1965-02-26

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the correspondence with the provinces, and the replies from those provinces that have replied, on the government's proposal to make a reference to the supreme court on offshore minerals.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. If perchance I have missed any statement on this matter, I apologize. However, in view of the importance of the subject and the necessity for clarifying the situation I should like to ask this question of the Prime Minister. In view of the reported stand of Premier Lesage of Quebec that the matter of jurisdiction over offshore natural resource rights should not be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, what action is contemplated by the federal government, since this matter is of major and immediate concern to many provinces other than Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are proceeding with a reference to the supreme court on this matter. We hoped it would be an agreed reference with all the provinces. If that is not possible, we will proceed with a reference from the federal government.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Prime Minister in connection with the Stonehill case.
The first is this. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he had not been able to get permission from the premier of British Columbia to table the correspondence. He will no doubt have read in the press the reported statement by the premier in the legislature yesterday that this was a falsehood. I am sure the Prime Minister will be able to clarify the situation concerning the statement made by the premier of the province in this regard, because it is one with regard to which the House of Commons will want a full explanation. There must be some reason for the discrepancy between the statement made by the Prime Minister and the observation thereon of the premier of British Columbia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to deal with that question and other questions that have been asked in the house on the same matter. As I indicated yesterday in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I was prepared to table correspondence between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada arising out of a letter received by a member of my staff concerning the Stonehill case and signed "W. A. C. Bennett".
I had not until yesterday received any reaction from the government of British Columbia regarding our request for agreement that this correspondence could be tabled. My first telegram requesting this agreement was sent on February 18, to which I have yet had no reply. My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at my request sent a further telegram to Mr. Budd in Premier Bennett's office on February 24, saying that if he did not hear to the contrary he would assume that the provincial government had no objection to the tabling of the correspondence. There has been no reply to that telegram.
Not having heard from the premier, I did not wish to take a negative response if I could get a positive response. We put in another telephone call to ascertain whether the telegram had been received and, Mr. Speaker, we were assured, or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was assured that there would be a reply to his earlier call. No reply was received either in writing or by telephone.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: When was the telephone call?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There were various telephone calls. There was one on Tuesday of this week from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to Mr. Budd, who said he would speak to the premier and phone the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration by three o'clock. The minister waited in his office until seven o'clock, I believe, but no reply came. Then again on Wednesday the minister put in a call for Mr. Budd. The operator reached his home and was advised that he had left for the office. At the office the reply was that Mr. Budd had not arrived, so the minister left word. Again there was a further effort to get a positive agreement from the government of British Columbia that there was no objection to the tabling of this correspondence.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the remarks reported to have been made yesterday by Premier Bennett to the effect he had no objection to the documents being tabled, I can now, with the consent of the house, do that. Incidentally, Mr. Bennett is reported also to have said that my statement-and this is the one referred to by the right hon. gentleman-that he had denied permission, was a falsity. If you will consult Hansard of yesterday you will find I made no such statement. I said I had been unable to secure from him permission, which was accurate.
Under date of May, 1964, Mr. Speaker, a member of my staff, Mr. Dornan, received a letter on the stationery of the premier of British Columbia signed "W. A. C. Bennett". This letter read as follows:
Thanks for your interest in the settlement of our friend in Canada.
Investment in secondary industries such as he proposes can be of inestimable value to the economy of British Columbia and we are most anxious to see this type of development. I understand his plans have been somewhat delayed due to uncertainty about his future, and hope this can be settled favourably as quickly as possible.
I hope you are well and enjoying life in Ottawa.
Very sincerely yours,-
Mr. Dornan, to whom this letter was addressed, had earlier been advised by Mr. A. H. Williamson of Vancouver that he had received from Premier Bennett a letter regarding Harry S. Stonehill, an applicant for landed immigrant status. Therefore this letter, when it arrived, was assumed to refer to Mr. Stonehill and was sent on by Mr. 

Dornan to the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On February 3 of this year, following certain publicity, I received a phone call at approximately 6 p.m. from Premier Bennett in which he said the letter purporting to bear his signature was, to use his words, a phony and had no authenticity. Naturally I accepted the premier's statement. This was, however, the first indication that I, or anyone on my staff had, that the letter was not in fact from the premier of British Columbia.
The remainder of the correspondence which I would ask permission to table consists of letters and telegrams beginning with one dated February 4, 1965 from the attorney general of British Columbia, Mr. Bonner. The letter of February 4 includes a report to the attorney general from the superintendent in charge of the criminal investigation branch of the R.C.M.P. in Victoria, which was marked secret and had a report of an admission by a person who said he had written the letter and sent it without Mr. Bennett's knowledge.
The report is a communication from a police officer to the attorney general of the province in relation to the enforcement of law in that province. The R.C.M.P. act, under contract, as the provincial police in British Columbia and in that role they are responsible to the attorney general of that province.
This is a report from an officer to his superior in the course of duty. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge as to whether the attorney general intends to prosecute in respect of what would appear to be a possible offence under the Criminal Code, the prosecution for which would be the constitutional responsibility of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia.
In all these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be improper for me to table this particular police report before this parliament. I shall, however, table the covering letter along with the other correspondence, with the exception I have indicated, namely the R.C.M.P. secret report to the attorney general of British Columbia of February 4, 1965.
I now ask, Mr. Speaker, for permission to table the exchange of correspondence by letter and telegram with the premier's office and from the attorney general of British Columbia, between February 4 and February 24 of this year, 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the observations by the Prime Minister make it rather difficult for another statement to be made, because the particular statement he made to the house should have been made on motions. I am not objecting to that fact at the moment, but I hope the same freedom will be accorded hon. members in other parts of the house.
I want to follow up, not the personal dispute between the Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia as to veracity, but a statement made yesterday in answer to a question directed to the Prime Minister regarding Senator Gelinas. I asked the Prime Minister the following question as it appears on page 11713 of Hansard:
In view of the reports in the press that in this case-
That was the Stonehill case in question.
-Senator Gelinas was consulted by the department of immigration, may I ask if the senator was connected in any way with that department?
The Prime Minister replied in this way:
These reports, of course, as they appear in the press do not bear out in any way what my hon. friend has said. Senator Gelinas was not concerned with this matter.
Now, sir, I point out that evidence was given before the Dorion commission by Mr. Denis-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not dealing with the commission and its report.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question period, and the right hon. gentleman has asked for certain leeway which normally I suppose the Chair, as a matter of courtesy to the right hon. leader of a great party, would grant. However, when we begin to discuss evidence given before a commission, even though that commission is not of the same nature as a court nevertheless the evidence is before the commissioner, I do not think it is proper to adduce that evidence or quote it in the house at this time. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would confine himself to posing a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I agree; but this is rather irregular, and the irregularity commenced when the Prime Minister made his statement at a time when it should not have been made. His statement should have been made on motions.
May I ask the Prime Minister this question. Is he aware of the fact that Mr. Denis, who occupied the position of executive as-
Inquiries of the Ministry sistant to the minister of immigration, communicated information to those who had a right to that information, including Senator Gelinas; and was he aware of the fact, when he made his statement yesterday, that Senator Gelinas had let it be known that he wanted information about the Stonehill case and the Stonehill file? Was he aware when he made that statement yesterday that Denis called Senator Gelinas regarding this matter? Was he aware of those facts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman presumably is basing his question on the proceedings before a judical inquiry. All I can say is that I will look into the particular point he has raised and answer in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Was the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Senator Gelinas was interested in the Stonehill case when he gave the answer he did yesterday, which was not a factual answer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the answer I gave yesterday.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What are you going to look into, then?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement yesterday by Dean Rusk to the effect that any negotiations at this time regarding the situation in Viet Nam would only add to the danger; and in view of the fact that other nations, particularly France, are doing everything possible to bring about some conference at which a negotiated settlement might be possible, does the minister not think it is time for Canada to get off the fence and for the minister to make a categorical statement that Canada is prepared to support such a conference and will do everything in its power to bring about a negotiated settlement?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand my hon. friend's impatience, but I would ask him to recognize that there is a difference between the position which he occupies and that which I occupy as a member of the government in respect of a situa-

Inquiries of the Ministry tion the full facts of which are not before him. The statement made by the secretary of state of the United States, as I read it-and I have not seen the actual text beyond what was reported-simply indicated that the United States was not prepared to negotiate as long as the present situation continued. It must be obvious to everyone that there can be no successful negotiation as long as there are hostilities and as long as infiltration from outside areas persists.
The position of Canada is that we have urged, through the Prime Minister and myself and along with the prime minister of India and the secretary general of the United Nations, that there should be a cessation of hostilities so that consideration can be given to steps designed to bring about some peace in this area. I assure the hon. gentleman that in the most effective way possible Canada is using diplomatic channels which we regard at this moment to be the most effective instrument available in the effort to try to bring about a suspension of hostilities and the resumption of discussions in proper conditions calculated to bring about peace in this regrettably disturbed area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. The minister has said that I am, naturally, not in possession of the facts which are available to him. That is quite true. Would the minister apply the same criterion to the secretary general of the United Nations, who now says that if the American people were as aware of the facts as he is they would agree with him that a continuation of the present conflict is pointless and that the sooner the nations are brought around a conference table the sooner there is some hope of a settlement? Would the minister *not agree with the statement by U Thant, and lend his support to that end?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just indicated that in general we do lend our support to the statement made by the secretary general. The hon. gentleman has paraphrased some of the things attributed to him. The secretary general said a great deal more than what my hon. friend has paraphrased and, much as I respect the hon. gentleman's interest in and knowledge of this problem, I would not agree that the information before the United Nations secretary general was as minimal as that which, naturally, is in the hands of the hon. gentleman. I want my hon. friend to know that-


Donald MacInnis: Translation?
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]


Paul Joseph James Martin: It should not require any translation. I simply say that I presume the secretary general had much more information on that subject as secretary general of the United Nations than a private member of this or any other parliament.
I know my hon. friend is concerned about the situation in Viet Nam. He is not any more concerned than we in the government are, nor any more concerned than is the government of the United States, but in this critical situation issues of the greatest importance to the peace not only of Asia but of the world are involved, and we can only hope that through the steps which are now being taken among particular countries we will be able to find some measure to deal with this extremely difficult situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, I am not claiming to know as much about the situation as either the minister or the secretary general of the United Nations. I cannot put the secretary general's full statement on the record of Hansard during the question period, though I would do so if the house gave consent. I am simply asking the minister whether he is publicly prepared to support the position which the secretary general took, a good part of which was broadcast to the people of Canada and with which they are familiar, respecting the situation in South Viet Nam.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: I have already indicated that the government has urged a cessation of hostilities in Viet Nam. We have said that this should be a condition precedent to taking steps under the Geneva accord for the purpose of dealing with the situation. I do want to point out that under the Geneva accord there are arrangements provided for the resumption of a peaceful situation if the parties concerned-and in this case particularly North Viet Nam-are prepared to accept them.
Since the Geneva accord in 1954 there have been persistent violations of it, leading to the present regrettable situation, but the aggression was not one that was begun by the south nor was it one that was begun by the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Removing all this verbiage, is what the minister is saying this; that the aggression is aggression on the part of communist China, and that the communist Chinese troops are there, and they are causing the difficulties which have resulted in

the inability to solve this matter? Is this what he means by all these words?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my method of exposition is not fully satisfactory, but I have a responsibility in this matter, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition recognizes, and I am not going to say anything that is going to add to the difficulties that are now being confronted by friendly countries, particularly members of the commission, in respect to a situation that is so explosive.
It would be inaccurate to say that the aggressor was China. I have never made that statement. The Geneva accord was followed by an aggression that came from the north. When the Canadian minority report is produced the details of that will be unfolded; but there is no doubt that the activities in the north have been abetted and supported by communist China. However, that is quite different from saying that communist China, in the first instance, was the aggressor.


John George Diefenbaker: It just became so afterward; is that it?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, following up the question I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday, I do not want to rush the minister but when will we be able to find out more about the consideration the government is giving, and where this consideration will lead, in connection with help to India?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman asked me a question about assistance by way of a gift of wheat to India. I had hoped to deal with it definitively today. We have been discussing this matter again this morning. The government hopes to be in a position early next week to make a statement.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some time ago a Mr. Lippert of Kitchener was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment by the Cuban government for breaking the laws of that country. I understand that the Cuban government is now ready to reduce 20220-744
Inquiries of the Ministry his sentence. Can the minister give me any information on this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I may say to the hon. gentleman that we have had consultations quite recently with the appropriate authorities about this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could return to the domestic battlefield for a few moments. May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he inform the house whether the press statements we have seen this morning are true, concerning his words to the Liberal organizer in the maritimes that we will have an election in June?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether my hon. friend has heard the complete statement attributed to this particular gentleman, at least as reported on the radio this morning. He is the organizer of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, and he is reported to have said that they must be ready for an election in June. He is also reported to have followed that up by saying this does not necessarily mean there is going to be an election in June, and I commend him for his caution in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the inquiry to be conducted by the chief electoral officer into the frauds allegedly committed at the time of the last general election in British Columbia.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if that inquiry will be open to the public with newspapermen being admitted, or if it will be held behind closed doors?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the chief electoral officer is an officer of parliament, and how he conducts his inquiry will no doubt have to be arranged between himself and the appropriate officer of parliament, who I expect in this instance would be yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew Souih):: As a
supplementary question, in view of the fact that some of the departmental officials of the representation commissioner have indicated that they may not have authority under the act as it exists to conduct a hearing into this fraudulent election, would the Minister of Justice consider setting up a judicial inquiry where these alleged frauds could be discussed publicly and under oath, rather than in camera as was envisaged in the type of private inquiry suggested by the leader of the N.D.P.?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is seeking to impute motives when he says I envisaged a private inquiry. My motion called for an inquiry by the chief electoral officer, the person most familiar with these things and haying in his possession all the facts regarding the conduct of the general election. It seemed to me he was the most appropriate person, and whether he decides to hold his hearings privately or publicly is a matter of no concern to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All I want is that a person properly qualified shall make a full and complete investigation into the allegations contained in the Vancouver Province of February 22 and report his findings to the house, and then the house can decide what action to take with respect to them. If the government decided to lay charges against any person who it is suggested acted fraudulently, and if the committee on privileges and elections decides that some member has no right to occupy his seat, then those are decisions that would have to follow. But I deny categorically that I at any time envisioned a secret investigation, and if the government decides to have a judicial investigation that will suit the purposes of this party completely.


John James Greene: On the question of privilege I would point out that the party which the hon. gentleman leads supported a public inquiry under oath when it came to questions of privilege with respect to the hon. member for Labelle and the hon. member for Lapointe, but when it came to a question of privilege concerning alleged fraudulent election of their own members that kind of public inquiry was not satisfactory to them, nor did they suggest that a judicial inquiry be engaged in by the chief electoral officer.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, there was no sug-

gestion, as has been brought forward by the hon. member for Renfrew South, or whatever it is, that we opposed the idea of a judicial inquiry. The matter was never mentioned, but so far as I am concerned I would be glad to have it. I do not propose to allow the Liberal party to have a three ring circus in the privileges and elections committee in which they can start smears in order to smother the very bad record of their own party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is in order to continue with this discussion. A decision of the house has been reached; it has been communicated to the chief electoral officer, and I am awaiting a reply from him.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: On
a question of privilege arising out of the remarks which have just been made in this house, the hon. member for Renfrew South was quite correct and hon. gentlemen opposite were incorrect. If they consult Hansard for the date in question they will find I clearly pointed out to members of the New Democratic party that they have two standards, one for the hon. member for Labelle and the rest of us, and one for themselves. That is on the record, and they cannot deny the fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be of material assistance if we could get back to the hon. member for Lapointe, who asked the original question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Your Honour has allowed the hon. member for Renfrew South to present arguments on a spurious question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member must recognize that the Chair cannot determine a question until it is heard. Whether it is spurious or not, I at least have to hear it.


John James Greene: The spurious question of
privilege was the one raised by the hon. member, not by myself. He asked me a supplementary question. There is only one question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest for the benefit of all hon. members that this matter was decided by the house in a certain way, and the decision has been communicated to the officer suggested in the motion. I suggest we leave it there for the moment until we have some communication from that particular officer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, I had no intention of reflecting on Your Honour. I was simply pointing out that the member for Renfrew South was allowed to present arguments showing that the party with which I am associated was inconsistent with regard to the matter of the hon. member for Labelle. We said this should be sent to the committee on privileges and elections.
May I submit to Your Honour that the hon. member for Ontario moved to have a discussion in the house on the whole question of certain matters affecting the government. I was the person who took the position, and it is the position of our party, that this was not the kind of matter which could be discussed by turning parliament into a three ring circus, and that it should be discussed by a judicial investigation such as is now in progress.
We take exactly the same position with reference to these allegations made in the Vancouver Province of February 22. We are prepared to have an investigation either by the chief electoral officer, as was agreed to by this house, or by a judicial body. The fact that members opposite voted for, or did not oppose, the chief electoral officer being asked to undertake this responsibility means that this is the wish of this house and should be carried out.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Would the hon. member permit a question. Did the hon. member not know at the time he made this proposal that the chief electoral officer had no power to conduct such an inquiry after one year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know that this house has the power to give him whatever authority he requires.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Peters:: Why don't you offer a judicial inquiry?


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Prime Minister have any objection to that inquiry being held publicly and, at the same time, to see those people who might have evidence to submit concerning frauds committed by the Liberal party during the last election given the opportunity to do so?
20220-744J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am all for public inquiries, in this particular matter and in any matters like it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: This is a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister a matter of national interest, namely that Mr. Eli Lindsay of Arborfleld, Saskatchewan will be celebrating his 106th birthday on Sunday next, February 28. Mr. Lindsay is in good health and spirits; he has an alert mind, and if the right hon. gentleman has any intention of filling any vacancies in the Senate, I feel sure Mr. Lindsay would qualify for such a position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am delighted to have that information, and I am sure I hope the hon. member and I may live as long and as happily.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I should like to inquire how many Canadians can be kicked off teams in the Canadian football league before the board of broadcast governors changes its mind about this 100 per cent Canadian content.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secreiary of Sfafe):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As this is the last week end in February, and as severe winter weather conditions have continued since the session resumed in the middle of February, has the government now arrived at a decision to extend the term for the winter works house building incentive program, in the light of the further consideration which the minister said on February 16 should be given to this matter having regard to what the weather conditions might be?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: We have not reached any decision to extend the period. This will be reviewed later on

Inquiries of the Ministry when we are closer to the expiry date of the winter house building program.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the expiry date is approximately just a month away, how soon can the people who are very concerned about this matter expect an announcement on the part of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would be in time to have the effect desired by the hon. member.



ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS LEAVING ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the considerable numbers who are now leaving the armed forces, voluntarily and otherwise, and in view of the fact many of these men who entered the army immediately after leaving school are now in the age bracket from 25 to 30 and have had no other experience except military service, is the minister issuing instructions or is special consideration being given to aiding these veterans in adjusting into society?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Because of the importance of the question and because of the fact that the hon. member does not ask too many questions, I should like to take this question as notice and give him a considered answer later.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether he approved of the laying of the charges against the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville. Will he tell the house when he first had information regarding this alleged wrongdoing from the premier or the attorney general of Quebec, and when did he first tell the Prime Minister about this alleged wrongdoing? I tried to get information on that subject the other day and the Prime Minister said he would look into the matter. I now ask the Minister of Justice, he being here, to give the house this information.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was a practising lawyer in his province for sev-


eral years and who moreover is an expert in constitutional law, knows as well as I do that the decision with regard to complaints in that matter was and remains that of the attorney general of the province of Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: When did the Minister of Justice first get a complaint from the premier or from the attorney general of Quebec regarding this wrongdoing, giving him the facts; and when did he tell the Prime Minister? Did he hide this from the Prime Minister? Is that what he means? I ask an answer from the minister, because the other day he spoke of the purity in his administration, and I want to find out the facts.


An hon. Member:: Unlike yours.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking about purity. Did the hon. lady say anything?

I again rise and ask the Minister of Justice when he first became aware of the facts in connection with this matter from the government of Quebec. Did he let the Prime Minister know immediately, or how long did he delay before he let him know? Does the minister not intend to answer?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, even if the Leader of the Opposition does not share that opinion, personally I feel that, as Minister of Justice, I must have a minimum of respect for the courts, complaints, even charges...


John George Diefenbaker: Minimum. Exactly; minimum respect.


Guy Favreau: He himself feels that I must not have a minimum of respect, that is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. The complaints have now been brought before the court and I must abstain from any comment, whatever the insinuations that might be contained in the question just asked.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I say there are no insinuations. I am asking, when did the minister tell the Prime Minister; or did he hide this from him, too?


An hon. Member:: Oh, no insinuations.

tTranslation]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have only one answer to give. I did my duty in this matter and the attorney general of the province of Quebec did likewise.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the report that a recommendation has been made to the minister with regard to the acquisition by the R.C.A.F. of a tactical aircraft, can the minister tell us when he expects the cabinet to deal with the matter?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): I do not know where the hon. gentleman got that report; I have not heard it. Nevertheless, as I told him the other day, the matter is current and I would hope a decision can be taken in the very near future.



CONSIDERATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROGRAM BY SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise the house whether and when he is prepared to present to the House of Commons special committee on defence the details of the proposed $14 billion capital expenditures by his department, a public announcement of which was made, by coincidence, three days after the House of Commons recessed for Christmas?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the allegation as to the timing of the announcement I can say that it was made at the earliest possible date following approval by the government and the preparation of the necessary details.
In so far as the possibility of having the program studied by the special committee on defence is concerned, I think this is a very good idea. We would certainly have no objection; on the contrary, I think it would be beneficial to the committee and to the house if this were done. We would be pleased to work out with the committee arrangements in respect of timing, the type of hearing they
Inquiries of the Ministry would like to have and the areas they would like to consider.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has welcomed the suggestion, when does he anticipate that it will be done; at this session or the next?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not a mind reader, but I will be glad to take the question under advisement and see what would meet the wishes both of the staffs that would be concerned and of the special committee on defence.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Could he tell the house what he thinks of the statement made yesterday by the Quebec minister of natural resources according to whom Eskimos are only artificial citizens of the central government and get only very limited assistance since a mere 60 federal officials are at their service?


Mr. Speaker:: Under our standing orders that question should not be allowed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that Ontario may institute a so-called medical care plan, is the government now ready to state when a federal-provincial conference will be held to consider the rather opposite type of recommendations of the Hall commission report?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I also saw the front page of the newspaper this morning and am aware, as are other members of the house, of the action being taken by the province of Ontario. But I would like to draw to my hon. friend's attention that for the last week at least I have been rather busily en-

Inquiries of the Ministry gaged here. I know that my office, and certainly the Prime Minister's office, have been engaged in making such arrangements.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of statements she made earlier to the effect that her department is making an extensive study of the recommendations contained in the Hall commission report, I wonder whether she would consider giving the house some kind of a progress report, either in the form of a white paper or by meeting with a special committee, to let us know what progress the government is making in connection with the recommendations of the Hall commission report itself.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will certainly consider it, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell the house whether it is true that prices at Montreal slaughterhouses are set by two men only, a certain R. K. Bennett, chief of the federal Department of Agriculture's livestock division, and Mr. W. B. Pisarsky, chief of the beef division at Legrade Inc.? In addition, is the minister aware of the accusations made by a certain Mr. Tremblay, a consulting agronomist?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. Sales on public stockyards are strictly a matter of negotiation between the seller and the purchaser. The livestock division of the Department of Agriculture collects and reports prices paid for livestock on public stockyards -of which there are ten across Canada, three in Alberta, three in Saskatchewan, one in Manitoba, one in Toronto and two in Montreal-as a service to livestock producers, but has no jurisdiction over the prices paid or received. The operation in respect of the Montreal stockyards is identical to that in effect in all other stockyards in Canada.
(Miss LaMarsh.]



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DAIRY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister confirm that the new dairy policy for 1965-66 will be most definitely announced before April 1 next and, also, that the views of the government on this new dairy policy will be made known to the farm associations of the country, in order to avoid conflicts?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked yesterday, and I replied that it would be before April 1. In connection with the second question, of course this is government policy and will be announced at the proper time. We have had consultations with many, many groups in so far as this is concerned, and we think we will come up with a program that will be the best program the dairy farmers of Canada have ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Agriculture inform us whether this program will come into force on April 1 or on May 1, 1965?


Harry William Hays: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to answer that question at the moment. However, I should hope it would take effect as of the time of the announcement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether experts of his department considered reasonable the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for a minimum of $3.50 per hundredweight of milk and whether they are ready to comply with that request? [Text]


Harry William Hays: We listened with great interest to this brief, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING FARM INCOME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I should like to direct a question to

the Minister of Agriculture which arises out of a statement the minister allegedly made in Regina to the effect that the farmer's position today is better than under the previous government. In view of the fact that producers are receiving 12 cents per dozen less for eggs, hog prices are down 5 cents and wheat is down 13 cents to 15 cents a bushel, does the minister consider the position of the farmer to be improved?


Harry William Hays: I can only pass on to the hon. member the d.b.s. figures which indicate that farm gross sales were $3.5 billion, an all time high, and the net was also at an all time high.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Will the minister take these prices I have given him today as indicating the position of the farmer instead of bothering with other problems?


Harry William Hays: I appreciate the fact that in certain industries, as a result of a change in the supply and demand situation under which we operate in this country, there are some fluctuations. I remind the hon. member, however, that the price of cheese is greater, the price of milk is greater, the price of canned milk is greater. I could go on and on, but I do not have the time on orders of the day.


Clément Vincent: Could the minister tell us- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know why it is, but every time we have a question on agriculture we seem to get into a long debate.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the T.C.A. maintenance base at Winnipeg. On February 17 he indicated that he might be able to table the correspondence between himself and the premier of Quebec. We would particularly like to see the letter from the premier of Quebec which the papers indicate blasted the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that
Inquiries of the Ministry this correspondence has been tabled. I think it was tabled a week ago today, but I will check into that.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that many university students in Ontario are now seeking summer employment in order to further their education, can the minister tell the house whether his department has decided to hire a number of university students this summer as coordinators in search and rescue work on the great lakes? The minister said he would give consideration to this matter last fall.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not had a report on that matter, but I will inquire of the department and let the hon. gentleman know later.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a twopronged question to the Minister of Labour arising out of some remarks he made yesterday concerning the report of the maritime union trustees. The minister did express the hope he would be tabling the documents today. I should like to ask, first of all, if he will in fact table the documents today. I should like to ask also if he has come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to table the supplementary report of Mr. Millard so that members of the house would have the advantage of being able to study all the facts as seen by all the trustees prior to the resumption of the hearings of the industrial relations committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The French translation is not ready, and I hope to be able to table the English report early in the week. I think it would be a good idea, if it were the wish of hon. members, to table Mr. Millard's report.

Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL, VANCOUVER- SALARIES OF STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It has reference to question No. 2,612, which was answered in the house. The answer to part 13 of that question indicates that present rates of pay for ward nurses, nursing assistants and orderlies are lower at Shaughnessy hospital than in other hospitals in Vancouver. I should like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to rectify this situation in order to bring the salaries for these groups of persons at Shaughnessy hospital into line with other hospitals in the Vancouver area.
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the difficulty in this situation is that our rates of pay are based on national rather than regional considerations. While these rates of pay in Vancouver are perhaps lower than the rates prevailing in that area, we find we are higher in other areas. It would therefore be a matter of adopting a regional policy rather than a national policy. I think the hon. member would agree it is an extremely difficult problem and one, I can assure him, that we are facing and thinking about continually. What the answer is to the problem at the moment I could not say.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. I agree with the minister that it is a difficult question, but would he not agree that unless some adjustment can be made to meet competitive rates it is not going to be possible to keep good staff, or it means asking the staff to make sacrifices which we have no right to ask them to make?


Mr. Teillel:: Of course that is the essential problem with which we are wrestling in the department. It is a difficult one. I do not want this to be taken as a suggestion of policy, but it is one of the things for which we may have to find some answer because of the difficulties in recruiting which have been mentioned.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the minister. In view of the fact that in a good many departments in Vancouver the prevailing rate system is in effect, why should the minister's department insist on a national prevailing average rate? Other federal employees receive the


prevailing rate in Vancouver. Here you have a differentiation in rates of between $80 and $100 per month for orderlies employed in the Shaughnessy hospital and those employed in the Vancouver General, St. Joseph's or St. Paul's hospitals. How can you have one policy while other departments have another?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Subject to correction, my understanding of the situation is that while there is a differentiation, I believe the prevailing rates employees are not considered to be full time civil servants, and that would be the reason for the distinction. I would have to check into that and make sure.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say when he will be introducing the legislation which he promised us to provide for employees of the federal government the same minimum standards that were established in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which was passed a week ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not sure that legislation will be required at this point, but I think it is a matter that will have to be dealt with very soon. I hope that after a consultation with the president of the council we can make a statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the government's intention that the same effective date, namely July 1 of this year, will apply to all these people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last evening clause 22 of the bill was being discussed and clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 had been allowed to stand.

On clause 22-Amount to be deducted and remitted by employer.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 22 of the bill which we are now discussing, relating to contributions and benefits, I should like to make several remarks.
I feel I should do so as the result of a statement containing figures and tables made yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I undertook at the time the hon. member filed those tables to examine the comparisons he made and comment on them. I think it would be proper for me to do so during our consideration of this clause.
Mr. Chairman, using a word which I seldom use and which I dislike using, I should like to say that the figures the hon. member has produced are phony because they are based on the comparisons of different figures calculated on different premises. The hon. member has proposed an amendment to old age security which would necessitate the raising of $455 million per year. He does not state directly how or where that money will be raised, and I suggest to him that if we took $455 million from our general taxes, in addition to what we propose to raise under the Canada pension plan, we too could produce some very attractive figures. We are not suggesting that by our amendment, but are basing our figures on the collections which are being proposed by the Canada pension plan now under consideration.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May we have order in the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the hon. member's right to disagree with what we are suggesting in column 3 of the various tables I placed on the record yesterday, and I agree with his right to ask questions as to how we propose to pay for what we are suggesting, but will the hon. member indicate one instance in support of his contention that my figures are phony? Are those figures not exact representations of what would happen, first, under the bill as it stands, second, as a result of my hon. friend's proposal, with which I disagree but which I do not call phony, and third, under our proposal? What is wrong with the figures themselves?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, the figures themselves are all based on different premises, and one cannot take one set of figures based on certain revenue collections and compare them
Canada Pension Plan
with another set of figures based on different revenue collections. I am merely suggesting that the hon. member cannot use his plan, taking $455 million out of general revenue, and then state that he is proposing a better plan. The mathematical calculations which my hon. friend has made may be correct, but he bases those calculations on different propositions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one more question. Does the hon. member admit that so far as he has been able to check them, the mathematical calculations are accurate?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, I cannot admit that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, you have asked your last question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege. If the hon. member is not prepared to admit that my calculations are correct, will he point out a single calculation that is incorrect?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, one cannot answer a specious argument of this kind. I suggest the hon. member's figures are based on entirely different revenue collections. If we suggested that we were going to collect an extra billion dollars, we certainly could afford to pay $150 a month more in old age security. However, that proposal is based on entirely different revenue collections which the hon. member suggests are to be made from somewhere, although he does not indicate just where. The hon. member does not say how this money is to be obtained, but suggests only that it will come from the people as a result of some sort of revenue collection, either through income tax or on a different taxation formula. The hon. member suggests the method is not important; they are going to raise $455 million in addition to what will be collected under the terms of the Canada pension plan and pay better pensions. One could use any figure at all and suggest that a better pension plan could be established, but I am suggesting that the figures produced by the hon. member cannot be compared in this way. He has taken three different sets of circumstances and attempted to compare the three different plans. For that reason I cannot admit that his mathematical calculations are correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask just one more question, and I will make it a short one. Have I made any mathematical mistakes in what I have done in respect of what will happen under the plan proposed by the hon. member, and I refer to the middle column

Canada Pension Plan
in each table I filed? Have I been unfair to the hon. member in any way in any of these tables?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I must still come back to my original statement to the hon. member. He cannot pin me down to answering that question, because his calculations have been made on different premises.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. We have listened with interest to the discussion which has taken place between the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but these discussions relate to certain tables which were placed on the record yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre during the course of a general discussion in respect of clause 2. It seems to me that we will not make much progress if we now return to that general discussion which began at the commencement of our study of this bill yesterday. For that reason I would invite the hon. member, now that he has made his point, to revert to a consideration of clause 22.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to agree with you that I have made my point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not agree at all.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I will revert to a consideration of clause 22, but I should like to make one comment in connection with collections and benefits. The plan proposed by our party will provide pensions of at least $100 per month through old age security and the Canada pension plan at age 65, and none of the figures produced by the hon. member indicate anything different.
Last evening I rose to discuss the subject of administrative costs. I realize that we will probably consider this in greater detail at a later stage of our considerations, but since this clause deals with the collection of contributions I should like at this point to question the accuracy of the government's estimate that the plan will only cost 1 per cent for administration.
I want to raise this by way of a question, because since the estimate of 1 per cent was made in the committee by the people in charge of the plan we have heard evidence that the United States plan costs approximately 2& per cent. There have been changes and amendments made in the plan as we have proceeded, and I wonder whether the estimate of 1 per cent still applies to the plan as the government is now proposing it.

It seems to many of us that the collection of contributions alone will be a very complicated matter, inasmuch as it involves the calculation of the benefits and contributions of each employee month by month during the whole of his earning lifetime of 48 years in accordance with the legislation. Therefore it seems to me that the collection alone will involve a tremendous administrative responsibility.
In addition there is the question of refunds. We have evidence that almost every employee's account will require adjustment at the end of each year and in many cases will require refunds of overpayments, although in some cases there may be underpayments. It is almost the same as income tax only much broader, in that almost every account under which there are deductions will not come out even at the end of the year.
There are problems such as a change of job from one employer to another, a change of location of job from one province to another, particularly with relation to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and changes in the salary structure of the employee even if he continues in the same employment throughout the year. These are all problems that make us believe that the figure of 1 per cent is very much underestimated. I should like to ask the minister at this time if there has been any change in the government's estimate of the cost of administration of this tremendous scheme in view of the subsequent evidence presented to the joint committee and other matters that have come to the attention of the government since we started on this legislation.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, first of all we believe that the cost of administering the Canada pension plan has been quite reasonably estimated. What the hon. member was referring to, I believe, was the reference to the cost of administering the plan being .1 per cent, that is one tenth of 1 per cent of contributory earnings. The cost of administering the plan will actually be between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of contributions as contrasted with contributory earnings. I think this is where the difficulty arises.
This is a very low administrative cost under a plan such as this when you consider the administrative difficulties which my hon. friend has mentioned. However, we are fortunate in that collections will be handled through administrative machinery

already set up, namely through the Department of National Revenue, taxation division. On the other side the old age security administration, which is already in existence, will be used to handle the administration so far as benefits are concerned.
With regard to the question of refunds, unless a person who is an employee is claiming a refund he will not have to file a return at the end of the year. The only situation in which he would have to file a return, which would then be processed, would be if he was claiming a refund. The information on his T-4 supplementary slip, which is envisaged as having two extra boxes, will provide the Department of National Revenue with the information to post to his pension record.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, in view of this new definition of what the administrative cost will be, which is not what I understood as a member of the committee, I wonder whether the minister could express it in terms of dollars and cents for the first year.


