1965-03-15

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to call the attention of all hon. members to some very distinguished younger guests whom we have in the ladies' gallery and the Speaker's gallery today.
We are happy to have with us quite a few world champion figure skaters. In the Speaker's gallery, representing Canada, is Miss Petra Burka, the world ladies figure skating champion. From Russia we have Mr. and Mrs. Oleg Protopopov, the world pairs figure skating champions. From Czechoslovakia we have Miss Eva Romanova and Pavel Roman, who are brother and sister, the world dance figure skating champions. We are delighted to have them with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege regarding a letter which I wrote to Your Honour on October 4, 1963, following my return from New Zealand and Australia, outlining some of my observations on the manner in which the parliaments in Canberra and Wellington carry on their procedures. I have not made any statement to the public or to the press, nor have I written any subsequent letter to Your Honour about this subject as reported in a press release across the nation on Saturday.
Knowing of your great interest and concern in the reform of parliamentary procedure, I wrote to you giving my impressions of what I had observed in Australia and New Zealand. In this regard I must commend Your Honour for the reports of your special committee and the commendable work which has been done, the results of which have been outlined in the various reports submitted to
this house. I regard the fifteenth report of the committee on procedure and organization, which is now before this house, as the most important and wide reaching of all. I trust that it will be favourably received and adopted this session.
I first heard of the Saturday news report when a reporter from my home town paper, the Red Deer Advocate, telephoned me yesterday asking for verification and enlargement of this press statement. The statement, as he read it to me, indicated that I had suggested elimination of the $6,000 tax free expense allowance now paid to members of parliament, believing that in so doing a great deal would be accomplished toward restoring parliament's public image.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must categorically deny that I ever recommended the elimination of a member of parliament's expense allowance. I know all too well personally that this allowance is not more than adequate to cover the expenses of a member of this house who conscientiously endeavours to fulfil his responsibilities to his constituents and to the nation, particularly in the case of those who represent distant constituencies.
My purpose in writing to you, now more than 17 months ago, was with the thought that my observations would be of benefit to the special committee on procedure and organization which you planned to establish. On March 16, 1964 you replied, stating your own interest in my comments about Australia and New Zealand and informing me that you were referring a summary of my comments to the committee for their consideration.
Since that date I have not made any statements to the public or to the press, with the exception of last Thursday morning when Mr. Richard Jackson of the Ottawa Journal questioned me on how my comments to you regarding the Australian procedure would affect the Canadian situation. His comments were part of his "Hill Talk'' column in Saturday's Ottawa Journal, and were basically correct. According to this, in lieu of the $6,000 now allowed each member of parliament a system such as that used in Australia would provide for a member of parliament's expenses in a more equitable and direct manner. How the national news report came to be

Questions
circulated across the nation I do not know, except that I am given to understand it was a mistake that it was worded in the way it was and entirely misrepresented the remarks I had made in my original letter.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this point of privilege to clarify a situation which has given a completely false interpretation of my original remarks.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Baldwin.

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

Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering convening a meeting of judges to discuss the problems of disparate sentencing of people found guilty by the courts; of too severe sentencing, particularly of first offenders; and of the desirability of the more frequent use of probation, along the lines proposed by the Minister of Justice in his speech to the probation officers in Niagara Falls recently?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The government is studying the matters referred to in the question and they are to be included in the terms of reference of the committee on corrections to which the Minister of Justice referred on November 23, 1964 (Hansard for November 23, 1964, page 10376) but the government is not considering the convening of a meeting of judges at the present time.


PRISONERS SERVING LIFE SENTENCES
Mr. Malheson: 1.	How many persons serving life imprisonment were in each of our federal institutions as of January 1, 1965?
2.	What special problems, if any, do life term prisoners present to penitentiary authorities?
3.	What is the average total annual cost of providing custodial supervision and care for one such prisoner?
4.	What is the estimated annual gross value of the work done in penitentiary by such a prisoner?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. As of January 1, 1965, there were 252 persons serving life imprisonment in federal institutions and distributed as follows:

Dorchester penitentiary	22
St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary 49 Federal training centre	1
Leclerc institution	6
Kingston penitentiary	73
Collin's Bay penitentiary	4
Prison for women	1
Joyceville institution	6
Manitoba penitentiary	30
Saskatchewan penitentiary	34
British Columbia penitentiary 26
Of these persons 29 are hospitalized in provincial mental hospitals.
2.	Life term prisoners as a group present no special problems to penitentiary authorities.
3.	In the fiscal year 1963-64, the average total cost of providing custodial supervision and care for one prisoner was $2,722.10.
4.	The total estimated annual gross value of the work done in penitentiary by a prisoner is $810.


ONTARIO PENITENTIARY INMATES IN MEDIUM AND MINIMUM SECURITY
Mr. Malheson: In the Ontario region what percentage of penitentiary inmates were living in medium and minimum security facilities (a) during 1960, and (b) during 1964?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (a) During 1960, in the Ontario region, 15 per cent of penitentiary inmates were living in medium security facilities and no minimum security facilities were available.
(b) During 1964, in the Ontario region, 40 per cent of penitentiary inmates were living in medium security facilities and 13 per cent were living in minimum security facilities.


