on second reading. If that is so, then he must ask for unanimous consent of the house before he can speak again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask unanimous consent. The remarks I had to make before were on a point of order; I made no speech on the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I
apologize to the hon. member.


Frank Howard: I want only to say that I know the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), being in the unique position of sponsoring a public bill which finally gets to this stage, wants to see it reach its final conclusion and become part of the statutes of Canada. So do I, because the cause is admirable and the objective is worth while.
However, I should like to say that it would have been far better had he arranged to keep the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) out of here. Because we now have the understanding that the amendment made by the Senate alters in no way the original bill, that they are identical; we have also the understanding that it does alter them and that it does make a difference; and we have also the understanding that it clarifies what originally was the position. I want only to say that when lawyers try to explain things like this, it does not improve bills for which they want to take some credit. They are better off to stay in their seats and let laymen discuss such matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, could we ask for unanimous consent of the house to give third reading to Bill No. C-35?
[Mr. Kindt.)


Mr. MacNaughl:: May I ask the hon. member where that bill appears on today's order paper?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. C-35 appears as item No. 1 under public bills. It is the same bill we gave second reading to about 15 minutes ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am advised by the Clerk that the amendment has been agreed to by the house and there is nothing further that has to be done.


William Arnold Peters: What about third reading?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is an amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The bill has already received third reading. Today it received second reading and concurrence in an amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, does that mean it does not have to go to the committee of the whole house?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: That is my understanding, yes.



PRIVATE BILLS

Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, could I ask the house to give consideraT tion to Bill No. S-32, to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation? Because of extended debate yesterday at this hour on Bill No. S-42, the bill to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation did not come before this house, I believe that most hon. members are agreed that the bill should be sent to a committee for examination, following which it would come back to this house for third reading.
I might add that as originally indicated in the marginal notes the bill did ask for certain provisions not contemplated by the Loan Companies Act. The promoters have now agreed that these should be deleted, so that the bill would be a straightforward bill to promote a company in order to provide mortgage funds in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) requesting that the house now proceed from public bills to private bills?


Ian Grant Wahn: By unanimous consent, just for this one private bill.


Frank Howard: I think the understanding, Mr. Speaker, should be more clear than that. The request is to proceed to private bills in order to consider Bill No. S-32, to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation, and upon com-

pletion of second reading of that item that we revert to the order of business under public bills, where we are at the moment.


Ian Grant Wahn: That is correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to proceed from public bills to private bills to discuss second reading of Bill No. S-32?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WOHLD MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Ian Grant Wahn: the second reading of Bill No. S-32, to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour I will be very brief. The purpose of this bill is to incorporate World Mortgage Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Companies Act.
As originally indicated by the marginal notes, the promoters asked for certain provisions in the bill not contemplated or not provided for by the Loan Companies Act. For this reason the bill was stood for several months. The promoters have now agreed to delete these provisions, and when they are deleted, as I will undertake to do in committee, the bill will be in the form of the model bill contemplated by the Loan Companies Act, in exactly the terms of the model bill.
The company is being promoted by the Bank of Nova Scotia and four leading financial institutions in Canada. The directors and shareholders will all be Canadians and it will be a Canadian owned company. The object is to raise by the issue of capital stock and by the issue of debentures moneys which
Private Bills will be used to invest in and to acquire both Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages and conventional mortgages. As all hon. members know, there is a great shortage of mortgage money in Canada at the present time, and it was felt that this corporation would provide a source of funds which would be most useful and helpful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the standing orders, and particularly the compulsory recommendation part, is it permissible for this house to ask the committee to keep a printed record of their deliberations in respect of this matter?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the records to which the hon. member has referred will be kept by the committee.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee I will take notice of the request made by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house wish to revert to public bills, or to call it six o'clock?


William Arnold Peters: Let us call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must advise the house that the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 29, 1965