Edgar John Benson: The estimated expenditure by the various departments in 1966 is as follows: Department of National Revenue, $5,709,000; Department of National Health and Welfare, $1,466,000; comptroller of the treasury, $60,000; unemployment insurance commission, $406,000; data processing rental and operation, $312,000, for a total of $7,953,000 in 1966, the first year. The estimated cost year by year up to 1975 and including the year I have just mentioned is as follows:
Year	Amount
1966	$ 7,953,000
1967	8,372,000
1968	8,422,000
1969	10,077,000
1970	11,719,000
1971	13,101,000
1972	14,607,000
1973	14,838,000
1974	15,570,000
1975	16,416,000
On page 19 of the chief actuary's report, under the heading, short range estimates, he indicates in his principal assumptions that he assumes the expenses of administration will be .1 per cent of contributory earnings, but if you take that figure and apply it to contributions it works out to between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of contributions. On page 20, table 2, and on page 22, table 6, he shows estimated administrative expenditures on the basis of two assumptions, first on a 3 per cent annual increase in earnings, which is in table 2, and then on a 4 per cent in-20220- 745i
Canada Pension Plan
crease in earnings in table 6. I would refer hon. members to the actuary's report. Before I sit down I should point out that he used the same percentage as the United States actuary.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave this clause I want to check to make sure I understand correctly that the Minister of National Revenue will be collecting the contributions and, hopefully, some part of the benefits, and that the administration of this matter will rest with his department. He will be supervising it.
I want to refer particularly to a fascinating interjection he made when I was speaking in the house the other night in the general discussion on clause 2 and was dealing with this very problem. At that time I referred to the fact that his department had no office anywhere in the Northwest Territories to handle the administration of this plan. This is pertinent because the fact is that the people of the Northwest Territories do not have a district taxation office.
If my understanding is correct, under clause 22 these matters will presumably be handled to some extent at least through district taxation offices. I was discussing how difficult it would be in an area like the Northwest Territories, where the department has been unable to set up even a district taxation office. At that time the minister said, and I am very happy he said it, "There is really no problem".
I want to ask the minister this question. In view of the added responsibilities that are going to be given to some of his officials under clause 22 of the Canada pension plan, will he consider setting up a district taxation office in the Northwest Territories? As I read clause 22 the volume is going to be substantial, and I wonder if the minister can say how this will be tackled. If people from all over the Northwest Territories have to deal with Ottawa on such a highly complex matter it will be impossible to administer.


Edgar John Benson: When I said there was really no problem I meant that the problem of collecting the contributions will be exactly the same as that of collecting taxes under the Income Tax Act. The employer, where he is presently sending employee tax deductions, would also send in employee pension deductions and also the employer's contributions.
With respect to self employed persons, at the time they file their annual tax returns they will also fill out the Canada pension plan contribution form which will be attached

Canada Pension Plan
to their income tax form, and send it in in the same way they are presently doing. Admittedly there will be some additional work in my department arising out of this, and this is where the additional costs occur. However, the additional costs in my department for administering the Canada pension plan will not be material or great in comparison with the total cost of administering the taxation division, because this will simply be a procedure similar to that for employee tax deductions, and I think we must admit that the bulk o fcontributions to the Canada pension plan will come from employed persons.
Then there was the other question regarding the establishment of a district tax office in the Yukon.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: They have got one in the Yukon.


Edgar John Benson: I am sorry; there is one in the Yukon, but we certainly will consider providing one in the Northwest Territories if the need arises. As a matter of fact, later this year I hope to indicate to the house some changes we are carrying out in the Department of National Revenue with regard to dealing with taxpayers individually, and these may have some pertinence to this matter. With respect to the hon. member's request I can say we will certainly consider the establishment of an office in the Northwest Territories. I can go further and say that if conditions are such that we need one there to administer the collection of taxes and contributions as efficiently and as cheaply as possible, we will certainly provide one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to get out of order in the same way as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and I were out of order a few minutes ago, but I am wondering if X could put a question to her concerning something which she might do later.
As the minister knows, almost every day we who were members of the special joint committee put questions to her research division, and the members of that staff were very helpful to us. Could she arrange for the figures in the tables which I put on the record yesterday to be checked as to their mathematical accuracy? I am not asking her to approve or disapprove of the premises I outlined in my speech, but could we have an objective check of the mathematical calculations involved in the tables which I gave yesterday?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: After the figures were given last night we asked the people in the research

section of my department to check them, and I was advised the figures are correct.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I assume that the minister gives her answer subject to the limitation expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely that the figures were not necessarily based on the same premises?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That they were mathematically correct.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister say whether she calculated the cost of the plan put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and how it would be derived?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Certainly we have calculated the cost.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I did not hear the answer.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: To repeat it, certainly we have calculated the cost.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: And may I ask the minister whether she agrees or does not agree that the plans are based on different premises?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think this is self evident.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course. There are three different plans, but we know which one is the best.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am wondering whether at any time any of the officials in either the Department of National Revenue or the Department of National Health and Welfare made an estimate of what the administration cost will be to business and employers in connection with the responsibilities imposed on employers under the terms of the bill. I have heard employers say that for every 30 employees they may require one more clerk in their offices, and naturally this is an additional cost to any employer. Not only is the 1.8 per cent contribution involved, but there is the additional overhead in the maintenance of much more complicated payroll records and changes. Further, in major organizations which maintain automatic or electronic computer payroll records, this may introduce an absolute nightmare into their systems. Has an estimate been made with regard to such costs?


Edgar John Benson: Certainly if one asks an employer to make an additional deduction such as is involved here, with an exemption to be taken into account in calculating the amount of deductions, this creates additional work for him. In this plan we have tried as much as possible to integrate it with existing plans for employee tax deductions so the process will be the same in returning them.

We have also looked into the problem of fitting this into electronic equipment. The government of Canada, being one of the largest employers, is going to have this problem, and we have found it can be dealt with quite feasibly within the electronic equipment used to prepare large payrolls. We hope, provided this legislation is passed relatively quickly, that there will be ample time for people to prepare their programs for complex computers to take care of Canada pension plan deductions. However, we must recognize that collecting taxes such as sales tax, making employee tax deductions, providing for unemployment insurance and Canada pension plan contributions do create costs for employers.
Indeed, many employers in Canada have made representations to governments, not only to this government but to provincial governments, urging that they be reimbursed for these costs. That has never been the practice in the collection of federal taxes, and if one tried to calculate the costs it would be found that they vary for each and every employer in the country. Such a reimbursement would have to come out of the federal treasury and taxes would have to be raised on business and the public generally to provide the funds for such reimbursement.


Mr. Valade:: With reference to the point made by the minister, I do not think he was right when he said no government will allow deductions in order to compensate for the additional cost of collecting the money.


Edgar John Benson: I did not say "no government". If I did, it was in error. I said the federal government has never paid.


Georges-J. Valade: Since some provincial governments allow a certain amount of money to be deducted to take care of the costs of collecting unemployment insurance and, for instance, provincial taxes dealing with health matters, would the federal government not consider the possibility of allowing a certain percentage of expenses to be deducted from income tax for the purposes of the Canada pension plan deductions and contributions?


Edgar John Benson: Any change of government policy in this wide and important field would have to be made by the Minister of Finance and would have to be presented in a federal budget. I do not think this could be a policy that could be decided upon solely for the Canada pension plan, and ignore the other fields where employers have to carry out certain functions.
Canada Pension Plan


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With regard to subclause 6, may I ask the motivation for double penalties and interest? Is it in keeping with the same standards for failure to remit deducted income tax and unemployment insurance payments? Are they the same?


Edgar John Benson: They are the same as under the Income Tax Act for tax deductions.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: While on the question of administrative costs may I say that many members of the special joint committee were under a misapprehension about the percentage costs involved in the Canada pension plan as compared with United States social security costs. I cannot find the reference right at the moment, but it was the general impression that we were estimating administrative costs a great deal lower than costs for U.S. social security. However, the figures produced today indicate that they are comparable.
I would like to ask whether either of the departments has been able to calculate, in terms of persons, the costs of administering this plan, the number of people who will have to be employed to handle its administration.


Edgar John Benson: If the hon. member will bear with me for a moment I can get that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was given to the committee.


Edgar John Benson: The additional staff involved in the Department of National Health and Welfare varies from 240 in 1966 to an estimate of 1,540 in 1975. In the Department of National Revenue it varies from 1,010 in 1966 to 1,209 in 1975. In the unemployment insurance commission it varies from 62 in 1966 to 72 in 1975, and in the comptroller of the treasury from 25 in 1966 to 135 in 1975, indicating total staff requirements of 1,337 in 1966 to 2,956 in 1975. I have the figures in between, and if hon. members would like to see them in Hansard I would be glad to have the table produced.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Only to show how widely out you will be. Like many other major programs that are introduced, people will have some considerable difficulty in making out the terms and getting advice with respect to the Canada pension plan. Each time there is a change in income tax or unemployment insurance the public must have ready access to advice. It may be that temporary staff will have to be hired for, say, the first six months of 1966 and perhaps for the last quarter of

Canada Pension Plan
1965 to advise employers, because this is a most complex plan. To what extent will this staff be available; because I put it to the minister that the more successfully this information is put across to the employers, the more chance there is of early success with the Canada pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in this regard we are going to carry out quite a substantial campaign to inform both employers and the public at large, their benefits under the Canada pension plan and their obligations with regard to it. As a matter of fact, in my department we have already had discussions with the officials in the various district offices across the country and have been considering the problems of administering the plan. I can assure my hon. friend that the same degree of helpful service will be provided to the public by my department as is the case with regard to all contributions they are required to make. In addition to this we will have quite a large program of supplying information to employers, and our anticipation is that we can do this with our present staff and the additional staff which we will be hiring for use in connection with the Canada pension plan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is a differentiation between income tax and the Canada pension plan. The administration of income tax is concentrated in district taxation offices, and the taxpayer has to go there perhaps only once. I am thinking of outlying towns in western Ontario and the prairie provinces, for example, where it may mean a trip of 200 or 300 miles for the individual to come in to see the officials in order to determine how this is to be set up, and so forth. I do not think you are going to get people to come in two or three times. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the plan has to be a little more realistic than simply saying to these people "We are in the district taxation office. Come and see us". I hope this program envisages that there will be a travelling clinic of some sort in a district, so as to advise these people, because everybody is going to need this information.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, 1 would say that a good deal of information and instruction would be provided and mailed early to people, so that if any employers have questions and they drop a note to the district taxation office, we will help them. As a matter of fact we will send people, if they need it, to show them how to meet the require-

ments in connection with deducting employees' contributions and submitting them as required under the Canada pension plan.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister would know whether the provincial schemes submitted provide for a certain deduction for collecting the money.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not so far as I am aware.


Georges-J. Valade: Does the minister mean that she does not know whether such a thing exists? I do not think the minister can be sure of this. Is that right?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend is referring to the Quebec legislation.


Georges-J. Valade: Ontario and Quebec; any provincial scheme.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is no provincial scheme, aside from Quebec, of which I am aware. The Quebec scheme is delineated in a very detailed resolution before the Quebec legislature. However, as yet there is no Quebec bill exposed for public view, nor have I seen it. Therefore I am not in a position to say whether there is such a deduction.


Georges-J. Valade: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would allow me to ask another question. If the Quebec plan does provide for such a deduction, would the government take that into consideration and apply the same rule?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I should answer this question, Mr. Chairman. I do not think we could do this with respect to the Canada pension plan without considering the other cases where businesses are collecting taxes for the government of Canada. As I mentioned earlier, this is quite a broad area and includes such things as unemployment insurance, sales tax and income tax, and will include Canada pension plan deductions. For this reason it would have to be a government decision made by the Minister of Finance and presented by him in a budget. It is something that could not be decided now.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to drag this discussion on too long, but this is a very important point. If the province of Quebec comes up with a plan that does provide for such a deduction, this would make it a little different from the federal scheme.

Would this mean that one plan may not be accepted, because of this provision?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman. If the benefits were comparable and if the province of Quebec, in its wisdom, decided to put such a provision in its act, I do not think it would make them not comparable.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 23

Minister may assess amount payable.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question in connection with subclause 2 of clause 23, which provides for the minister making an assessment. There is an indication in this clause that the assessment is subject to being varied or vacated on appeal under this act.
I have looked at the provisions for appeal generally under the act. Am I right in saying that it is first subject to decision by the review committee and then the pensions appeal board; or to just what tribunal does an appeal from assessment lie?


Edgar John Benson: First to the minister and then to the pensions appeal board.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is to the minister?


Edgar John Benson: In the first instance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And then to the pensions appeal board?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 24-Recovery of contributions, etc. as debt due to Her Majesty.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I realize that under subclause 2 any deductions from the remuneration of an employee are to be held by the employer and are subject to certain priorities in the event of the collection of debts and bankrupt estates. Where does this rank in regard to the Income Tax Act and the unemployment insurance fund; or do these moneys share equally the degree of priority with regard to deductions of income tax and contributions with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would refer my hon. friend to the statement in this regard made by the assistant deputy minister of justice on page 1776 of the report of the pension committee, which deals with this question rather fully.
Canada Pension Plan


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That does not answer my question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to clause 24 (3), with which I believe we are now dealing. This clause deals with the manner in which an employer shall treat deductions made from the remuneration of an employee. I intended to make some brief remarks on this question when reference was made earlier to what employers would have to do under this bill. Employers are called upon by the government to perform all these duties free gratis for the country. I do not think any government, federal or otherwise, has any licence to saddle the businessmen of this country with any more bookkeeping duties on behalf of government.
I note in this clause that the employer is required to keep separate the amounts deducted; that is to say, he has to keep separate and apart from his own moneys all these monthly payroll deductions. They must be kept in a separate account and shall be deemed to be held in trust for Her Majesty. I ask the minister again, does the Canadian businessman have to do all these things and assume all these responsibilities free gratis for us?
I submit that it is unreasonable to ask him to do so, and I suggest that some small remuneration should be paid to the businessman for undertaking this work on behalf of the government. Most business offices are already forced to devote one day a week or more to providing unemployment insurance and other taxation data for the government. I ask the minister, can he not do something in this legislation which would compensate the businessmen of Canada for their bother?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
On clause 26-Inspection.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks to make on this clause which are somewhat similar to those just made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. I think this is also the appropriate clause to make some remarks about the confiscation of documents by the government. I would like to ask just one question, to start with. This bill requires an employer of even one person, as I understand it, to make deductions, keep books and remit deductions to the Department of National Revenue. As a preliminary

Canada Pension Plan
to my later statements I wonder whether this could be verified. Most of the small businessmen required to keep books have a number of employees, but as I understand it, under this bill an employer of even one person will have to keep complete records under the Canada pension plan. Is that correct?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is correct. The Canada pension plan is for the benefit of all employees in the country and self employed people, and of course it will be necessary, where an employer has only one employee, to remit the deductions and the employer's contributions. This is of course similar to the situation that exists under the Unemployment Insurance Act, where an employer may have only one employee but this one employee must be entitled to the same benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act as apply in the case of an employer who has 50,000 employees. A similar situation exists under the Canada pension plan.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (b) of clause 26 reads in part:
II, during the course of any such inspection or examination it appears to him-
That is an inspector.
-that an offence under this act has been committed, seize and take away any such books, records, writings or other documents and retain them until their production in any court proceedings is required.
As one who is familiar with the operations of small businesses, I should like to bring to the minister's attention that in many small businesses it is the custom to have one book in which collections are recorded, not only for this fund but for the national revenue department for income tax, for the labour department for unemployment deductions, for workmen's compensation, for hospital insurance, and so on. The collections for the pension plan will occupy just one more column in the small businessman's book. It is possible that unintentionally some error may occur and this man, who is already doing more than his fair share of free work for the federal department, may be penalized by having his book seized and taken away from him until, according to the bill, its production in any court proceedings is required.
[Mr. Aiken.1
In my opinion, this provision ignores the development that we have today whereby photostat copies may be made of any document. The seizure of this book could place the small businessman in a very awkward position, if he were required to show it to some other inspector for some other department. I should like to suggest that the minister give some consideration to amending the provision so that the book may be seized for a period of 10 days. If this were done, I am sure it would give the inspector plenty of opportunity to examine the records seized, photostat those records and then return them to the small businessman.
I believe that basically the small businessmen across this nation endeavour to be cooperative in relation to the many pieces of bureaucratic legislation that are being implemented and which, after all, create some hardship for them. Many large business corporations hire one individual who evidently does nothing but look after these collections for the federal government, and this provision may not present any problem to such a firm. The small businessman may find this to be the straw that breaks the camel's back; it may put him completely out of business because he may not have sufficient earnings from his business to enable him to hire an individual full time to look after these accounts. This may force him to sell his business. I would ask the minister to give some thought to making that change whereby these books could be seized for a period of 10 days. I should like to have his comments on this proposal.


Edgar John Benson: Subclause (3) of section 26 would take care of the problem raised by the hon. member. This subclause reads in part as follows:
Where any book, record, writing or other document is seized, inspected, examined or produced in accordance with this section, the person by whom it is seized, inspected or examined or to whom it is produced or any officer of the Department of National Revenue may make or cause to be made one or more copies thereof and shall, upon request by the person from whom the original document was seized or by whom it was produced, in any case where a copy thereof has been made pursuant to this section, send a copy thereof to such person or, if no copy thereof has been made pursuant to this section, allow such person at any reasonable time to have access to the document so seized or produced, and a document purporting to be certified by the minister or a person thereunto authorized by him to be a copy made pursuant to this section is admissible in evidence and has the same probative force as the original document would have if it were proven in the ordinary way.

This is a provision which is not in the Income Tax Act and which I, personally, believe probably should be in there. It permits the Department of National Revenue to get away from the problem of seizing people's documents and holding them for an indefinite period of time. Under this provision the records which would be kept would be payroll records of the employer. We would, through the provisions of subclause (3), be able to get these documents, have them photostated, and produce the photostats of the documents rather than having to hold the original documents as evidence. I believe the problem raised by my hon. friend is dealt with effectively. We can assure him if someone wanted the records back we could use the photostat copies and return the records to the person involved.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for the explanation. Nevertheless, in reading subclause (3) to which he has referred I notice it states that a copy thereof may be sent to such person, or if no copy thereof has been made pursuant to this section, allow such person to have access to the books so seized or produced. In view of the vast area of Canada it seems to me that this provision might impose a hardship on a merchant who operated his business some 70 or 100 miles away from the office seizing the documents. Could the minister further clarify the intention behind this provision?