MORTALITY RATES
Mr. Malheson: During the last five years, what has been the mortality rate from natural causes (a) in penitentiary, and (b) in the community at large?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (a) During the last five years the mortality rate from natural causes in penitentiaries is as follows:

	Penitentiary
	population
	per 1,000
1959	1.45
1960	2.08
1961	1.20
1962	2.16
1963	1.56
(b) During the last five years, the mortality rate from natural causes in the community at large is as follows:
	Civilian population per 100,000
1959	737.9
1960	720.1
1961	711.4
1962	710.9
1963	716.7


FACILITIES FOR TRAINING PENITENTIARY STAFF
Mr. Malheson: 1.	What were the facilities for training penitentiary staff at the correctional staff college, Kingston, in 1960?
2.	What are the facilities now?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. In 1960, the correctional staff college at Kingston, Ontario, could provide accommodation for 24 officers. A total of 163 officers attended some eight courses.
2.	In 1964, the facilities provide for the accommodation of 96 officers. A total of 384 officers attended some 16 courses.


CHANGES IN PENITENTIARY STAFF TRAINING
Mr. Matheson: Have the qualifications and standards of training of penitentiary staff changed since 1963 and, if so, in what respects?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since January 1, 1963, the following changes in the penitentiary staff training programs have taken place, resulting in an over-all higher standard of knowledge and physical ability:
(a)	Policy directives and instructions have been issued to each institution on the type of training to be undertaken within each institution. This includes, in addition to review training, the conduct of basic instruction training and basic relations training courses.
(b)	A continuous training program is in effect at the three correctional staff colleges.
Questions
This program includes induction training courses (three months) for all custodial recruits; methods of instruction courses; basic administration courses; correctional officer courses; instructor workshops for all staff training officers; senior officer courses.
(c)	Physical standards have been set for each type of course and applicants must meet these standards if they are to attend.
(d)	Prerequisites for potential course candidates are set for each specific course and include, amongst other things, position level concerned, satisfactory completion of specific institutional and/or penitentiary courses, as well as the appropriate level of physical ability.


CHURCH ATTENDENCE, KINGSTON PENITENTIARY
Mr. Matheson: 1.	What was the average church attendance (a) Protestant, and (b) Roman Catholic at Kingston penitentiary in 1960?
2.	What was the population of Kingston penitentiary in 1960?
3.	What was the average church attendance (a) Protestant, and (b) Roman Catholic at Kingston penitentiary in 1964?
4.	What was the population of Kingston penitentiary in 1964?
5.	Was such attendance in each year voluntary or compulsory?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The average church attendance in 1960 at Kingston penitentiary was as follows: (a) Protestant, 72; (b) Roman Catholic, 100.
2.	The average population of Kingston penitentiary in 1960 was 870 inmates.
3.	The average church attendance in 1964 at Kingston penitentiary was as follows: (a) Protestant, 160; (b) Roman Catholic, 96.
4.	The average population of Kingston penitentiary in 1964 was 855 inmates.
5.	In each year church attendance was on a voluntary basis.


COMPOSITION AND COST OF CANADIAN COINS
Mr. Thomas: What Is the value of the metal or metal alloy used and the average manufacturing cost of (a) one cent coins (b) five cent coins (c) ten cent coins (d) 25 cent coins (e) 50 cent coins (f) one dollars coins?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Questions
		Value of	Average
		metal	manufacturing
Denomination		content	cost
		0	0
(a)	10	.286	.267(b)	50	.900	1.019(c)	100	8.390	.349(d)	250	20.975	.779(e)	500	41.950	1.261(f)	$1	83.900	2.359


COST OF MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICES, FORT GEORGE, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much did the federal government spend to provide medical and hospital services for the population of Fort George, P.Q. during 1963 and 1964?
2.	Of these amounts, how much was spent (a) at Fort George (b) at Moose Factory?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The total cost of providing medical and hospital services is not identifiable because expenditures for services provided by or through non-departmental and departmental resources other than the Fort George facility are recorded on a zone basis and do not reflect the patients' place of residence.
2. (a) 1963, $26,924; 1964, $21,709.
(b) Moose Factory Indian hospital accepts patients from the Northwest Territories, Quebec and Ontario. Expenditures are recorded according to patient's place of residence.


COST OF CLINIC, FORT GEORGE, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What was the total cost to the federal government of the upkeep of the Fort George, P.Q., clinic during the years 1963 and 1964?
2.	What salaries were paid to nurses of the clinic during the years 1963 and 1964?
3.	What is the annual salary paid to the caretaker of the clinic?
4.	What is the annual cost of the maintenance of the clinic?
5.	What was the cost of medicine used by the clinic during the years 1963 and 1964?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1963	1964
1.	$26,924	$21,7092.	8,348	7,8873.	2,960	3,2404.	63	1865.	4,597	1,300


* INVESTIGATION OF FORMER R.C.M.P. OFFICER
Mr. Marcoux: Prior to his being retired, was Rene J. Belec, former chief superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the object of more than one investigation and. if so, what were the reasons for such action?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is no.