Edgar John Benson: Under subclause 3 of this clause I believe the taxpayer is in a much better position than he has ever been under a taxing statute in Canada, other than the Estate Tax Act where the same provision has been inserted. This provision will mean that the individual has access to his records.
One must remember that payroll records are not often seized by the Department of National Revenue. Most records which are seized by departmental officials have to do with the suppression of income, and they are only seized under unusual circumstances at times when departmental officials firmly believe that there has been an evasion of tax. In these cases a warrant is obtained and the R.C.M.P. seize the records. This does not happen very often in respect of payroll records, so it would not happen specifically in connection with this act on very many occasions. The provision has been made to enable us to seize records in cases where we think there is fraud involved.
In respect of this subclause, we can do one of two things as far as the seizures are con-
Canada Pension Plan
cerned. We can make photostats of them so that if the taxpayer wants copies we can send them to him. If the taxpayer does not want the photostat copies and says that he does not want the records, and we keep them, but he may want to look at them from time to time, the records will be kept at the district tax office and he will have physical access to them, rather than just access in law. The records must be kept in the office and the taxpayer can go and look at them at any time he wants to do so. If the taxpayer requires the records back, provision is made under this clause for photostating the records. Those photostats will be acceptable in court as evidence, and in this way we can return the records to the taxpayer. I think this provision represents a great advance over the provisions of the Income Tax Act in this regard.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I find myself rather puzzled by one of the expressions in subclause 1 of clause 26 which appears in line 14 and is, "any property". The portion which puzzles me reads as follows:
Any person thereunto authorized in writing by the minister, for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises or place and inspect and examine any property, Including any books, records, writings or other documents-
In other parts of the clause reference is made to books, records, writings and documents, but if one considers this particular provision in relation to the provision in clause 25 which has to do with the keeping of records and books of account either at the place of business, or I presume, in the case of small employers, in their residences in Canada, a question then arises as to whether the inclusion of these words "any property" opens up the possibility of an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a home. I realize that the clause specifies that this shall be for the purpose of administering and enforcing the act, but I am puzzled as to why that expression "any property" was used. I cannot imagine what property, other than documents and records, would be involved. Perhaps the minister could give some explanation in this regard.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I can give a very brief example. The documents or records in question might have been produced by a bookkeeping machine, or a computer. This provision gives the minister the right to have his representative examine the machine which is producing the document to make sure that the machine is set up in such a manner as to do the job it is supposed to

Canada Pension Plan
do. In addition to that, certain documents might be kept in a safe or a vault classed as property. I am informed by the draftsman that this provision is necessary in order that the officials will be able to get at the documents involved, as well as seize the documents themselves.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps that is satisfactory, as long as this is clearly understood by the departmental officials; but the words "any property" are pretty broad, particularly when associated with the reference to the right to enter a residence. There is a connotation in this provision which I am sure none of us would want to see related to the acts of any officers of the department, because this might lead to an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of an individual.


Edgar John Benson: This provision provides that this entry and seizure must be for the purpose of administering this act and cannot be used by any of my departmental officers for the purpose of snooping, or anything of that sort.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hope all your officers will understand the context in which this phrase is used.


Edgar John Benson: This provision in acts such as this is used only under very unusual circumstances, and I can assure the hon. member that the officials of my department who have to carry out this particular type of investigation are very well versed in the limits to which they should and can go with propriety.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to another point in addition to that raised by the hon. member in relation to the wording of this clause, and I suggest that the minister give some serious thought to amending this clause to make clear that the right to examine books, records and writings or other documents relates only to the provisions of the Canada pension plan. In line 14 of clause 26 the word "any" appears in relation to documents, records, writings or other documents kept therein. I have read this clause very thoroughly and I find nothing in this bill which limits in any way the right of an officer of the department to enter any private place of business in Canada and go through every file, document and every safe in that office whether or not there is an investigation being carried out in respect of this plan. I think one of the most fundamental freedoms Canadians now possess 
is the right to not be interfered with by inspectors and other persons acting under the provisions of some act of parliament on the instructions of a minister of the crown.
The Minister of National Revenue has assured us that no official of his department would ever go beyond the bounds of normal propriety, but I am sure there have been occasions when such a right has been exercised without the knowledge of the minister. This right is to be given to any person authorized in writing by the minister for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act. That right is unlimited. All an official must do is state that he is investigating under the provisions of the Canada pension plan and may then examine any book or document that is in an individual's business premises. I think the definition is too broad with the inclusion of the word "any" in the clause.
It is one of those things which causes us some fear. In my view the unlimited right of an inspector to enter the offices of any business firm in Canada and examine any books or records under the pretext or excuse that he is looking for a violation of the Canada pension plan is too broad. This points up the increasing difficulties of private business in Canada in keeping up with the ever increasing amount of paperwork they have to do on behalf of the provincial and federal governments.
As my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg pointed out a few minutes ago, the average businessman, whether he employs one person or 100 or 1,000, under the provisions of this act has to set up a bookkeeping system. He has to keep records for all the various departments of government, for income tax, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, hospital insurance and so forth. He does not have to do this in some of the cases I have mentioned if he has a small number of employees, but he does have to under the Canada pension plan. Most certainly protests are being made by people operating small businesses who are gradually having to devote more and more of their time to non-productive work in order to keep records on behalf of the government. The provisions of this section and the provisions of all the other sections relating to collections and records are building up a tremendous bureaucratic empire in the whole federal government system.
I want to come to the question raised previously by my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg. I cannot see anything in section 26 (3) whereby the department has to return the

books. They make copies and they may make copies available, and the person whose books have been seized may come and look at the originals. I do not see anything in subclause (3) saying that the books shall be returned or may be returned. I think it would be desirable that such a provision be written into the clause.
To go back to subclause (1), I think that the right given to a designated official of the minister is too broad. I think the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is along the same lines. The right is given to examine any property, including any books, records, writings or other documents kept in the premises. Rather than the minister giving us an undertaking that his officials will not break the bounds of decency, I should like to see it made clear that they shall not and may not do so, by restricting their right to enter into any business premises and inspect the books.
I feel very strongly about this matter. I have seen instances under various acts, the Income Tax Act for example, where inspectors have entered offices, have seized books holus-bolus and have taken them away. They have done so to such an extent that the operator cannot carry on his normal business and has to set up a temporary set of books. When the whole thing is unravelled he may not have been guilty of an offence or of any default. For that reason I would ask the minister to consider whether under this clause he could not restrict the right of officials to seize, examine and take away the books of a business firm. I submit they should not be allowed to do so unless they have reason to believe that an offence has been committed. While it is provided in paragraph (b) of clause 1 that the official may take away documents if he believes that an offence has been committed, there is nothing to that effect in the preliminary portion of subclause (a). In order to guarantee the right of every individual to the freedom of his place of business I would think that this provision should be set up in the same way as is the right to search a private business or private premises. In other words, there should be a search warrant. Before one can obtain a search warrant from a justice of the peace he has to take an affidavit that he believes an offence has been committed and that certain examinations and searches should be undertaken and certain documents seized. That is the basic and fundamental law of the land.
Canada Pension Plan
Clause 26 goes farther than that, because these officials may enter without any allegation that an offence has been committed or that an offence is believed to have been committed, and inspect any book or document in the possession of the employer or the person involved. If we moved the words "it appears to him that an offence under this act has been committed" into the first part of clause 1,1 think it would meet the objective I have in mind.
I feel very strongly about the matter and I am sure many other people do as well. In the proliferation of all these special acts which permit people to walk into private homes or places of business and examine, seize and take away books, we must make sure that it can only be done under the most severe limitations. I would ask the minister if he would not consider providing such a limitation in the first part of clause 1 and requiring that there must be some reason to believe an offence has been committed before the officials may examine or seize any book, record, writing or other document in a place of business.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must go farther even than the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka because I believe this is the type of legislation that various law societies and the Canadian Bar Association have been protesting against. Frankly, this is just adding several more cubits to the bureaucratic Frankenstein we are building in our various departments of government. There are no restrictions whatsoever in this clause.
In fact, in subclause 2 of clause 25 the minister may also compel any employer to keep records indefinitely, whether the minister does so by caprice or otherwise. There is no restriction whatsoever on the minister and there is no appeal. This is the worst feature. In clause 26 the minister may authorize an inspector of his department to enter, to view and to seize, all without appeal, and there is nothing to compel the minister to justify his action. If there is anything that would give motivation to the creation of an ombudsman in this country it is legislation of this kind. I am not attributing motives to the ministers but I am quarrelling with the machinery they are creating.
Anyone within the employ of the minister can quite legitimately, under the provisions of this and the preceding clause, examine and remove any and all books. To cap it all we have what I would call the epitome of political nonsense where it says in lines

Canada Pension Plan
17 to 20, on page 22, "notwithstanding any other act," whether it be of this parliament or of a provincial legislature.
We have the presumption to say in this bill that we will put aside all other acts and all other rights and that the employer will be required to do what he must under the terms of this bill, notwithstanding what the Minister of National Revenue may want to do with regard to income tax or with regard to customs and excise, or what the Minister of Labour requires with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Under this bill the minister may require a person to do something which is completely contrary to the requirements of other acts. What presumptuous nonsense is this phrase, "notwithstanding any other act or law." I request the minister to stand this clause.


Edgar John Benson: Does the hon. member realize that the presumptive nonsense he is complaining about in this clause is exactly the same as the section which Hon. Donald Fleming put into the Estate Tax Act?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The fact that it was done once before does not mean that it should be done again.


Mr. Munro:: Especially if there was a change of government in the meantime.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I could not care less if it was done under a previous administration. If it was wrong then it is wrong now.


Edgar John Benson: You did not say it was wrong then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister was a member of the chartered accountants profession. Did he protest about it at that time? If I were perhaps neglectful at that time in not being aware of every provision in the Estate Tax Act-and I am taking the minister's word that this provision is in it-then I will say mea culpa; I will admit my error. But I do not think that just because it was put in one act it should be carried on further. I cannot protest strongly enough against this sort of bureaucratic presumption on the rights of individuals.
I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to advise the hon. member for Perth that we would like to have this clause stood, because I was occupied with other things; but having looked at it I plead with the minister to have it stood and rewritten in language that is more amenable to the rights of individual citizens.


Mr. Olson:: Notwithstanding the minister's explanation of what can be done under subsection (3) the fact remains that subsection (1) (b) says that persons authorized may seize and take away-
-such books, records, writings or other documents and retain them until their production in any court proceedings is required.
We have to presume that that means what it says. The minister has attempted to explain that under the provisions of subclause (3) it would be possible for the department to make photostats and to return the books, documents and so on to the place of business, providing that the photostats would be admissible as evidence in court.
Pie also tried to explain it away by saying that the individual involved may at any reasonable time have access to such records if he requires them in the pursuit of his business. But if a set of books were seized in Medicine Hat I point out that a businessman would be required to travel 200 miles to have access to them at any time.
We all know of cases where the production of the books in court may make it necessary for the department to hang on to them for several months. Therefore, notwithstanding the minister's explanation about photostats, he and his officials do have authority to hold on to such books until court proceedings are held.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg suggested a limitation of 10 days on their retention. It may not be convenient or possible to have full photostats made within 10 days but I believe there should be a reasonable time limit in order to protect the rights of individuals. Toward that end I suggest a limitation of 30 days.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the representations made by my colleagues that the powers conferred by this clause should be curtailed. To me the most objectionable feature of it is that not only does it give powers to a designated person to enter business premises and make a search, but it enables such a person to enter a private home and do the same sort of thing.
Practically all farmers in the country who employ hired help keep their records in their homes, perhaps in desks in their living rooms, and under the provisions of this clause the official designated can enter their homes. It says that at any reasonable time-and I suppose this means any time except the middle of the night-any authorized person has full power to go through all private papers of the family, including a wife's private correspon-

dence, the loveletters of the man's daughter and anything else along those lines. This is manifestly ridiculous and is a severe infringement of the right of privacy in the home- the right of every individual citizen to be free from bureaucratic prying into private correspondence.
I think, therefore, that one of the provisions which should be written into this clause by way of amendment is that no such search of a private home can be carried out except on the basis of a search warrant specifying definitely what things can be examined. I do not think we can sanction by legislation the right to enter a private home and go through any private papers which might be found there.


Mr. Baldwin:: While the ministers are
arranging, as I am sure they are, to write the necessary amendment to meet the logical suggestion made by my hon. friend, I wish to draw attention to subclause (l)(a) of clause 26 the effects of which are in my opinion even worse. This requires the owner, occupier or person in charge to give an authorized person-
-all reasonable assistance in connection with his Inspection or examination and to answer all proper questions relating to the inspection or examination, and for that purpose require the owner, occupier or person in charge of the premises or place to attend at such premises or place with him-
And so on. This is long before there has been under the terms of (l)(a) an appearance to the officials that an offence has been committed. In other words, we are dealing with a person who is presumed not to have committed an offence. We must read this subclause together with the provisions of clause 42 dealing with offences. These provide that failure to comply with the terms of clause 26 constitutes a summary offence punishable by law. In other words, if an officer entered a residence and asked what he thinks is a proper question, and did not receive a reply, an offence may have been committed by the individual concerned merely because of his refusal to answer. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has had some experience in connection with offences under the criminal law. She knows as well as I do that nobody charged or about to be charged with a criminal offence need make any statement to any police officer who is investigating the charge, and even if he does make such a statement it cannot be used against him at the trial unless it has been preceded by the customary warning. The onus lies
Canada Pension Plan
upon the crown to prove that where a statement is submitted at the trial by the crown working toward the guilt of the person charged, all the circumstances must be explained and the crown must establish that the statement was made voluntarily.
Here we have a situation where a person who is not charged is compelled to answer any question asked of him or her which the officer may say is a proper one. If the question is not answered, an offence may have been committed. Then again, the answer may be used against the person concerned, should an offence be charged later. I think this is monstrous. The Minister of National Revenue may be able to tell me whether any similar provisions appear in the Income Tax Act compelling people to answer questions asked of them, despite the fact that they are not charged with any offence.
I think this is a very serious matter and while we know that in statutes concerned with revenue collection the crown has gone very far in circumscribing personal rights, this particular provision goes far beyond what should be contemplated here, and I should like to hear some comments from the hon. gentleman if what I have suggested as being the proper interpretation of this clause is in fact the right one.


Mr. Leboe:: I have grave misgivings about this clause. First of all I should like the minister to consider the words which appear in the first couple of lines-"any person thereunto authorized in writing by the minister". I submit that the individual who is involved in each case should be named- that no blank cheque be given to any officer who works under the authority of the minister. In other words, the minister would have to put a signature to the documents concerned with each particular case and know exactly what is being authorized; each person to be investigated should be named. I think this is important. I do not think the minister should be able to give blanket authority to let an officer move in anywhere he wants to go.
I should also like the minister to give us an assurance that in no case under this clause when books are being investigated is this to be done for the purpose of carrying out a cross check on someone else with regard to a matter which does not involve the individual whose books are being checked. In other words, books should not be checked just because someone else is suspect. I should like the minister to assure me that in no case

Canada Pension Plan
would an operator's books be called in merely because the department is trying to catch offenders by means of cross checks.
I should like to support the plea that when an investigation is begun photostatic copies should be taken by the department and the books returned immediately to the individual concerned. It does not take very long these days to make photostatic copies of hundreds of documents and it would seem a simple matter to get the books back to the individual concerned almost immediately. There is no reason why the department should not retain only the copies.


Edgar John Benson: No doubt hon. members would like me to reply to a few of the points which have been raised. The provisions of clause 26 are designed to protect employees. It must be remembered that the entire responsibility for making deductions and submitting employers' contributions under this pension plan is laid upon the employers. An employee does not have to complete a form at the end of the year unless there is a refund due to him. There is a provision in this particular bill which does not exist in other legislation. Where an employee has reason, for example, to suspect that his employer has not submitted his pension plan deductions and contributions, the employee can bring this to the attention of the minister and he will be credited with those amounts in the account of his contribution toward the plan.
Clause 26 permits any person authorized in writing by the minister to do certain things "for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act". He may examine records and other matters in connection with Canada pension plan contributions. This does not mean the minister has the right to authorize someone to search through everyone's personal correspondence, and so on, because that has no connection with the administration of this act. In my opinion, if we are to administer this legislation properly, if we are to carry out checks periodically to see that people are making the correct contributions and doing the things they are required to do on behalf of the employees, we must, under this bill, as under the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, have authority to go in and examine these records. If one has to prove an offence before he can go in to check to see that businesses are doing what they are required to do, the process simply cannot be effective and the department cannot assure that employers are carrying out their obligations to
[Mr. Leboe.l
their employees and to the government of Canada as required by this legislation.
It has been mentioned that there is no provision for the return of the documents which are taken. Ordinarily documents under examination in this case would not be taken. What will happen is this. Income tax inspectors, when carrying out their normal inspections, try to look at the records of businesses on a periodic basis to see that each business is paying the tax they are supposed to pay, because if they do not pay this tax, somebody else has to pay it. This is the basic reason for doing it.
If we are to carry out this examination in connection with income tax, and are to administer the Canada pension plan collections, we must also have authority at the same time to look at these records. With regard to the authority that will be granted us here, we can require the records dealing with Canada pension plan contributions and with the administration of this act to be produced. In most cases this would amount to only the payroll records. It does not say we will seize the records or that we would ordinarily take the records out. I am sure that any hon. member who has been engaged in the practice of accounting knows that when the income tax department goes into the ordinary businessman's place of business and looks at records, they do not seize the records unless there is some reason to suspect that there has been fraudulent action on the part of the employer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Supposing there is fraud?


Edgar John Benson: If you find fraud has been committed you will probably not stop at taking the record in which you found the fraud; in all probability you would get a search warrant and go much further in that case. But in connection with this act I do not think you would ever have to go any further, because the only records we would be interested in would be the payroll records of the employer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then why don't you so state?


Edgar John Benson: The statement was made that we would keep these records forever. Mr. Chairman, clause 26 (1) (b) provides that we are permitted to retain the documents seized until their production in any court proceedings is required. There is the limitation on how long we can keep them. I would further indicate that successive parliaments have approved provisions such as this for the ex-

amination of records. I do not think it would be at all feasible for the Department of National Revenue to have to obtain a search warrant every time it wanted to go and examine payroll records in an employer's place of business. If you want the department to be operated efficiently, parliament should not require this to be done. If parliament is not interested in the efficiency of the operation of the Department of National Revenue, and if it wants the Department of National Revenue to be obtaining search warrants in connection with businesses all over the country in cases where we do not really need them, this would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Most businessmen like the department to come in and assist them with these things; they like them to come in and clear them, as it were.
Ordinarily what will happen under this clause is that we will go in, look at the records, find out that the employer is carrying out his obligations to the employee and to the government, and that is all there will be to it. The only cases with regard to which we would invoke clause 26 (1) (b) would be where we had reason to suspect fraud. Then, of course, we would take the record which we believed supplied evidence of fraud. If we did not take the record at that time and a person had committed fraud, everybody here knows how quickly a record can disappear. I think the clause has gone further in trying to help the businessman than any other similar section, and I would include in that the section written into the Estate Tax Act, which was the basis on which this particular provision contained in subclause (3) was written into this bill. It has gone much further than any provision in any other act; it has gone much further than the Income Tax Act in moving toward helping the employer.
To say that we are forced to photostat documents that we may have in our possession would, I believe, place upon the department a very heavy burden. In most cases businessmen will not require their payroll records beyond the current year, so if the department seized them, they would not request the department to photostat them and send the photostats or the originals back. But I would think that if they wanted them, we would be most pleased to do this. However, as I have said, in most businesses the payroll records of the previous year are not a matter of interest to the businessman after the year is over, and they simply file them away. One must remember that under this clause of the bill the only records in which we would be
Canada Pension Plan
interested would be those in relation to contributions under the Canada pension plan.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You don't say that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you so state?


Edgar John Benson: It does say, "for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is as wide open as a barn door.


Edgar John Benson: I believe, and have been so advised by my officials, that this is the minimum sort of provision that we need here in order to carry out an orderly administration of this act; and on this basis, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to move any amendment to the clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right. Then we will have a good debate.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to what the minister has had to say and I am not going to be long in my remarks. I certainly was not convinced by his argument when he read from clause 26 (1) (b) that the records would be kept until their production in any court proceedings is required. Perhaps in smaller areas court proceedings might come on quickly; but I am advised that in larger, metropolitan areas such as, for instance, Toronto, Montreal, etc., this would not be the case.
The point I want to make is this. The Nova Scotia liquor control act, for example-this is said purely as a lawyer, of course, and there is nothing personal in it-contains many sections which throw the burden on the accused persons to prove that they are not guilty. But even in that act there is a section which provides that in making searches the law officers must have a warrant before they can go to a place to see if there is any liquid gold there in quantities, which should not be there. It might be a little different, according to what the search is for, but I would think-


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would allow me to point out that a search is not being provided for under this particular clause of the bill.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I beg your pardon?


Edgar John Benson: This is not a search provision in this particular bill; it is not to provide for a search as such.


Mr. Ricard:: It sounds exactly like it.

Canada Pension Plan


Howard Russell MacEwan: Anyone can enter the premises, and if that is not searching, I don't know what is. I would suggest, along with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka and the hon. member for Edmonton West, that the change should be made. After all, you are not presuming that the person is guilty, and so on, as is the case with the act to which I referred. 1 believe an amendment could be made here that would provide- and this is what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka asked for-that a warrant must be sworn out because there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed.
The hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, with regard to clause 26 (4), on page 22, that it also states "notwithstanding any other act or law'*. I think this clause should be amended in order to guarantee the freedom of the individual under this act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I had made a note against this clause some time ago and happened to overlook it yesterday. This afternoon six or seven people from the opposition side of the house have made reasonable suggestions to the minister. The minister, treating it as a debate, entered into a discussion on this subject and ended up by saying that under no circumstances, or words to that effect, would he make any amendment to this clause. Surely-


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that under no circumstances would I make an amendment to this clause of the bill. If parliament decided that an amendment should be moved, and the amendment is moved and passed, of course it would have been passed by parliament and the clause would be amended accordingly. I simply said, Mr. Chairman, that I had been advised by my officials this was the minimum requirement, that I was of the same opinion and I did not intend to introduce an amendment to this clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was a very clear statement that the minister, on his own initiative then, was opposed to introducing any amendment. I thought he would take the other stand and say, let us have a look at this; let us negotiate. There are five or six people who are keenly concerned about the provision and who have made reasonable suggestions. He might have suggested these people confer with him in order that they might arrive at a form of wording that would be satisfactory. We have done this session after session in this house in connection with various bills. Surely

this is the way to do it on a bill of this nature. However, the minister takes the stand that he is not going to listen or at least not going to consent to the suggestions from this side and will make no amendment on his own. It may well be that the officials have suggested these are the minimum requirements. However, the officials are reasonable people and they might accept the form of wording that would meet the objections raised on this side of the house.
I should like to ask the minister this: He said that this clause was for the protection of the employee. I tried to copy down his words, and I believe I got most of them. He said that where an employee has reason to suspect an employer may not have made the contributions that he should to the employee's credit under the pension legislation, then it would be necessary to make an investigation and get things settled. Is this the way this plan is going to be operated? Are employees now to be informers against employers? Is there not some other method by which the department will know whether or not the employer is keeping accurate accounts with regard to his employees? Surely you are not going to be dependant upon the employee communicating with the Minister of National Revenue to say that perhaps the employer has not done something that he should have done. The employee may not have the information. He may be ill informed. On that information does the minister then send an investigator? I do not believe that was ever intended or should be intended.
May I ask the minister another question? Under subclause (2) of clause 26, why does this not precede any action that may be taken? Why does the minister not ask for the information, and if there is some doubt in the matter-he has said himself that employers, and I think this is right, want to be in the clear with regard to their dealings with the government-why does the minister not start off with this demand for information? Then, if this is denied or is not furnished in full, he could take the second step of inspection and seizure of documents.
When my attention was first directed to this clause, it was on the earlier part of it. In lines 14 and 15 there is a reference to any property, including any books, records, etc. The minister has said that the intention is to keep the inquiry to those payroll records and matters which relate to the pension plan. Why does the provision not say that? Line 11 relates to any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act, but that does not apply to line 14. I believe

that after the words "kept therein" words such as these might be inserted, "and used or maintained for the purpose of this act". The provision then would relate directly to payroll records. There would be no blanket authority to pick up any book that might be in an office.
It does not help us for the minister to give the assurance that the only books that would be looked at would be payroll records. Ministers come and go; they do not last forever. This minister, of course, may set that out as his policy, but subsequent ministers may not agree with it. The law should protect the citizen. The law should state clearly and accurately what is intended. I was not impressed too greatly by the minister's suggestion that other legislation contained similar clauses relating to the inspection and seizure of books. Just because something is written into one statute, it does not follow that the same section should be written into another. The original one may be wrong or parliament may have made a mistake, and it does not matter which administration it was. Every year we amend the various statutes of Canada either because something has been omitted or because there has been poor wording or there is a loophole in the law, something of that nature. It is quite customary to change the wording of statutes. It is for this reason I would reject the argument that just because some statute or other has similar words they should be in this one.
I am appealing to the minister to be reasonable. I should like to hear him say that he is quite content to stand this section; that he will confer with the people on this side who have put forward these suggestions. I am willing to guarantee that a form of consultation will result in a wording that will be generally acceptable. This has happened in the past. I believe it is the best method of dealing with this provision which has aroused controversy, rather than taking the stand the minister has taken that he is not going to make any suggestions whatever with regard to an amendment. I have confidence in the officials who do the most difficult work connected with the government, namely that of drafting bills. I believe that they would be able, in consultation with the interested members, to come up with a form of wording that would be more satisfactory.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, there are other members who wish to speak on this subject. However, there is one point I should like to raise at this time. I think it is the foundation
Canada Pension Plan
for most of the objection to this provision. The minister stated that a similar provision is contained in the Estate Tax Act which was enacted under the previous Conservative government. There is such a vast difference between that legislation and this that I do not believe they should be compared. This legislation for the Canada pension plan is all embracing; it goes far beyond anything in any other statute dealing with the financial affairs of the citizens of Canada, including the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act has certain limitations, but this bill will cover almost every adult person in Canada. Its application is broad and covers the whole field, and it is for this reason it is most important that these clauses which relate to interference with books, records and writings should not be extended.
I notice that the minister of health and welfare is somewhat encouraged by my statement that this is a broad and all embracing statute. I did not mean that in the sense in which she took it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. member has finally realized, as he has just stated, that this act will cover almost every adult in Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I did not use the word "cover", I said "affect"; and I am sure it does, because in the minister's efforts to find out whether under her plan some poor soul who only earns $600 a year is to be made to pay his pittance, under our plan she has canvassed the whole area. I suggest there is quite a difference and that when we get down to the facts of the matter we find that her plan does take money from individuals with very low incomes. That is the difference between her plan and our plan. However, Mr. Chairman, I am digressing and I will return to the subject matter of this clause.
The application of this plan extends right down to the very lowest income. Even when an individual only has casual earnings, if those earnings are received from an employer, he is affected by the plan. This legislation is broad in its application and affects the whole field in Canada and should not, therefore, result in this type of interference.
Let us consider the Estate Tax Act for a moment. This act is related to estates of deceased individuals, which are presumably in some state of suspension. We all realize that following the death of an individual there is a period of time during which the estate has to be settled and taxed, but that is not the situation as far as the Canada pension plan is

Canada Pension Plan
concerned. This plan affects individuals who are living and trying to carry on a business, sometimes very small involving very few records. I submit that the application of the Estate Tax Act has no bearing at all on the application of the Canada pension plan.
This clause involves merely a very broad enlargement of a principle, which is not a good one by any standard. The minister has suggested that the real purpose of this clause is to enable departmental officials to go into business premises and inspect payroll records to determine whether deductions have been made in accordance with the legislation. If that is all that is intended, why should these inspectors have the right to examine any property, including any books, records, writings or other documents kept therein, and to question the individual in relation to these records? As has been pointed out by other hon. members, this is much too broad in a bill of this kind. Surely if the inspectors have examined the payroll records of a specific business and are not satisfied with them they should proceed immediately to a justice of the peace in the same community, lay an information in which they state that they believe an offence has been committed and obtain an order for the removal of the necessary documents. Surely that is the basis of our Canadian administration of justice.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member not agree that the reason for having to go beyond reference to payroll records is that one is perhaps looking for what is not contained in the payroll records, and there may be other evidence which would indicate that contributions have not been made on behalf of certain employees whose names do not appear on the payroll records?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do agree that there may be such cases. In fact I believe the hon. member for Cariboo raised the suggestion that the department is sometimes really not concerned about the individuals that are being examined, but are trying to cross check against someone else. The provisions of this clause would permit such a cross-reference, but I still believe it is much too broad and that it should be limited to the point where it will only meet the needs of the department and not go beyond them. I believe the provisions of this clause go far beyond the

provisions of minimum protection for the department and infringes on the basic liberties of Canadian citizens.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal very briefly with one or two points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The whole purpose of this clause, as I intended to mention before, is to ensure that ordinary checks can be carried out to make sure that contributions which should have been made by employers from their own funds and from moneys deducted from their employees have in fact been made.
The hon. member asked a question as to whether the department would be checking in any event to make sure that an employer had made a contribution on behalf of an employee, as a result of someone other than an employee complaining to the department. Of course we would be making that kind of check, and that is the purpose of this clause, allowing the inspectors to go into premises and carry out an examination on an audit basis, somewhat similar to the audit carried out by the law society, with which I am sure my hon. friend is familiar, making sure that the records are indeed being kept properly.
If an employee got in touch with the Minister of National Revenue and indicated that he felt some of his contributions had not been made, or that his employer was not looking after his contributions to the Canada pension plan properly we would not have to immediately seize the records of that employer and examine the employer, as was suggested by the hon. member, because we would first check the individual's pension record to see whether there was any basis for his allegation. We would be in possession of that information submitted to us by the employer.
Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to clear up those points.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and members of other opposition parties have made it very clear that the powers extended under clause 26 in relation to the seizing of documents and records are too drastic. I do not wish to labour this point, particularly in view of the fact the minister has indicated he will not consider any amendment, but I should like to make one or two remarks regarding contributions to the pension fund.
I am not a small businessman but many of my constituents are, and on their behalf I should like to touch upon one other aspect of this discussion.
I have a copy of the Independent Businessman which is a small publication put out

each month. It refers to a ballot which appeared in the December issue which asked the following question:
What services do you do free for the government?
The answer is very interesting and indicates that many free services are performed for the government by small businessmen, including the following:
Paperwork involved in employee payroll income tax deductions, paperwork for unemployment insurance, for provincial hospital insurance, for the collection of federal and provincial sales taxes, for workman's compensation, hiring and separation reports, reporting diesel fuel tax, reports to dominion bureau of statistics. There are others.
"Others" means there are other services performed for the government free of charge. I have only one question. It may have been answered before and I did not hear the answer. Are business owners expected to do all this extra work of collection of contributions free or will there be some form of compensation?


Mr, Benson:: I dealt rather fully with that particular question a little earlier today. If the hon. member will look at Hansard he will see my rather detailed reply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not particularly want to go back to the charge except to make a plea to the minister. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made eminent sense when he suggested the recasting of this section. Everyone agrees that the minister may demand information. This is done now and there is a proper procedure whereby he can make a demand for information. I would say that only in the case of a refusal to furnish such information should the minister's representatives be able to enter the premises. My heart bleeds over the minister's concern for employees. After all, I would say that 30 to 35 per cent of the people of Canada are employers and we should not put them in the position of being suspect simply because we want to protect employees. If you are operating a one-man law office you are an employer because you have a secretary. You are classified as an employer. Although I may be a little high in my figure, I would say that at least 30 per cent of adults would be employers.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am sitting here in fascination and dying to know, as I know other members of the committee are, where he got the figure that 35 per cent of Canadians are employers.
Canada Pension Plan


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I said 35 per cent of adults, not of all the population.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You must have the decimal in the wrong place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. Even if I am somewhat optimistic in this regard, the proportion is high enough that we must not put them in the category of being potentially dishonest.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I did not say at any time that employers were dishonest.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister can answer later. There is no question of privilege here. He can argue the point. The inference is there and I would suggest to him the inference was that the motive of the legislation was to protect employees. I will agree that the employee must be protected but I say that the employer has to be protected as well. He has as much right to protection as his employees. He is not a second class citizen. That inference can be drawn from the minister's earlier remarks. I do not think he intended it but it was there.
I would say that when the minister makes a request for information it will be complied with by the vast majority of employers. I would suppose there would only be a small fraction who might neglect to do so. It is in such cases that the minister would seek greater authority but I think that, like the Income Tax Act, if the minister is going to seize books he should do so under a warrant or under a writ. But that is not necessarily provided for in this legislation. I would say it is in those extreme cases where the minister should do so but the minister's representatives must be able to justify why he is doing this. Therefore I should like the minister to reconsider the position. We might stand this clause to see whether we cannot work out something that would be agreeable. So far as the lawyers of the country are concerned as well as many other people, legislation of this type goes much too far.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to point out to the hon. member that this particular legislation does not go nearly as far as the Income Tax Act in respect of the seizure of records by warrant and that sort of thing, and using the Exchequer Court of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to seize records. This section of the bill provides for an ordinary examination of records. First of all, if you require information from an employer that can be provided to you on the telephone or in answer to a

Canada Pension Plan
letter to the employer, certainly you will not use this section of the bill. Nevertheless, in order to carry out the administration of the act and do the normal job of auditing which you would do when you go in and examine records to see if they are being kept properly, you need such a provision. Really one of the incentives for people to keep records properly and to do things in a proper manner is the fact that there is the belief that someone will come along and inspect the records. This is not used in any other way, but nevertheless the department needs the power to go in and carry out an ordinary audit.
For example, I can see an audit under this act being carried out in conjunction with an audit for income tax purposes. You go in and carry out your income tax audit and you want to look at the payroll records for purposes of this act. Presumably you could say you were looking at them for purposes of the Income Tax Act. You use them for the purpose of this act. This provision gives you the authority at the same time or at another time to go in and examine the records for purposes of this act. I believe this is essential if you are going to have a carrying out of the obligations of employers and employees under this act and if you are going to have efficient administration by the Department of National Revenue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is one point I did not hear the minister answer. In the event that a person contests the minister's right to seize the books, to whom does he appeal? There is no appeal.


Edgar John Benson: As the hon. member knows, I am not a lawyer, but I am told that the action which the employer could take would be to get a prerogative writ in the ordinary course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come now, let us not tell him he has to get a cannon to go after a squirrel. I am not calling the minister a squirrel. The minister has said there is a remedy but it is a very complicated remedy. In other matters there are appeals. In the matter of assessments the minister has provided, and quite rightly so, the right of appeal. What remedy has a man against the improper seizure of his books? If he is in a dispute with the minister's representatives, what relief has he got?


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, I have one observation here. I cannot quarrel with members of the bar who are best informed on the

protection of civil liberties and what should be the due process of law, but I would be most neglectful in my duties as a member of the House of Commons if I did not say, from the experience of practising my profession, I find that if employees are going to be vouchsafed their full rights you need to give every possible power to the income tax authorities and the revenue department in order to establish what their benefits ought to be. I say so, because in most cases where action such as that contemplated under this clause is required it is simply due to the fact that there have been irresponsible employers who would not maintain adequate records for workmen's compensation and other deductions. Our primary concern should be the person who can least protect himself, the employee, against an irresponsible employer.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Would the minister accept a request to stand this clause?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, after four days had been spent debating clause 2 there was an agreement made that we would stand certain clauses to which the opposition had amendments to propose. They indicated before the supper hour the clauses they wished to amend, as did the other opposition parties and the government. The understanding was that, except for these clauses, we would move through the bill with a minimum of debate. That was the agreement and we should stick to it or else go back and start over again and deal with all the clauses as we meet them.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: There are so many bad clauses in this bill that we find it difficult to select them all.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You never stand behind your agreements.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: When we get some of this Liberal arrogance cleared up we will continue. This is a serious matter which we are discussing. Many farmers have had experience of this. The Liberal government is having so much trouble within itself that it trusts no individual in Canada. They just want to send their gestapo across the country checking every Canadian.