R.C.M.P. INVESTIGATION INTO DOCUMENT TAMPERING, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Was the R.C.M.P. requested to investigate an allegation that the Royal Bank of Canada, or any of its branches or employees, altered, tampered with or otherwise changed a document signed by one L. D. Tipton of Francois lake, B.C., to indicate that the signature was on behalf of a limited company and to make it appear that the document was signed on February 26, 1964 instead of on March 19, 1964?
2.	What action has the R.C.M.P. taken with respect to this request?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Lorenzo D. Tipton complained to the Burns Lake detachment, R.C.M.P., with respect to the forgery of a document which he claimed had been forged by officials of the Royal Bank of Canada. Tipton was interviewed by a member of the R.C.M.P. at Burns Lake. He advised that all documents were in the hands of his solicitors, that these solicitors were taking necessary steps to bring the matter before the courts, and that they, the solicitors, wished that any action with respect to Tipton's complaint be held in abeyance.
2. The solicitors indicate that the whole matter is subject to civil action and, therefore, no action can be taken by the R.C.M.P. with respect to the complaint. If criminal action is involved it comes within the jurisdiction of the attorney general's department for British Columbia.


STANDARDS OF ETHICS IN HOCKEY AND FOOTBALL
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the advisory council of the fitness and amateur sport directorate had any discussions since its formation about the standards of conduct, organization and control, and the ethics in general of ice hockey in Canada?
2.	H so, has this resulted in any minutes regarding the problem or any policy to improve the situation?
[Mr. Pennell.)

3.	Has the advisory council considered the possibility of giving leadership in ice hockey and in rugby football in order to foster these sports in such a way that the influence of professional enterprises concerned with these games as moneymaking entertainment does not dominate the amateur participants?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport is concerned about the organization, promotion and development of all amateur sports in Canada and since its formation the council has set up a number of special committees to look into the organization of various amateur sports. One of these committees has been concerned with amateur hockey.
2.	Several meetings were held to discuss the amateur hockey situation. These have been on an informal basis and there are no minutes or special reports available. Discussions are being carried on with the Canadian amateur hockey association regarding ways in which the association can be assisted in strengthening the position of amateur hockey in Canada.
3.	Under the fitness and amateur sport program, the Canadian amateur hockey association has received a federal grant of $50,000 a year for 1963, 1964 and 1965 to conduct an annual program of amateur hockey leadership institutes at regional locations across Canada. In addition, the association has received federal grants totalling $63,870 to assist in the formation and training of a Canadian national amateur hockey team and in participation in Olympic and in world championships.
A committee of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport is meeting with the Canadian rugby union to discuss and study the best possible ways of assisting in the development and promotion of amateur football in Canada. These discussions are continuing.


AIR TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr.Coates: 1.	What areas in the maritime provinces had new air terminals constructed within the last ten years?
2.	At what locations are new air terminals being constructed at the present time?
3.	At what locations are extensions to existing facilities being constructed at the present time?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Air
terminal buildings were constructed by the Department of Transport at St. John's (Tor-
Questions
bay) Nfld., Gander, Nfld., Stephenville, Nfld., Halifax, N.S. and Fredericton, N.B. The department also shared in the cost of constructing the Saint John, N.B. municipal air terminal building and the Deer Lake, Nfld. air terminal building which is privately owned.
2.	Sydney, N.S., new air terminal building planned for 1965/66.
3.	Moncton, N.B., extension to air terminal building.


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


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: The only subsidies or subventions administered by the dominion coal board and paid to mines are listed on page 25 of section 24 of the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964. This listing gives the names of the recipient companies and the amount paid to each.
Whether or not a company is paying dividends is not one of the conditions prescribed by the governor in council, under which such payments are made. The dominion coal board, consequently, has no official information in connection with these payments as to which companies are paying dividends and which are not.


INCOME OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	For the latest year for which statistics are available, what were the average gross annual earnings, in Canada as a whole, and by provinces, of physicians and surgeons from sources related to their medical practice?
2.	What is the percentage distribution of such income from direct payments by patients, various forms of medical insurance and other sources in Canada as a whole, and by provinces?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. For the year 1962 the average gross annual professional earnings of privately practising physicians and surgeons, before deducting any expenses of practice, were for the whole of Canada $26,758. The average earnings in each province in that year were as follows: Newfoundland, $25,346; Prince Edward Island, $18,926; Nova Scotia, $27,204; New Brunswick, $24,510; Quebec, $24,098; Ontario, $27,691; Manitoba, $30,179;

Questions
Saskatchewan, $27,024; Alberta, $30,773; British Columbia, $27,696; Yukon and Northwest Territories, $13,354.
2. The percentage distribution of physicians' and surgeons' gross professional earnings from fees and from wages and salaries earned incidental to fee practice for the whole of Canada in 1962 was as follows: Self paying patients, 41.4 per cent; voluntary prepayment plans, 44.7 per cent; federal and provincial governments, 7.4 per cent; workmen's compensation boards, 6.5 per cent.
Reliable information on the distribution of earnings in each province is not available.