Edgar John Benson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: No, I have got the floor. You sit down until I get through.


Edgar John Benson: Who is arrogant now?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It was the Minister of National Health and Welfare who started it

and you are probably getting that way. I hold nothing against you-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: -you are a new minister-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. At the moment the hon. member's remarks are not related to the clause. Would he revert to clause 26?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Yes, if these people over there give me a chance to talk I will read clause 26, which says:
(1) Any person thereunto authorized in writing by the minister, for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act, may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises or place and inspect and examine any property, including any books, records, writings or other documents, kept therein, and
(a) require the owner, occupier or person in charge of the premises or place to give him all reasonable assistance in connection with his inspection or examination and to answer all proper questions relating to the inspection or examination and for that purpose require the owner, occupier or person in charge of the premises or place to attend at such premises or place with him-
That is what I am talking about. The income tax people have got the same thing. They go to the farmer when they have spare time and they walk right into his home. It is not too long ago since they went to a farmer and said, "You owe us $35,000," and when it was all cleared up he found it was around $3,000 he owed. The individual has no protection under this clause. As it is written now the individual, and in particular the farmer and businessman have no protection.


Mr. Chatierlon:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated we made an arrangement. That is correct, but on the other hand the comment she made when she said they "never stick to their agreements" is not helpful in getting the business through the house expeditiously. It is true we made an arrangement but, for instance, yesterday there was one particular clause which we had not included in our original list, but we asked last night if it could be included and the answer was yes.
For the sake of expediting the passage of the bill, if the government agreed to stand this clause it would give us time to draft an amendment if we so decided.


John Carr Munro: When we are talking about expediting the business of the house I would point out we have been talking about this clause for approximately an hour and a half. During the 51 sittings of the joint committee I cannot remember one member of the official opposition raising any point about this
Canada Pension Plan
during the clause by clause study, nor after the briefs were heard and when the report was being drafted. It was due to the cooperation which existed between the official opposition, the other minority opposition parties and the government party that a report evolved. We met many times together and not once can I recall this matter being raised. During the last 10 or 15 minutes, especially since the debate has become heated with all sorts of comments about Gestapo, hon. members opposite have begun to feel quite strongly about this provision, but I repeat they did not raise it in the joint committee. I would like to read from page 219 of the minutes of the joint committee:
On clause 26-Inspection.


Mr. Thorson:: 
Mr.   Sheppard@: This particular operation is what you might call a payroll audit as distinct from an assessment of income tax so there could be different inspectors from the ones who examine your tax return; but they are all attached to the one office.


Mr. Monteith:: There are no regular powers
really though, as applied in the Income Tax Act, they are similar.
I	point out that he was the only member of the official opposition who raised a question on this clause.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes. they are quite similar to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. They do contain some of the modifications included originally in the Estate Tax Act, I believe in 1958. In other words, there are some minor differences between the provisions of this bill and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, but the provisions of this bill follow quite closely those of the Estate Tax Act.
Then the committee went on to discuss clause 27. It will be seen from the beginning of these particular minutes that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka did not attend that meeting of the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That was one of two meetings.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich attended the committee meeting when this was considered and did not raise the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: So what? What are you trying to prove?

Canada Pension Plan


John Carr Munro: It appears as though hon. members opposite have really strong feelings with regard to this particular provision but it should be remembered that 51 sittings of the committee were held during the recess at a sacrifice to members of all parties in this house, and during that time not one question was asked with respect to this matter, nor was any objection taken either when the clause was being explained or when we were drafting the report.


George Louis Chatterton: That is a most specious argument, and the most illogical I have ever heard. Does the hon. gentleman mean that because we did not raise this question in the committee we cannot do so here? I did not raise it, simply because I did not catch the implication. I am not a lawyer. This is the first time I have realized the implications of clause 26. If the hon. gentleman says we cannot discuss it here because we did not raise the matter in the committee, we might as well quit now and have no further discussion.


John Carr Munro: My suggestion is this: There were lawyers present in the committee. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was there.


An hon. Member:: He just said he was not.


John Carr Munro: Senator McCutcheon was at the meeting. I am sorry. The hon. member was not there. But there were other lawyers there, I am sure. Surely we should take account of the fact that we have gone on for an hour and a half talking on this question after there has been, as mentioned by the Minister of National Revenue, an agreement that we would go through the clauses and then stand the clauses on which there might be considerable argument. We consented to this arrangement and now we find we are spending an hour and a half on this clause. Subsequent speakers on the other side have been repeating what earlier speakers have said. You have got your point across.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Lucien Lamoureux: The parliamentary secretary has the floor at the moment-


An hon. Member:: The chairman is on his feet. You sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest to hon. members that we are now embarking on a procedural argument; we have got away from the substance of the clause before the committee. I appreciate that hon. members on my left may have strong objection to what may have

been said but I think it would be helpful if we were to abandon this procedural argument and resume consideration of the substantive question before us.


John Carr Munro: I had the floor, Mr. Chairman. The reason I point this out is this: Presumably the purpose of holding so many meetings was to go into matters such as this in order that we might be prepared for our discussion later. The fact of the matter is that this subject was not raised once. The government and the opposition parties having worked together in this way, it can hardly be suggested that because the Minister of National Revenue does not want to accept an amendment the government is being arrogant. That is the only point I wished to make.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order. Having been requested by the official opposition to stand this clause and having indicated that we have already agreed to stand certain clauses, let me say that certainly the government does not wish to move from clause 26 to clause 27 and have clause 27 stand. I should like to ask whether there are any other clauses which the official opposition would like to have stood in addition to the list they gave. If there are any others of which they have knowledge, I trust they will inform us. I hope this will not be a repeated process because we do not wish to find at the end of the day that we have stood just about all the clauses.
The government would be agreeable to standing this clause and the officials would meet with members of the official opposition and other opposition parties who are particularly interested in it and talk about its implications with regard to the administration of the act involved, and I would be prepared to meet reasonably with proposals put forward with regard to it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We seem to have come to a misunderstanding about the nature of the agreement entered into when we commenced discussion of this particular bill in committee of the whole. We have clearly stated as a party the points at which we wish to make amendments. We have four substantive amendments which have been made public and, as we have stated several times, we have two other amendments relating to students and one relating to employees of foreign governments. In principle these are the six substantive amendments with which we wish to proceed. It was to avoid our

talking about these particular clauses and then asking that they should be stood because of consequential amendments, that we picked out the clauses which we thought were affected by the motions we wished to move. We felt we could proceed through the rest of the bill fairly rapidly.
At the beginning of the sitting today we passed several clauses in five minutes-they went one after the other. But I do not think we ever felt we would merely pass all the other clauses of the bill without discussion or abrogate our duty as an opposition to call attention to shortcomings which might not have been apparent earlier.
We did not go through this bill clause by clause in the special committee except by way of explanation at the beginning of the sittings in December. When we came to the report-and this is on the record-we never went through the bill clause by clause; we did the same thing, roughly, as we are doing today. We said: We have certain basic amendments which we wish to make. On that basis the clauses of the bill were passed on division except for the few we are now indicating. Surely, the duty of this committee is to proceed clause by clause as we are doing. I do not believe there are any other amendments. But can it be suggested that because we have indicated our main position the opposition is to be restricted, now, when anything else comes up, to saying: O.K. you can go ahead?


Lucien Lamoureux: It seems to the Chair there has been considerable argument on the question of procedure. There appears to be an understanding that the clause now before us will be stood-that there will be a meeting of the representatives of all parties with the officials to discuss it further. In those circumstances, if it is the wish of the committee, we will stand the clause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps I might say a word on this subject, since I have been one of the most obdurate of those who have spoken on this particular clause. Some of these points do crop up from time to time, on re-examination, from the point of view of law and the rights of individuals. I think the minister's suggestion is an eminently sensible one, though of course I cannot bind myself absolutely should I find some point which, as a lawyer, I must raise.


Edgar John Benson: There was no suggestion that there should be no discussion on the subsequent clauses. The only question I raised was that I should like to know whether members
Canada Pension Plan
of the official opposition or of other parties know of any further clauses they wish to stand.


George Louis Chatterton: The hon. member for Hamilton East implied that since we did not raise the question in the special committee we could not raise it here.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest that we are talking at cross-purposes now. It is understood that clause 26 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 26 stands.
Clauses 27, 28 and 29 agreed to.
On clause 30-Decision of minister or pension appeals board final and binding.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to raise one point here. I know there is a declaration that the decision of the minister or of the appeals board shall be final and binding, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This, of course, is an elaborate and very expensive court to which to appeal. I would just like to get an explanation as to what is the thinking of the minister in regard to these matters. Are there to be floors on the amounts or the types of appeal that may be made to the Supreme Court of Canada? Also, what is the position with regard to costs? After all, the appeal is declared to be on a matter of law or a matter of fact, and the appeal is not only to be made by an employer but may be made by an employee. The individual who finds or believes that he is aggrieved with regard to his pension should certainly have the right to take an appeal from the decision of the minister or the pensions appeal board. But for the individual himself, where all he has is a maximum pension of, say, $104 a month, is he going to incur the potential expenses of going to the Supreme Court of Canada? These are the points to which I would like answers. In ordinary civil practice we have a floor with regard to the types of cases that may go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Is there going to be a floor in this regard; and what about costs?


Edgar John Benson: The appeal provisions under part IV of this bill provide for appeals to the minister, first of all, and to the pensions appeal board. There is no provision for an ordinary appeal to go beyond that. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is under clause 4, which deals with the matter of jurisdiction as between the federal gov-

Canada Pension Plan
ernment and the provinces. The supreme court will not be available in regard to other appeals.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I must again enter the caveat, Mr. Chairman, that I don't like it;
I don't like decisions of the minister and a board to be final. So many of our government board and ministerial decisions are final, and the bar and the law societies of the various provinces feel that this has gone too far. I regret to see the limitation to this extent in the biU.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the pensions appeal board is not a government board; it is a judicial board set up under section 85, the chairman of which must be a judge of the exchequer court or a superior court of a province; but it is a judicial appeal board. I did not want the impression to be left that this was a government board which made decisions which could not be appealed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I agree that the composition of the pensions appeal board is somewhat a little distinguishable from others, but I do want to raise this caveat, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 31-Return to be filed.
Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, under the income tax regulations a self employed person must submit his estimated earnings before they are earned. Is the government going to follow these regulations which fall within the Income Tax Act? My concern is very much like that expressed by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, namely that we are approaching the stage now where a self employed person-I am talking about the small businessman-almost has to keep a person engaged to answer these inquiries that come in from government departments and to greet the inspectors that come in from these departments. I would suggest that if it is at all possible these inquiries from or requirements of the federal government should be amalgamated and all the information obtained at one time, or in one period, so that the small businessman would know when they are coming around.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the method of payment for individuals is covered by clause 34, to which we are just coming. It states:
-on or before December 31 in each year-

This is for farmers, and the provisions are exactly the same as those in the Income Tax Act:
-two thirds of the contribution required to be made by him for the year in respect of the self employed earnings, as estimated by him-
And so on. Then he would pay the balance on April 30, the same as he is required to do in connection with personal income tax. At the same time as other people would be paying their income tax instalments based on estimated earnings, they would pay their pension instalments, presumably in the same cheque. They would send it in on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. It is exactly the same thing.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 39-Refund of overpayment where application made within three years.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks in connection with clause 39. The question of employees' refunds was raised by the hon. member for Perth when we were discussing another clause, but I think a specific point should be made, and a few questions asked, in regard to clause 39. As hon. members know, while there are refunds to employees who have overpaid their contributions, there are no refunds whatever to employers under the provisions of this bill.
It was explained to us in the special committee that the basic reason was that they just could not keep track of these amounts. The employee has a wage sheet and it is kept in the offices of the Canada pension plan, or the Department of National Revenue, so that at the end of the year the sum total of his earnings can be calculated and refunds made or further charges requested. But with regard to the employer we are told that the amount payable is difficult to trace.
I would like to ask the minister about the situation where the employer contributions are easily traced. What about a situation where it is well known to all and easily traceable that an employer has made a substantial overpayment? I cannot argue against the principle that if there have been casual overpayments by an employer, and if it is going to cost more to trace these charges than the amount involved in a refund, this system is acceptable. But what about the situation where the facts are known? There

may be a mass movement from one location to another, or there may be the case where large contributions have been made that can be easily traced. I have not been able to find any provision in the bill for exception in these cases. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether there is any way in which an employer who has made a substantial overpayment in any one year can apply for a refund.


Edgar John Benson: In dealing with employers, Mr. Chairman, first of all let us consider the situation of employers who have contributed or paid more than they are required to pay under the act. They are entitled to a refund. But where they have paid the amounts they are required to pay under the act, but the amount of employer contributions paid by two employers for an employee who has changed employment exceeds in the aggregate the net amount payable by the employee, there is no provision for refund under this situation in the bill, and this is similar to the procedure in the social security system in the United States. Basically, the reason for this is the amount of money involved in individual refunds.
As I recall the figures presented to the pension committee, they indicated that these refunds would be relatively small amounts and it would be more costly to get the amount for each employee divided up amongst perhaps two or more employers than the amount of money involved. I believe this might amount to a few million dollars, that is the aggregate of individual amounts, as I recall the figures which I read.
I do not believe there is any provision to deal with a specific employer in the case which the hon. member has mentioned. If you did attempt to do this you would have to deal with all employers in the same manner. I do not believe you could provide for an exception because having provided for one exception, reasons would be advanced for providing for additional exceptions. You would get into a position where you would have to make such contribution refunds to all employers.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The Canadian Construction Association presented a brief to the special committee which had a great deal of merit. This association represents one group, and there may be others, but this is probably the most significant group of employers who have employees who move from job to job. They are not likely to be classed as casual labour, however. They work for their regular wage 20220-746
Canada Pension Plan
and they have income tax and pension deductions made. Their records are kept, so they would not be called casual workers. They are people, however, who move from job to job. There are other industries to which this particular problem applies.
In so far as the construction industry brief is concerned, I should like to ask the minister if any consideration was given to some way of alleviating the great problem of this one industry, which is a substantial industry. I suggest that perhaps a good deal of the overpayment that will not be refunded will come from people employed in the construction industry. In fairness, is there not some method by which a particular industry of this kind could have a system adopted for the recovery of contributions when they are away above what is fair and reasonable?


Edgar John Benson: I have been informed that on looking into this matter it was found that under the United States social security system no method of refunding was found for these small amounts. Then, you would have to split this amount between the employers. As I mentioned before, there is just no easy way of doing this, so there is no provision for it in the bill. If one could devise something that would be equitable and fair in the future, I am sure this parliament would be pleased to face up to the problem and deal with it. However, after years of operation under the social security system in the United States, they have come to the conclusion that the cost involved in refunding an employee's contribution would not be warranted in comparison with the benefits derived.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have just one final question. May I ask if the government considered this situation carefully, decided there was nothing that they could do for this type of worker and decided to offer no amendment to the bill?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, that is the case; it was considered carefully.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am just wondering perhaps whether or not the government could take the lead in connection with this matter and give the employee an additional amount of money that is involved in the so-called employer's contribution, then take the 3.6 per cent for a deduction? I am speaking about the government, now. They could raise salaries of their employees by 1.8 per cent, then there would be no employers' contribution so far as the government is concerned. If the government took the lead in this connection,

Canada Pension Plan
perhaps provincial and municipal governments would follow and then industry would follow them. It seems to me this procedure would eliminate a lot of headaches.


Edgar John Benson: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that is an interesting suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
On clause 41-Regulations.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was going to raise the question of the amendment moved by the committee. This clause was not in the group of clauses accepted by the government for amendment, but I presume there is to be an amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1 pointed out initially that all the amendments which were part of schedule D in the committee report were accepted by the government and would be moved by the Chair as we reached the appropriate clause.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am just trying to verify whether or not the government has any further amendments. I am assuming that it is clause 41, subclause (f) that relates to the Canadian forces and the R.C.M.P.


Edgar John Benson: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the clause dealing with the R.C.M.P. is clause 6, which has been allowed to stand. The government will have an amendment in this connection, in addition to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to this clause appearing in schedule D reads as follows:
Amend subsection (1) of section 41 by relettering paragraphs (f) to (j) as (g) to (k) respectively and by adding thereto immediately after paragraph (e) the following paragraph:
"(f) respecting the manner in which any provision of this act which applies or extends to an employer of an employee shall apply or extend to any person by whom the remuneration of an employee for services performed in pensionable employment is paid either wholly or in part, and to the employer of any such employee."
This is the amendment recommended by the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In order to understand where we are, what is the government going to do about subclause <f) if we pass clause 41 now?


Edgar John Benson: As a matter of fact, I raised this very question with the persons responsible for drafting the legislation. I am informed that subclause (f) does not need to be changed as a consequence of the amendment the government is going to introduce to clause
[Mr. Leboe.l
6. Without going into details I can assure the hon. member that it will not be necessary to change this clause.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I assume this will be merely superfluous if there is any amendment.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 43 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is in the government's list, and it stands.
Clause stands.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 44 carry?


Edgar John Benson: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clause 45 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 46 carry?


Edgar John Benson: Stand.
Clause 46 stands.
Clause 47 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 48 carry?


Edgar John Benson: Stand.
Clause stands.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 49 carry?


Edgar John Benson: Stand.
Clause stands.
Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.
On clause 52-Amount of earnings for which contribution deemed to have been made for a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This clause should be called as amended, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, 52 should be referred to as being amended by the joint committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the amendment?


Edgar John Benson: It is amended as indicated in appendix D.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, surely this is not the way we do things here.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, has the
amendment been written into the bill now before us? That is what I wish to know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amendment appears in appendix D of the committee report which is to be found in Votes and Proceedings for February 16.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Surely this is not the procedure we follow in this chamber. The committee is not empowered to make amendments. Amendments must be moved by a

member of the ministry. While the government has indicated that it intends generally to make these amendments, surely the committee cannot amend the bill. It may suggest or recommend a schedule of amendments, but the government must accept them and cause them to be moved by a member of the ministry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West is slightly confused. Committees do have the power, provided the amendments do not involve the expenditure of money, to make amendments to a bill. The bill is then reported to the house as amended. The amendments in question have been spelled out in appendix D of our report. There is another category of recommendations and clauses for which we are waiting action by the government, but in respect of these amendments the chairman simply puts the clause as amended.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, the committee report was filed but approval was never moved, so nothing has really happened. The report has been received and the amendments have been recommended, but surely the amendments ought to be dealt with now.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is not the understanding of the Chair that amendments to bills have to be moved by a minister unless they involve, of course, the expenditure of money. The opinion of the Chair is similar to that expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this regard. That is why we have followed this practice throughout our consideration of this bill, at least to this point. We are now asking the committee of the house to pass the clauses as amended by the joint committee, following which the clause as amended is automatically adopted without a motion by a minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just point out for the benefit of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that it is not necessary to move the adoption of a committee report. One of the things the committee did was to report Bill C-136 as amended, and if the hon. member will look at the order paper he will see that we are now at that stage, dealing with Bill C-136 as amended.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
On clause 54-Amount of disability pension.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, there are several clauses immediately following clause 54 20220-746J
Canada Pension Plan
which relate to supplementary benefits payable under the Canada pension plan. A considerable amount of discussion took place in the committee in this regard, resulting in some recommendations to the effect that there be some rehabilitative medicines supplied and rehabilitative procedures adopted requiring individuals to take treatment which, if successful, would remove them from a disability class. In this regard I believe there is some problem with relation to disabled persons allowances. It is my understanding in respect of these allowances that in order to prevent some overlapping it will be necessary for provincial legislatures to pass amending enactments consequential upon the provisions of the Canada pension plan. If that is the fact, will the minister indicate whether any suggestion has been made in respect of such enactments and is any lead or assistance being given by the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, a meeting was held of welfare ministers last year and another meeting is contemplated within a month or so of the passage of this legislation. At that time we intend to discuss with the provinces unemployment insurance, mothers' allowances and all other assistance programs. Hon. members will appreciate that even following the enactment of this legislation, presupposing that that takes place soon, it will not come into effect until January 1, 1966, so that we will have the balance of this year during which time consequential changes can be made.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise again one question I raised at the hearings of the committee, which relates to the establishment of eligibility for disabled benefits under the Canada pension plan. Will the minister give us her categorical assurance that the costs involved in the establishment of eligibility for these disability benefits will be borne by the federal government? In many parts of Canada people attempting to establish eligibility in this regard will have to travel over great distances in order to be examined by doctors. This will involve some expense, and I am thinking particularly of the Northwest Territories where often an individual travelling to the nearest doctor for an examination must travel several hundred miles at a cost of several hundred dollars. Will the minister give us her categorical assurance that an applicant will not have to pay these costs? It is obvious that the individuals who will be applying for disability benefits will

Canada Pension Plan
in all likelihood already be in financial difficulty. What assurance can the minister give us in this regard?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I understand the special problem which exists in respect of the hon. member's constituency. May I suggest, first that in respect of an individual going to his or her own doctor to establish, in the initial stages, an eligibility for disability benefit, in most cases the expense involved will have to be looked after by the individual. I can say categorically that in most cases, and I will give you the limitations in a moment, any expense over and above that will be borne by the pension plan rather than by the individual.
The limitation which occurs to me, particularly in regard to transportation, would apply to the case, as the hon. member has suggested, of an individual having to fly from Baffin island to Ottawa, for example. The best I can assure the hon. member of at this moment is that very careful consideration will be given in this regard, because the principle intended to be followed under the provisions of the pension plan is that the individual who is either a contributor or a dependant should not be unnecessarily burdened. After all, the whole idea of a pension plan is to provide benefits rather than creating costs.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: 
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, my question refers to a person who is covered under the Public Service Superannuation Act and it is prompted because such a person is included under the Canada pension plan. If a civil servant becomes disabled, the P.S.S.A. provides for his retirement at that time. At the time of his retirement under the P.S.S.A. because of disability, and having conformed to the requirements of the bill now before us as to time of contributions and so on, he would get a disability pension of 75 per cent plus the flat rate under the Canada pension plan. Is that correct?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, I was not familiar with the P.S.S.A. title. I am accustomed to thinking in terms of the federal civil service plan. If an individual is disabled he will get full Canada pension plan benefits and there would then be no adjustment with respect to the P.S.S.A.


George Louis Chatterton: Let us say a person has had 33 years service under the Public Service Superannuation Act and has contributed for a minimum of two years under the Canada pension plan. He would get his disability pension under the Public Service Superannuation Act which would be based on his number of years of service, 2 per cent for each year of service, and then he would get a pension under the Canada pension plan of 75 per cent of what?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He would have to have five years.


George Louis Chatterton: I am sorry. Let us say he
had contributed for five years as the minimum requirement. He would then get 75 per cent of what pension?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He gets both. He gets the retirement pension to which he is entitled under the government service provisions.


George Louis Chatterton: But he gets 75 per cent of the pension under the Canada pension plan. Let us say he has worked for five years and no more and has been at the maximum pensionable earnings of $5,000. What would his pension be under the Canada pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is 75 per cent of $104, which is the maximum, plus the $25 flat rate.


George Louis Chatterton: If he has contributed for five years under the Canada pension plan, which is five tenths, his maximum pension would then be $52, would it not, and he would get 75 per cent of that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, it is $104. The transition does not count here. He gets 75 per cent of the maximum pension. Assuming he is at $5,000 the maximum pension would be $104 and he would get 75 per cent of that plus the $25 flat rate.


George Louis Chatterton: Let us say he becomes disabled five years after the Canada pension plan starts, five years after January 1, 1966. He will get 75 per cent of what?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of $104, plus the $25 flat rate.


George Louis Chatterton: If he has worked for five years only his pension would be $52, would it not?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member look at page 40 of the bill, line 21, subsection 3 (b). You divide by 60. For this purpose the 10 year transition is not taken into account.


George Louis Chatterton: So the civil servant would get that, even though he would get a pension under the Civil Service Act also? He would get his disability pension under the P.S.S.A. as well as the pension under the Canada pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, just like anyone else. If he happens to have five or six other private plans he gets those too.


George Louis Chatterton: But in this case, this is an integration of the P.S.S.A. with the Canada pension plan, so it is an integrated plan. It is not the same in the other cases where there is a private pension plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member is asking what he gets. He gets what I have explained under these provisions, and if he happens to have an annuity provision or a savings plan or a private pension scheme which may have been left over from earlier employment he will presumably get those also.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the passage of clause 54 and I do not see why it should not go through before five o'clock. Clauses 54 to 58 inclusive deal with the supplementary benefits that are being introduced by way of amendment. It is just about a year ago that I injected myself into the debate on the speech from the throne at the beginning of this long session in order to speak on the Canada pension plan. At that time I made a somewhat critical analysis of it. After having worked on the matter for a year, I suppose I might be permitted a little self-praise at this time.
Canada Pension Plan
One of the things that I and several others said at that time was that the Canada pension plan as then proposed was completely inadequate without supplementary benefits. We are very pleased now that, one year having passed and a good deal of work having been done by the minister, by her department and by others, we now have these clauses in the bill. I think all members of the house have reason to congratulate themselves that as the result of what has taken place during the past year we now have a pension plan with benefits in it for disabled people, widows and orphans. With those few remarks I will take my seat as I do not wish to hold up the passage of clause 54.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder if my hon. friend would permit a question. I do not want to take away from my hon. friend's pleasure in having played a part in the provision of this plan, but I am sure he will readily admit that from the very first white paper the government expressed its intention to include such benefits just as soon as the co-operation of all the provinces was received and the necessary amendment was made to the British North America Act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will admit this, if the minister will admit that what I did had something to do with the change.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With 265 of us in the chamber I will be glad to give my hon. friend at least one three hundredth of the credit.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I have a further comment or two to make on this clause. May I call it five o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: In order that the house can proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would consider waiving private members' hour today in order that we might continue with the discussion of the Canada pension plan at the committee stage.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I had no notice of this. Normally I might have been prepared to consent but I for one have an appointment. If we had had notice perhaps we might have agreed.


George James McIlraith: I thought I had given notice in the usual way and I wonder if hon. members would consider carrying the clauses?

Private Bills


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have no idea what went on between the house leaders, but the hon. member for Perth who is carrying this bill on behalf of the official opposition had to be away this afternoon, and those few of us who have been able to make some contribution have been carrying it in the meantime. I do not know what kind of job we would do by going ahead further, but we certainly had no notice of the likelihood of its continuing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we compromise and continue for half an hour?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, I am not prepared to do that.


George Louis Chatterton: I think judging by the progress we made today we have been proceeding at a good rate.


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



NATIONAL ANTHEM

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-64, to provide for a Canadian national anthem.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill No. C-64, an act to provide for a Canadian national anthem, was originally introduced in the house on December 2, 1963 as Bill No. C-115 in the first session of this parliament. It was not reached in the first session but it has been standing for some months at the head of the list during the present session.
I did not proceed with it earlier this session out of deference to item No. 45, placed on the order paper on May 28 last, in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), but as I have now been given to understand that item No. 45 will not be proceeded with during the current session I would like to go ahead with my bill.
Mr. Speaker, "O Canada" is by popular usage and custom both at home and abroad the national anthem of Canada. It has not however been formally constituted by legislation as such. Furthermore, there are many versions and arrangements of the words and music in both French and English. The purpose of this bill is not only to constitute "O Canada" the national anthem of Canada but to spell out specifically the official words and music in both languages.
This bill provides that the music shall be as originally composed and written by Calixa

Lavallee and as subsequently arranged by the Hon. R. Stanley Weir. It provides further that the words in French shall be the first verse and refrain of the Routhier version, and the words in English shall be the first verse and refrain of the Weir version. This selectiveness between verses is not of my choosing while drafting this bill but rather has evolved over the last eight decades by popular usage across this entire country.
Hon. members may wonder why clauses 4 and 5 of Bill C-64 limit the official words in French and English to the first verses of the Routhier version and the Weir version respectively, but again, these are the most popular verses.
Encyclopedia Canadiana, 1962 edition at page 250 of volume 7, in the second column says:
Of the French words, the first stanza is now generally the only one that is sung.
You may be of the opinion that a similar statement could be made with accuracy about the English words. At any rate, at page 251 of the same volume the encyclopedia sets out the English words and music as copyrighted, and only the words of the first verse and refrain of the Weir version appear.
In this day and age a short, streamlined, stirring anthem would seem to be the requirement for most occasions. For those who feel that there could be times when it would be desirable to sing additional verses in either language, they are of course free to sing any verses from the existing versions or even to compose new ones. Furthermore, under clause 6 power is given to the governor general in council to add verses to either the French or English versions for use on special occasions.
I trust that all hon. members will be in substantial agreement with me that there should be only one verse and chorus in each language. Other verses would seem to be unnecessary and out of spirit with our times. You may be of the opinion that brevity is merited in an anthem. People do not start to look for exits or reach for overcoats when there are no repetitive verses or refrains. You may agree that our anthem should be clear, true and short.
Mr. Speaker, the most universally popular song of Canada that is sung or played on public occasions is "O Canada". The Gallup poll on February 1 of this year reported that 78 per cent of Canadians think that "O Canada" should be Canada's national anthem.

"O Canada" was originally a chant national of French speaking Canada. From it developed about 20 adaptations in English. However, the most accepted English version proved to be that of Hon. R. Stanley Weir. "O Canada" was originally commissioned as a musical composition by Lieutenant Governor Theodore Robitaille for the occasion of the official visit to Quebec in 1880 of the then governor general, the Marquess of Lome and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise. He asked Calixa Lavallee, a composer, to set to music a 32 line poem by Sir Adolphe Routhier.
The music was written by Lavallee, reputedly in a single night. Lavallee was born in 1842, the son of a blacksmith. He was a native of Vercheres, Quebec, who had received excellent musical training. He was considered a boy wonder of music when he ran away at the age of 15 to join a band in New Orleans, where he loved to play negro spirituals and jazz. During the American civil war he became a bandsman in the northern armies. He toured the United States as a conductor and was artistic director of the New York grand opera from 1870 to 1872. He then went to Paris for three years where he studied piano and composition. He came back to Canada for the five year period between 1875 and 1880, during which time he tried to arouse interest in a conservatory of music and an opera house both in Montreal and Quebec, but without too much success.
Shortly after writing the music for "O Canada" he left for Boston. There he taught music and later became president of the American music teachers national association, from 1886 to 1887. He died in 1891 in Boston at the age of 49.
The stirring music that Lavallee wrote for the lieutenant governor of Quebec was intended to be first heard during an open air mass on the plains of Abraham. Some of Lavallee's friends on learning that this plan might be changed, hastily gathered together 100 trumpets and other brass instruments and "O Canada" was first played at a banquet in the skating pavilion in Quebec a day ahead of the religious service. That day was June 24, 1880.
This fine, pulsating music was received in Quebec with great enthusiasm. The original words in French were written before the music. Credit for them goes to Hon. Sir Adolphe Routhier, a former chief justice of Quebec who was born in 1839 and died in 1920. Routhier was a charter member of the royal society of Canada and its president
Private Bills
from 1856 to 1916. He wrote at least four verses to be sung in French to the music, but the first stanza is the popular one.
Of the 20 English versions which were adaptations rather than translations, the version of Hon. R. Stanley Weir, written on the occasion of the tercentenary of Quebec, in 1908, has attained the most general acceptance and is now most widely sung. Weir was born in 1856 and died in 1926. He was a recorder of Montreal and a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
His words owe their deserved popularity to the fact that they were officially adopted by the association of Canadian clubs and other national bodies and were printed from 1921 onwards in many of the public school readers of the provinces. They were also published in an official form at the time of the diamond jubilee of Canadian federation in 1927 and on the occasion of the royal visit to Canada in 1939.
On February 15 of this year at the ceremony for the inauguration of the national flag of Canada, the program contained the first verse and refrain of "O Canada" from Routhier's version in French and the first verse and refrain of "O Canada" from Weir's version in English, and these two verses and refrains were beautifully sung by a choir of about 19 Ottawa school children. A patriotic surge of feeling for our country was surely felt by every Canadian who heard them.
Lavallee's great music has been specially arranged to be played on the carillon of the peace tower on parliament hill in Ottawa. The hymnary of the United Church of Canada contains a prayerful version by Dr. Albert Durrant Watson. This is the one commonly sung in churches. The first verse and refrain of the Weir version have been translated into Polish and no doubt into many other languages.
The Hadassah-Wizo organization of Canada in 1962 commissioned Bernard Figler, a Montreal lawyer, to write a Hebrew version of "O Canada" with the meter adapted to the music and suitable for singing. This Hebrew version was chanted along with the English and French versions at the organization's official opening of its 19th biennial convention in February 1962 in Jerusalem, Israel.
Since 1948 the regulations of all three armed services of the country have provided that officers and men shall salute during the playing of "O Canada". At the Olympic games and other international sports competitions when a medal is won by a Canadian and the presentation is made, the host coun-

Private Bills
try's band plays "O Canada". When foreign bands honour this country, they likewise play "O Canada". When members of Canada's service clubs attend conventions abroad, they are stirred by the welcome strains of "O Canada". The story of "O Canada" is almost as old and revered as confederation itself.
Mr. Speaker, when I was at university, I was in residence with many American students and was told by many of them how striking and fitting an anthem "O Canada" was for this country. Their opinions in this respect, I have subsequently found, are shared around the world. The government, by item no. 45 on the order paper, has expressed its resolve to take such steps as may be necessary to have "God Save the Queen" recognized as the royal anthem in Canada. This should come to pass in the next session, "God Save the Queen" will, therefore, continue to be recognized as an anthem of Canada.
But I would ask that this bill be passed today, to approve the principle that "O Canada" should be the official national anthem of our country, to enshrine its traditional words and music and to honour in perpetuity the names of Calixa Lavallee, Adolphe Routhier and Stanley Weir-the men who made possible this breast-swelling, patriotic song, the singing of which fills our hearts with such pride and joy in our country and in our countrymen. I would point out that apparently when Judge Weir rearranged the music of Calixa Lavallee to accord with his English words as well as the French words, he copyrighted his work. Such copyright was then sold or assigned to Leo Feist Limited of Toronto and was subsequently transferred to that firm's successor, Gordon V. Thompson Limited. When I was preparing this bill I spoke with the general manager of Gordon V. Thompson Limited and he told me it would be quite in order either to print the words and music of "O Canada" as they appear in the Encyclopedia Canadiana, in the bill itself, or, in the alternative, to incorporate such words and music by reference to the relevant page in the encyclopedia. I have followed the latter course.
As this may be the only opportunity I shall have to speak in connection with this bill, I feel I have to anticipate some possible criticisms and allay some possible doubts. I know that some newcomers to this country and some editors of journals have proffered some criticism of the Weir verse in English. In the first line, the word "native" is objected to

by some who were not born here and others feel there are too many repetitions of the words "stand on guard". With respect to the criticism of the word "native", I would think that newcomers to the country should be prepared to accept this small inaccuracy pertaining to themselves on the basis of poetic licence. Again, such individuals could easily in their own singing of the anthem substitute "chosen" for the word "native".
In respect to the second line of the refrain the first words "we stand on guard" are now often substituted in practice by the words "O Canada". This cuts out one of the repetitions. Actually, I have been considering many of the criticisms that I have encountered and have come up with this verse in English, being a sustitution in part for the first verse of the Weir version. I will give it to the house for what it is worth, as an example:
O Canada! Our home and dauntless land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise
The true north, strong and free,
In unity, O Canada,
We sing in praise of thee.
Land of our hopes, glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
0	Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
Here is another Canadian's idea of how the English words of "O Canada" should be amended. In a letter dated February 24, 1965 Mr. William E. Algie of York Mills, Toronto, wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
Dear Mr. Pearson:
The Rotary clubs of district 707 are holding their yearly conference at the Royal York Hotel on March 26th and 27th. I am arranging for several songs to be sung at the conference and one of them is, I hope, "O Canada".
However, there are several words in it that 1 do not like. One of them is the reference to "our native land" which seems to discriminate against those who have made Canada their home but were born in some other country. Second, I would like to incorporate something about the new Canadian flag with its bold maple leaf; and third, I do not like the boring repetition of "We stand on guard for thee".
1 have therefore revised the words as per the attached, but have retained as much as possible the lyrics which have become familiar to Canadians. 1 like the play on words using "treasured land" to mean both "beloved" and a land holding many treasures. 1 also like the reference to the words "We stand on guard united" because that is the one thing this country needs more than anything else, to stand united. The expression "sea to sea" ties in with the Canadian coat of arms "A mari usque ad mare".