REDUCTION IN MAIL SERVICE, MONTREAL-VANCOUVER
Mr. Mather: Has the Post Office Department received notification from the C.P.R. that all mail and express will be moved from trains 3/7 and 8/4 between Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver by June 24, 1965, thus affecting mail service between Montreal and Vancouver and, if so, does the government concur with this removal, and with the reported pending withdrawal of these trains?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: Yes, the Post Office Department has received notification about the changes affecting mail service between Montreal and Vancouver.
The Post Office Department has no jurisdiction over the operation of the C.P.R. and, as such, can offer no objection to the railway's decision to withdraw head end traffic on trains 3-4, 7-8, particularly since alternate means of providing satisfactory postal service are available.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE FUND
Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): 1.	What amount was there in the foreign exchange fund at February 28, 1965	(a) in gold
(equivalent in Canadian dollars) (b) in pounds sterling (c) in U S. dollars (d) in French francs (e) in other currency?
2.	Where are details of this account to be found?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. As at February 28, 1965, the exchange fund account held gold valued in Canadian dollars at $1,125 million and U.S. dollars valued in Canadian dollars at $1,634.9 million. Outside the exchange fund account but included in the official holdings of gold and U.S. dollars released in the first week of each month for the previous month end by the Minister of Finance are working balances in U.S. dollars held by the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance. As at February 28 these totalled in

Canadian dollars $87.8 million and $15.8 million respectively.
2. On the third business day of each month the Minister of Finance issues a press release stating the total of official holdings of gold and U.S. dollars as at the end of the preceding month. In the third week of each month the Bank of Canada releases its statistical summary which gives the breakdown of the official holdings between gold and U.S. dollars. The Currency Mint and Exchange Fund Act requires the Minister of Finance to report annually to parliament on the operations of the exchange fund account. This report, which must be made within five months from the year end, provides detailed information about the operation of the account in the past calendar year.


REPORT ON FLUORIDATION
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Have studies designed to confirm or refute Dr. Rapaport's unconvincing observations been undertaken in Canada and, if so, were they supported by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	In the past, when unconvincing preliminary results have raised doubts as to the safety of a food additive, what procedures has the department followed for the protection of Canadian consumers?
3.	Are the same procedures being applied with regard to fluoride, which is undoubtedly being added to canned and other processed foods packed by plants using fluoridated city waters?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The department is not aware of authentic evidence indicating that any ill effects have ever been encountered in North America by consumption of water fluoridated at one part per million. On the contrary, there are many reports in the scientific literature attesting to the safety and value of fluoridation as a public health measure. Studies designed to confirm or refute Dr. Rapaport's data relating to fluoridation in Wisconsin have not therefore been undertaken by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
2 and 3. Officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare are continually searching the literature for reports of adverse effects from the ingestion of any component of a food. Such reports are carefully scrutinized and weighed against the body of available scientific information. If there is sufficient evidence action is initiated to reduce or eliminate the hazards. These procedures are being applied to fluoride.


EFFECT OF ALCOHOL ON HEALTH
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare subsidized or carried out work, the purpose of which was the study of the effect of the use of alcohol in the causing of various illnesses in mankind and, if so, how much did such work cost?
2.	Has the department subsidized agencies which recommend giving up the use of alcohol and, if so, what amounts have been spent and to whom were grants made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Since 1948 $101,971 has been made available under the national health grants by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the support of alcoholism research studies.
2. The following grants have been made available by the department for alcoholism research studies: Ontario alcoholism research foundation, $83,712; Queen's University, Kingston, $10,180; Toronto Psychiatric hospital, $5,079; University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, $3,000.


RELATION OF ALCOHOL USE TO HEALTH
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare taken cognizance of the work that has gone on throughout the world relating to the study of the part that alcohol plays in the development of various ailments in man and, if so, has this work been found to be unconvincing?
2.	Is it the department's opinion that normal use of alcohol may be considered to be free of danger?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Department of National Health and Welfare has taken cognizance of the work that has gone on throughout the world relating to the study of the part that alcohol plays in the development of various ailments in man.
In 1960-61 a grant was provided by the department to Dr. E. M. Jellinek, world authority on alcoholism, for his services in preparing a report on alcoholism legislation and programs in European countries entitled "Government Programs on Alcoholism-A Review of Activities in Some Foreign Countries".


PRICE FIXING IN SALE OF PAPER PRODUCTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1. Have any of the following companies: St. Lawrence Corp. Ltd., The Corrugated Paper Box Co. Ltd., Hinde and Dauch Ltd., Hinde and
Questions
Dauch Boxes Ltd., Acme Paper Products Co. Ltd., Bathurst Power and Paper Co. Ltd., Bathurst Containers Ltd., Bathurst Containers (Mari-times) Ltd., Canadian Wirebound Boxes and Shipping Containers Ltd., Kraft Containers Ltd., Maritime Paper Products Ltd., Gair Co. Canada Ltd., Hendershot Paper Products Ltd., Hy-grade Containers Ltd., Martin Paper Products Holdings Ltd., Standard Paper Box Manufacturing Ltd., and Superior Box Co. Ltd., which pleaded guilty in the Ontario supreme court within the last two weeks, to a charge of unlawful pricefixing from 1947 to 1954 in the sale of paper materials, ever been charged on previous occasions and, if so, when were these charges taken to court?
2.	Have any of these companies been found guilty on previous occasions?
3.	What penalties did the court assess on each company which was found guilty, prior to 1964?
4.	Has the government given consideration to proposing amendments to the anti-combines legislation providing for increased penalties for repeated violations of the law by any company?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1, 2 and 3.
While the companies named pleaded guilty at Toronto on March 1, 1965, to a charge under section 498(l)(d) of the Criminal Code, three other companies pleaded not guilty! Their trial is proceeding and the trial judge has deferred sentence on the guilty pleas until the trial of the three companies has been completed and a verdict reached. While the information requested is available, it is considered that it would not be proper to reply to these questions in parliament while the case is sub judice.
4.	The limit on fines for indictable offences under the anti-combines legislation was removed in 1952. Consideration is therefore not being given to increased penalties for repeated violations of the act by any company, and if any decision were made in this regard it would be announced in the normal way.