Private Bills
I trust you will find the attached revised version of "O Canada" of some interest.
Yours very truly,
William E. Algie.
The attached document is headed as follows:
"O Canada," with word revisions by William E. Algie, Rotary club of Eglinton, Toronto, Ontario:
The suggested verse is as follows:
O Canada, our home, our treasured land.
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The true north strong and free.
The maple leaf, O Canada,
We fly on high for thee.
O Canada, glorious and free,
We stand on guard united, sea to sea.
0	Canada, our hearts we pledge to thee.
Mr. Speaker, these verses would both get around the objections to the word "native" and reduce the words "stand on guard" from five to two mentions in the first case and from five to one mention in the second case. However, I may think that my alterations are fine and fitting, and I do think that Mr. Algie's are even better, but I am sure that each of you would have your own ideas as to how this verse should be altered, if you thought it should be altered at all. For myself, I am not convinced that it should be altered, at least not for some time. You would have difficulty, I submit, in getting 78 per cent of the people who are for "O Canada" as it is now to agree to any change in the original verses.
1	am asking that the bill be passed today as it stands, therefore, without amendment or alteration and that changes, if any, be left to the future. Like any other bill, it can be amended by a future parliament, if there be a sufficient consensus.
If you will do this, hon. members, you will do much for your country, its unity and its posterity, and you will feel an even warmer glow of patriotic joy and pride when you next stand to sing "O Canada".


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for having given us the background and the historical evolution of this our national anthem. I think that 1962 was the last time I participated in a debate similar to this. There was then a resolution before this house calling upon the government of the day to bring in a bill which would beclare "O Canada" as the national anthem.
I for one have no objection to having the national anthem declared by law, in spite of the fact that we have been singing "O Canada" for so long out west, and every-20220-717
where from sea to sea, without having a legislative enactment; and when we sing it, it lifts us up to high heaven. "We stand on guard"-whether that is sung by those who are native born or those who are newcomers to this country, it lifts us up. I do not mind calling Canada my native land, Mr. Speaker, because it is the native land of my children and my grandchildren. I go along with them, because I know no other land. So we will sing it without regard whether it is the subject of legislative enactment or whether it is according to custom.
Many countries have made their national anthem a matter of legislative enactment. Perhaps I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, to mention just a few and put them on record. For example, France had "Les Marseilles" decreed as her national anthem by the convention of July 14, 1795. Australia officially adopted "God save the Queen" as her national anthem. However, many Australians favour "Advance Australia Fair" or "Australia Will Be There", and so on. New Zealand declared its national anthem by legislative enactment in 1940; Ghana in 1957, India in 1950, and the United States by legislative enactment declared the "The Star Spangled Banner" as its national anthem. With regard to the Union of South Africa, I have not been able to find out whether "God Save The Queen", the national anthem of Great Britain, was ever declared to be or put on the statute books as the national anthem of that country.
I would support the bill in principle, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to putting "O Canada" on the statute books, in spite of the fact that the bill does not mention another national emblem which we are accustomed to singing-and it is a custom. Even "O Canada" has been accepted by the Canadian people as a matter of custom; we have accepted it through the years. I do not know what they do in other parts of Canada, but in the part of Canada that I come from we start proceedings with "O Canada" and sing it as wholeheartedly as anyone, and end the proceedings with "God Save The Queen".
Mr. Speaker, everything points to this being a dual nation. We have two flags; we have two languages. Is there any objection to there being two national anthems? After the protestations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and the leader of the Quebec Tories, who were all for the Queen and loyalty to the Queen, I think there is something missing from this bill. We might as well have put into it "God

Private Bills
Save The Queen", even if it had to hold a secondary place. But it should hold a place, because a great many of us feel very deeply about that particular national anthem although it is the national anthem of Great Britain. But give us something new that would acknowledge the Queen as our queen, and I think the Canadian people would accept it. As long as we are a monarchy, as long as we share a queen, either we share the national anthem of Great Britain or we ask someone to compose a new one for us.
Let us go further, Mr. Speaker. I agree with clause 3 of this bill which deals with the music of the national anthem. I think the music of this national anthem is the most uplifting of any I have heard. I have heard many national anthems. I have heard the one from the United States. I have heard national anthems for the various ethnic groups who have come from Europe. There is nothing like the music of "O Canada". I think it certainly goes deep into your heart.
However, there is one fly in the ointment. I believe I made some reference to this point when I spoke on this subject in 1962. I refer to the fact this bill calls for an English version, as I think the hon. member and I sing it and as I think the hon. member and I know it. However, there is the French version. I have gone to the trouble of getting a translation of the French version. We might as well put the matter bluntly. Does the French version mean the same thing as the English version? It has to be proven to me that it does before I am satisfied with this bill. If we are going to have a united Canada, if we are going to have a national anthem, then let us have one version of it. If one is going to praise the devil and the other one is going to praise the Lord, then that does not constitute Canadianism as I understand it.
I am not going to enter into the Anglo-French controversy or any of the trouble with bilingualism and biculturalism because I belong to neither group. I belong to a group that would like to see a national anthem which means the same thing in all languages. I have seen a translation of "O Canada" in Ukrainian and in Polish, the two languages with which I am familiar. They mean exactly the same as the English version. I believe I have obtained a liberal translation of the French version, and there is no similarity to the English version. What does the bill propose to do?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Read it into the record.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am going to read it into the record. It is about time we came out into the open on this subject. Are we going to have Doukhobors having a version of their own anthem, Ukrainians of their own, Germans, of their own, and so on? I know the difficulty that exists in translating songs from one language into another. I realize the difficulty, but the sentiment must be there, the idea must be there.
The hon. member has correctly put in his bill the version that he is satisfied to have sung in French. I know it has been sung as a matter of custom during the last 80 or 90 years. However, Mr. Speaker, I am going to give you the English translation of this version, and I quote:
O! Canada, land of our forefathers Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers
As is thy arm ready to wield the sword
Thy history is an epic poem
So also, is it ready to carry the cross
Crowded with brilliant exploits
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our hearth and our rights.
Will protect our hearth and our rights.
Unless I am completely ignorant so far as the English language is concerned, then except for the first line there is no similarity between the two versions. Are we going to carry on this duality? How long will we continue it? I will go along this far: I will be prepared to accept the bill if it is sponsored by the hon. member or by this government, but either we take the French version as it is and translate it into English and accept that as our national anthem for the sake of unity or else we have "O Canada" as the English speaking members sing it translated into French. Then, I will go along with the bill. Otherwise, it is over my dead body. We have had just about enough of these divisive attempts in this nation. I am for unity. I am going to give credit to the leader of the Cr6ditistes, who went to St. Boniface to mend some Social Credit fences. He made this statement the other day and almost took the words out of my mouth. He said, you cannot make an Englishman out of a Frenchman; you cannot make a Frenchman out of an Englishman, but you can make two darned good Canadians out of both of them. However, you cannot do that when one praises one thing and the other praises another.
Let us consider "God Save the Queen". I consider it a prayer. As a religious man, I believe in prayer. I say that so long as we are a monarchy, so long as we acknowledge

the Queen as the head of our state, that should be one of our national anthems. I will go along with that. It can be given a secondary position, because I love "O Canada". I will tell you honestly that I love the English version of it. I am going to be frank. The French version does not appeal to me, but it might appeal to the French. As I said before, I will agree to accept the French version translated into English for the sake of unity. I am not one who is concerned with this Franco-British dispute that is going on right now. What are we going to do? How many more versions are we going to have? If my translation is wrong, I hope those who know French will correct it. I have put it on the record. It was given to me by somebody capable of translating the French version.
What is this house going to do? I think the best thing this member could do would be, instead of asking us to pass this bill as he did, to withdraw it and forget about it for the time being. I think we need to know what version we are going to accept.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that the New Democratic party supports this bill and would like to see it passed. I sit down to expedite the vote.


Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: Canada being in the process of adopting national symbols of her own, it is only natural after having adopted a distinctive flag, to seek now to adopt as our national anthem "O Canada", music by Calixa Lavallee, French words by Hon. Sir Adolphe Routhier, English words by Hon. R. Stanley Weir.
We now need to give official status to a national anthem, and the one provided for under this bill is the traditional "O Canada", known today throughout the world for its stirring music and original words.
The Canadian people are very familiar with "O Canada" which it has considered for many years as its unofficial national anthem.
Mr. Speaker, "O Canada" is a beautiful song which anybody can sing and it can also be played with vigour either by accompaniment or by an orchestra. Canadians of every ethnic group long learned to honour "O Canada" in their hearts and sing it at every public celebration and even at many smaller meetings.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this house would object to parliament giving "O
20220-747J
Private Bills
Canada" an official status as the national anthem of this country. I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to support the bill of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) for the adoption of "O Canada" as our national anthem.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I second the bill of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) for the adoption of the beautiful song "O Canada" as our national anthem. This anthem has been accepted for many, many years across Canada by English, French and Canadians of all origins as a true vehicle for their national expression of solidarity, and I cannot conceive of any other song that would fit so closely to our aspirations as a nation.
Calixa Lavallee, a musical genius of our land, composed the martial music of this song. Hon. Sir Adolphe Routhier is the authoritative composer of the words so beautifully translated by Hon. Stanley Weir.
The member for Spadina has mentioned a few changes in the English wording that could be brought forward, namely the changing of the word "native" to the word "treasured" and also a shorter phraseology so that the words "we stand on guard for thee" would not be as repetitious. These proposed changes may be good suggestions but I suggest that today this house adopt the principle of the bill, and that it be adopted without any amendment.
Unofficially "O Canada" has for many years been the true national anthem of this country by the will of the people. Now is the time to give "O Canada" an official status. I express the hope that this parliament will be expeditious in the adoption of this bill because I feel that this is also the wish of every true Canadian.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I agree with everything he has said, but does he not think that we should have one version for the whole of Canada, or is he prepared to accept the existing half a dozen versions?


Maurice Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that for many years "O Canada" has been sung in all ten provinces, and it is the spirit given to this song by Calixa Lavallee, Adolphe Routhier and Stanley Weir that we envisage. It is with great pride that I hear "O Canada" sung in the words of Stanley Weir and it is with the same pride that I hear it sung in the words of Sir Adolphe Routhier.

Private Bills


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Does the hon. member not believe that spirit alone is not enough, and that the words count for something as well?


Maurice Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I take my hat off with admiration to Stanley Weir who translated or interpreted Adolphe Routhier's version.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I shall only take a few minutes to make a few comments on this bill.
During this debate tonight I noticed that there seems to be complete agreement across the country with regard to the music of our national anthem "O Canada".
However, as to the words, there seems to be some confusion. I listened with interest to the various speeches made tonight and I fully agree with some remarks made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) concerning the words of the national anthem "O Canada".
We are fighting for a strong Canada. We are fighting for national unity. I think that the words of "O Canada" were not translated as they should have been by Judge Stanley Weir.
But I think that if we want a truly national anthem whose words will truly represent Canada, as the hon. member for Marquette stated, we should have, if not exactly the same words, at least the same idea.
As for passing a bill or legislation, if you want, to sing our national anthem "O Canada", I am one of those who think that if we are proud of Canada, our country, we do not need any legislation to sing our national anthem. Personally I have been singing it since I was old enough to speak, since I started going to school, and I am proud of it. I did not need any legislation to do that. For us, in the province of Quebec, our anthem has always been sung thus and I think that even if legislation is not adopted, we will keep on singing "O Canada" proudly as long as we love our country, Canada.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that I am as much a Canadian as any man who sits in this house today. My ancestors have been living in this country since the early 1800's. I have been interested in this song ever since I started to teach school, which is a long time ago. It has always been sung in my school, and I think that those students who sang it did so with a true feeling of Canadianism, as I believe I did. However, this is not an

ideal song, in spite of some of the observations that have been made about it. There are other patriotic songs such as the "Maple Leaf", which my students were able to learn with less difficulty and sang with just about as much emotion.
I am pleased to be able to accept the suggestion of the hon. member that we have one song for the whole of Canada and that that song should perhaps be "O Canada". Having said that, however, I must state that I agree very strongly with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) who has brought out an incontrovertible fact which indicates that the two versions, French and English, are not at all analogous. If we are to have a song which will truly represent all Canadians it seems to me that we should have one song not only in tune but also in words.
I have been interested in this subject for some time and went to the trouble of contacting the translation bureau and requesting a translation of "O Canada". I have received the translation, although it is not the same as the one placed on the record by the hon. member for Marquette. I should like, therefore, to place on Hansard what might be called the parliamentary translation, in view of the fact that this was provided by our parliamentary translation bureau. It is as follows:
0	Canada, land of our ancestors
Glorious deeds circle your brow
For your arm knows how to wield the sword
Your arm knows how to carry the cross;
Your history is an epic of brilliant deeds
And your valour steeped in faith will protect our homes and our rights,
Will protect our homes and our rights.
1	do not quarrel with those sentiments at all, but how can we possibly consider that this is a similar translation to the English translation of "O Canada" that has been in use?
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot-love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The true north, strong and free!
And stand on guard, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, glorious and free!
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
These are not similar words nor are the sentiments exactly the same. On this ground I feel this is not the time to accept the bill. I do hope that some steps will be taken by parliament to arrive at a set of English words that are a translation from the French or a set of French words that are a translation

of the English which can be used throughout the whole of Canada. Until this time comes I am afraid I cannot support the bill.
There are a great many other verses. I am sure some of them apply only to the French Canadian part of our nation, if I may call it one nation. I do not think it would help to give those words. As I say, they apply primarily only to the French Canadian part of our nation and probably might arouse feelings of antipathy among some members. So I shall not give those words. But I do ask the mover of the bill to give the matter more serious study and try to carry out the request which I am sure would be common to many members, namely that there be one set of words for all of Canada.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the bill because of a deep and abiding interest in it. Down through the years all of us when we were at school sang "O Canada", and we are proud of it. I wish I could vote for the bill but there is one thing which strikes me as being wrong about it. If the words in French and English meant the same thing when translated from English into French or French into English, then I would have no objection. However, since these two versions are not the same but are vastly different and have different meanings, it would be like singing a parody of "O Susanna" or some of the parodies we hear of other popular tunes. We do not want that in Canada. We do not want the French singing something which means something different from what we are singing.
In the bill you have a concoction of French words which when translated do not have the same meaning or connotation as the English version that has been in use. Therefore I think the only thing to do is for the sponsor of the bill to take another look at it. If we want one anthem, surely we can get together on a wording that has the same meaning and connotation in both French and English. I think it would be the wrong thing at this time to pass this bill as representing the views of members of parliament.
So I add my thoughts to those of other members in accepting the principle of making "O Canada", as we sing it in English the national anthem, but at the same time I raise serious objections to the fact that what is said to be the French version is more in the nature of a parody according to my understanding of "O Canada" over the years. I now conclude my remarks and leave it to
Business of the House
others of my colleagues to make their contributions to the debate.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with keen interest the eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) who has certainly put a lot of work into the preparation of his explanation of the bill. I also followed with interest the remarks of my colleagues, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) and the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon).
I too agree that it would be advisable for Canada to adopt a fitting national anthem as soon as possible, as soon as all members of the house can agree on something fitting for the country, as soon as the advice and recommendations of the provincial governments and many of our patriotic and civil societies have been received. They should have the opportunity to put forward options with regard to both the words and lyrics that have been suggested by the hon. member for Spadina. I was quite impressed with many of the poetic lyrics that would remove some of the clumsy parts of the English version. I agree with many other members that the words "we stand on guard" are probably over-emphasized, and therefore create a measure of monotony.
I also agree with the hon. member for Marquette who drew our attention to the fact that we do have a great national anthem in Canada, the royal anthem, "God Save the Queen". In my part of Canada, Prince Edward and Lennox, one of the oldest settled regions of this country, it is our habit through long usage to open our meetings with "O Canada" and close them with "God Save the Queen".
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will continue the consideration of the Canada pension plan, but I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members three items on the order paper that we might wish to call at any time there may be a few minutes free. Those three items are item 51, which is the second reading of the C.N.R. financing bill; item 56, house in committee of the whole on Bill No. S-7, an act to amend the Canada

Business of the House Shipping Act, which has already been dealt with by the other place, and has also been dealt with by a committee of this house. The other one is item 76, house again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-123, an act to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance. I wanted to mention those three items in case there is an open period in the day when we might want to call them on relatively short notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is understood, is it not, that the calling of these items will not interrupt our proceeding with Bill No. C-136?


George James McIlraith: Oh, quite. I was just indicating these three items, in case I am asked to call them some time when we have a few minutes free. I would not want to be accused of not having given notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is in case we finish with the Canada pension plan on Monday?


George James McIlraith: That is right, or maybe when the house is in very good humour, perhaps at six o'clock or ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are in good humour right now.


George James McIlraith: Is the hon. member serious about that? If so, I would call item No. 76 on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be in good humour about that one but I am afraid one of my colleagues might not be.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Try item No. 51.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would agree to No. 51, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: I am afraid the Creditiste group have indicated their desire to debate that bill and I would not like to take advantage of unanimous consent to put it through in their absence.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 1, 1965