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, SPRINGFIELD CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Slogan: 1.	What winter works projects were undertaken in the constituency of Springfield by municipalities in each of the years from 1957 to date?
2.	What amount of man-days of work did each provide?
3.	What was the total amount of each project and what amount did the federal government contribute?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: 1, 2 and 3. See table pages 12334-5.

Municipal winter works incentive program constituency of Springfield province of Manitoba
Municipality	Project number	Description of project	Man-days work	Estimated total cost	Actual fed. govt, expenditures1957-58 (Nil) 1958-1959 St. Clements	
Victoria beach	
Victoria beach	
Victoria beach	2154 1660 1661 1662	Brushing road allowance	
Clearing park	
Renovating two wells	
Clearing and opening streets	
430 	
90 	
90 	
90	$ 3,450 750 1,950 750	$ 1,550.88 215.19 409.68 278.76Totals	4	700	6,900	2,454.511959-1960	Albert	2619	Construction of spillway	
80	1,400	199.38Albert	2620	Gravelling and grading roads	
150	5,800	351.65Victoria beach	152	Clearing and opening roads	
150	1,100	565.76Victoria beach	153	Development of park	
150	1,650	834.76Victoria beach	154	Excavation of two wells	
45	1,000	154.18Whitemouth	1559	Scrubbing roads and clearing ditches	
182	1,820	144.00Totals	6	757	12,770	2,249.73Beausejour	
2714	Area for lagoon	Old Kildonan	
5240	Sewer reconstructionSt. Clements	
2283	Brushing	St. Clements	
6811	Brush on roads	Victoria	
4832	Skating rink	Victoria beach	
5478	Clear, open roads____Victoria beach	
5479	Develop parks	Victoria beach	
5480	Excavate	Totals	
890	7,500	446.3540	1,600	240.17375	3,000	1,500.0055	550	127.0040	850	-120	1,000	548.4480	1,000	428.5130	1,000	155.11830	16,500	3,445.5812334	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Beausejour	
37	Installation of sewer and water	mains	Beausejour	
91	Construction of well, water and	sewer line extensionsBeausejour	
160 Renovation of skating arena	St. Clements	
24	Brushing road allowances	jVictoria beach	
141	Clearing and opening roads...Victoria beach	
142	Park development... .Victoria beach	
143	Excavation of wells	Totals	
7Beausejour	
189 Installation of water mains	Lac-du-Bonnet	
83 Construction of fire hall	Reynolds	
208	Clearing fire guard	Reynolds	
210	Clearing fire guard right of way.St- Clements	
4	Brushing along road allowances..Victoria beach	
160	Development of municipal parksVictoria beach	
161	Clearing and opening of roads__Victoria beach	
162	Improvements to wells	West St. Paul	
48	Construction of machine shed...West St. Paul	
243	Brushing roadsides	Totals	
10190	6,700	819.56550	37,600	1,814.27100	4,000	-283	2,830	1,082.47125	1,000	346.01125	1,000	376.5140	1,000	165.001,413	54,130	4,603.8250	4,097	270.15140	4,200	477.201,375	18,000	7,851.89625	8,000	3,472.45385	3,850	1,347.41200	1,000	327.04200	1,000	356.1050	1,250	242.4370	6,000	351.0031	313	86.87
3,126
47,710
14,782.54
Reynolds	
284	Clearing fire guard trail	Reynolds	
285	Clearing fire guard trail	St. Clements	
16 Brushing road allowances	Victoria beach	
100 Brushing park	Victoria beach	
101 Construction of well	Victoria beach	
102	Brushing roads and lanes	West St. Paul	
154	Renovation of municipal officeTotals	
7St. Clements	
122	Brushing road	allowances___Victoria beach	
227 Construction of wells	Victoria beach	
228	Brushing roads	West St. Paul	
33	Brushing road	allowances___West St. Paul	
223	Renovation of	municipal hallTotals	
51,650	18,000	2,331.94400	4,500	875.54265	2,650	519.59100	1,000	237.3250	1,250	200.92100	1,000	52	2,500	414.002,617	30,900	4,579.31185	1,850	Estimated fed. govt, share 925.0075	2,200	500.0040	500	250.0040	400	200,0025	1,000	250.00365	5,950	2,125.00
Questions

Questions


SUPERVISION OF PRIVATE PENSION PLANS
Mr. Orlikow: In preparing legislation regarding private pension plans, is consideration being given to adequate supervision of the investment policies being followed by the private plans and especially to ensuring that the equity of employees contributing to such plans is not being jeopardized by conflict of interest on the part of the directors of the companies involved?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Yes.
LAND SALES FOR TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, LOTBINlilRE COUNTY, QUE.


Mr. Caouette: 1.	Within the boundaries of the constituency of Lotbiniere how many property owners were obliged to sell part or all their land for the purpose of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	How many, or what percentage of them, had received total payment at March 1, 1965?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The Department of Public Works has no record of land transactions for trans-Canada highway purposes. The purchase of right of way for the highway is a provincial responsibility toward which the federal government does not contribute.
2. See part 1.


FAILURE OF RADIO STATION TO BROADCAST NEWS OF BEER DRINKING CONTEST
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the board of broadcast governors had its attention drawn to a report that radio CHUM failed to report in a newscast, sponsored by O'Keefe's brewery, a coroner's inquest in which evidence indicated some responsibility of the brewery in promoting a beer guzzling contest that led to a fatal automobile accident; if so, what were the comments of the board or any of its members regarding this matter?
2.	Has the board any policy statements regarding sponsored newscasts on radio and television; if so, what is the gist of such statements?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: 1. Yes, however, CHUM has no newscast sponsored by O'Keefe's brewery. The story was carried 18 times on CHUM in 38 hours. It was referred to on February 25 in a commentary written and delivered by Bill Drylie, CHUM news editor; that commentary is sponsored by O'Keefe's.
2. The board's policy is given in regulations 5(l)(d) and 5(l)(g) which states as follows: "No station or network operator shall broadcast-(d) any false or misleading news; (g) any advertising content in the body of a news broadcast and for the purpose of this section, a summary is deemed to be part of the body of the broadcast."
[Mr. MaeEachen.l


SUGGESTED SETTING UP OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a non-controversial question to the Prime Minister. It arises in connection with the reference you made a moment ago to the pride of Canadians in the success of Miss Petra Burka and other champions in the field of sport.
Without in any way being critical of the showing of the Canadian team in the world hockey championships, and recognizing the great importance to national and international prestige of success being attained in fields of athletics-particularly the degree to which success in athletics has its influence among nations which believe in freedom and among communist nations-would the government give consideration to preparing now for future competitions in the field of hockey by utilizing the fitness and amateur sports council that was set up under the government of which I had the honour to be prime minister, and set up a committee of parliament-and there are many representatives of various sports who have had great success in the house-to the end that we will assure hereafter that Canada's representation in the field of international competition, particularly in amateur sport, shall be of the very best?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman's question is, as he said, entirely non-controversial, but our method of participation in world hockey championships is, I believe, less non-controversial; and I may say in the present circumstances I have no particular desire to enter into the controversy on how we should participate. But I do agree with my hon. friend that this is an important matter and that it could very well be considered along the lines he has indicated.
One of our difficulties, of course, especially in hockey, lies in finding amateur hockey players to participate in so-called amateur tournaments. So highly skilled is our participation in hockey generally that practically every good player in Canada under the age of ten is on the negotiating list, at least, of some professional club. This makes it difficult to secure and keep together a representative group of players. However, I will be glad to take this matter up with the minister concerned, whose interest in hockey is, I know, equal to my own.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister following a question I asked some two weeks ago concerning amateur sport. Is it the intention of the government in the near future to give financial help to these amateur teams going abroad, at least to some extent, so they may do more practising and less collecting before they leave?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid I have forgotten the question the hon. member asked earlier on this subject, but I can say to him now that this government, like the previous government, does help amateur teams going abroad to take part in international competitions, though the amount of the assistance varies.


WINNING OF BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP BY ACADIA UNIVERSITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I have a supplementary question, which also is non-controversial, to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure the hon. gentleman would like to join with me and with all members of the house in congratulating Acadia University on having won the university basketball championship after defeating Windsor on Saturday night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In the spirit of conciliation which prevails, I join, of course, with the hon. gentleman in congratulating Acadia University on defeating that usually triumphant team from Windsor, which has such an enviable record.


George Clyde Nowlan: I tried to beat them 25 years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I do not want my caveat to belittle in any way my warmest and most sincere congratulations which I extend to Acadia University on triumphing over such worthy opponents as Windsor.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: A further supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he expects Windsor or the team espoused by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings to be playing off against the Alberni Athletics in my home town of Alberni?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All hon. members may not have heard of the latter team- 20220-781
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, his own leader the member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam, the Prime Minister and I have heard of it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: My question is also non-controversial. On Friday the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked whether the Prime Minister would send a message of condolence to President Johnson regarding Jimmy Jackson and the Reverend James Reeb, who were killed during the tragic events at Selma. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, when he is doing this, he would also consider sending a message from the Canadian people stating that while we in Canada have many areas of discrimination which we must clean up, we would welcome any action by the President and the congress to assist the negro people of the United States in their fight to attain basic human liberties.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as the first part of the question is concerned, that message was sent on Saturday morning, I believe, to Washington. As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I have already sent to Washington as of possible interest to the government there a copy of the statement I issued myself on that matter, and I would be glad to consider whether any further action on the lines suggested is required.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: In view of the strong position the right hon. gentleman has taken on this issue would he be prepared to tell the house when amendments will be introduced to the Northwest Territories Act to allow the Eskimo people living in Canada's northland to exercise the right to vote in Canada's territorial election?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think the two situations are parallel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State

Inquiries of the Ministry for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a decision has been reached between the governments of West Germany and Israel to exchange diplomatic recognition and the severe repercussions of that decision in the Arab world, does the minister have any word for this house as to recent developments in this critical area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether he has any information with regard to the reported rapid build-up of arms by the Greek Cypriots in recent weeks, and particularly what is the origin of and the route by which these arms are getting there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the house will have noted the press reports of unnotified shipments of considerable quantities of Soviet heavy military equipment to the Greek Cypriot forces in the last fortnight. This, of course, is contrary to the notification agreement of September 10, 1964 between the government of Cyprus and the United Nations. I do not wish to add anything more, other than to say that this report is now being examined, and on its face it clearly represents a violation of that agreement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As one of the countries having troops there in order to preserve the truce, is there any action which the Canadian government intends to take in regard to this arms build-up which is in contravention, as the minister has said, of the agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the evidence before us is now being examined, and after this examination has been completed we will make the representations which we believe the situation warrants.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. About a week ago I asked whether the Canadian government had extended their peace keeping mandate in Cyprus. I believe the time has now passed when this expired. What is the position of the government in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The time has not expired, Mr. Speaker. The security council will meet on March 17 to give consideration to a renewal of the mandate. It will have before it the report of the secretary general which was given out on Friday, noting the absence of conflict over the last four or five months. The secretary general, I understand, has indicated that it is desirable in his judgment that the force continue to operate on the island; and that there should be no reduction in the numbers, as was rumoured, in spite of the financial situation facing the United Nations. When the report of the security council becomes official the Canadian government will consider what course it should follow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, press reports on Saturday indicated that the Canadian government has already conveyed to the secretary general of the United Nations its willingness to extend its mandate for a further period. Is this report incorrect, and has the government not yet transmitted its intention? Will the government convey to this house in advance its decision regarding this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there has been no final intimation given to the secretary general. That cannot be done until such time as we know what decision will be taken by the security council. Just as quickly as that decision is taken it will be conveyed to this house.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event of an extension of the mandate for Canadian forces in Cyprus, has the government made any further plan for the rotation of troops, or does it intend to leave in Cyprus the service personnel who are now there?
Kon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, if the mandate is extended and Canadian participation continues in that area it is our plan to rotate the troops.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a controversial one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell the house if a licence has been issued to set up a television relay tower to serve the English population in the Malartic area?
If so, can he tell us if that licence was issued to Mr. Lavigne, of Timmins?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I could not be absolutely sure, without checking, whether the formal approval has finally been given; but if it has not been given, I believe there is no doubt that it will be given very shortly.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question, and this is where my question becomes controversial.
If the minister approves the construction of a television tower to serve the English speaking people in an area where the population is almost entirely French Canadian- and that pleases us-can he tell us if he is ready to take similar action to serve in the same way the French Canadians living in the western provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have always taken the view that the government should treat Canadians in all parts of the country equally.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPLIES TO LETTERS RESPECTING CONTRACTING-OUT ARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which might be helpful to our consideration of Bill C-142. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has now received replies to his letters to the premiers of last August regarding contracting-out arrangements and, if so, will he make arrangements to have those replies tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check before giving an answer, but it is my impression that all the replies have been received. I will look into this matter immediately, and I see no reason why they should not be tabled.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF QUOTAS ON OLDER SEALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. Over the week end a number of members on this side of the house received telegrams relating to new seal hunting regulations. In view of the concern expressed by Mr. Hughes of the Ontario humane society, that no extension be permitted of quotas on seals that may be killed, will the minister inform the house whether his department has contemplated establishing a quota on seals over one year old in the interest of conservation?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the house that it is not the intention at this time to establish quotas on seals over one year old. I also received a number of telegrams over the week end, as did several other members on this side of the house, but I cannot understand the reason for sending these telegrams, because in my reply to a question which was directed to me on Thursday last I stated that information had been received from our officers which indicated that the quota would be taken by the end of operations that day. I also stated that fishing for young seals in the gulf by aircraft and licensed vessels would end that day, and that was on Thursday of last week. There has been no change in my decision, and the present quota will remain as is for this season.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister clarify the situation in respect of the seal harvest on the front at a later time?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As I stated earlier, though perhaps not in detail, in my reply to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, this quota applies to the gulf area; that is, south of the 50th parallel. There is no quota in respect of the front, and the season there opens today. The main reason for this situation is that the large proportion of young seals are found in the gulf area and not on the front.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence perhaps I should address it to his parliamentary secretary or to the Prime Minister. Is it correct that Mrs. Rivard has disappeared, and that just prior to her disappearance, or within a week or so, she was able through the offices of the department to get her passport in order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I will take this question as notice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question relating to Mrs. Rivard's passport, perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a position to give the house some information about this situation. I am sure the issuing of this one passport would at least be of passing interest to the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will make immediate inquiries in that regard.



VANCOUVER-CONVICTION IN ABSENTIA AS HABITUAL CRIMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice perhaps I may be allowed to ask his parliamentary secretary whether the minister's attention has been drawn to the case of a man who was tried in absentia in Vancouver and convicted as a habitual criminal, and sentenced to be jailed indefinitely, possibly for life. If so, will the minister investigate and find out whether in fact the Criminal Code permits such a trial in absentia?


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house whether portions of a pamphlet entitled "Focus on Germany" published by the West German government press office, which advocates a revision of the frontiers of Germany to the boundaries


of 1937, are distributed to the Canadian military authorities in Germany for publication in official news sheets issued to the Canadian forces?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend will be good enough to put that question on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the honourable and gallant Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is the positive aspect of a question I previously asked the Minister of National Defence. Does the Department of External Affairs supply our forces in Europe with information relative to foreign affairs, and does it contain the opinions of the various parties of this house with regard to that important subject?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to give that question the precision that it requires by taking this question as notice.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and it is based on a statement attributed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the effect that it would be desirable for Canada to gain access through the Alaskan Panhandle either by way of a corridor or free ports. Has any communication been directed to the United States government expressing this desire, or a desire to negotiate in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that this has been done, but I should like to check with my hon. friend and make an announcement in this regard tomorrow.



PROVISION TO PERMIT ESKIMOS TO VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the people living in the Keewatin and Franklin districts of the Northwest Territories, most of whom are Eskimos, are unable to vote in territorial elections. Will the Prime Minister consider

amending the federal Northwest Territories Act to allow these people to vote in these elections in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: While that is an important question, I suggest it is one for the order paper.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I should like to debate this at ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the delay being experienced in the other house with respect to the Canada labour code, can the Prime Minister assure us that this session will not be proroged until that legislation and the Canada pension plan have been finally passed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give that assurance.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, but in his absence and in view of the fact that the subject matter is related to the Department of Industry, I should like to address it to the minister of that department.
In view of the fact that several of the automotive parts manufacturers in the city of Windsor have lost approximately 70 per cent of their business to United States car manufacturers as a result of the Canada-U.S. parts agreement, does the minister not realize that this is a very serious situation, and will he inform this house what steps he or his government intends to take in order that these people may be re-employed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member has made one or two statements which are quite wrong in his question to me, as to whether I realize that this is a serious situation. Let me state that the agreement with the United States will lead and is leading to an increase in production in Canada and an increase in employment in Canada. As to his suggestion that in the city of Windsor
Inquiries of the Ministry a serious situation is arising as a result of loss of production and unemployment, that is fortunately not true.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that it is Canadian-owned industries that are suffering, and will he give further consideration to having the Canadian value of content changed from a dollar value to a percentage value so it will be fair to all manufacturers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, without taking time to go into the reasons the suggestion of the hon. member would be inappropriate, I will repeat the view I expressed a day or two ago, that this would not solve the problems to which he has referred. Some of the parts manufacturers are unquestionably going to have to alter the methods which they have used in the past in doing business. There is a distinct pressure on the Canadian auto parts and auto manufacturing industries to become more efficient and more productive. Those that cannot or will not do so will unquestionably have to change their way of doing business.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Does the government know when this agreement will be brought before congress so the present onesided arrangement can at least have a chance to become reciprocal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the introduction of this legislation in the United States congress is a matter of high priority for the United States administration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question arising out of the rather unusual answer which was given by the Minister of Industry. Is what he is saying in fact this, that as a result of this one-sided agreement, until it becomes reciprocal, unless Canadian manufacturers of automobiles and automobile parts change their base of doing business and improve the efficiency of their organization, they will indeed face a competition which to them will mean bankruptcy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry the right hon. gentleman has drawn the wrong inference from my comments. What I was endeavouring to say was that motor car and motor car parts manufacturers in Canada, all of them-whether Canadian owned or non-Canadian owned makes no difference-

Inquiries of the Ministry are under pressure now, as a consequence of the need for increased production in Canada of automobile components, to improve their efficiency. I was merely saying that motor car and parts manufacturers who are unwilling to improve their efficiency will be facing difficulties.


John George Diefenbaker: What kind of difficulties?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. He said "whether Canadian owned or non-Canadian owned". Is it not true that non-Canadian owned corporations which are controlled by United States corporations, and therefore captive, are more liable to the pressures which will be brought to bear by the parent firm in the United States than Canadian corporations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, of course what the hon. gentleman says is correct. Foreign owned corporations are more liable to pressure from their parents than are independent Canadian owned corporations. That is correct.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiii (Oxford):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. Could the Minister of Industry guarantee to members of this house whose constituencies are affected by this problem that industries in those constituencies which are Canadian owned would at least have the opportunity of tendering on contracts with automobile companies for parts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman really wants me to give an assurance that the Canadian government will direct those in the motor car industry as to how to conduct their business.


Alfred Dryden Hales: You have done that already.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: However, I am assured by the motor car manufacturers that they are continuously on the lookout for offers of increased production by Canadian parts manufacturers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the machinery used in the factories is subject to the 11 per cent tax in this country, and that therefore there is not fair competition between manufacturers in the United States and Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is not so, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question regarding the proposed legislation which the United States congress will be asked to pass in order to ratify this automobile agreement. When congress finally does remove the tariff on the import of automobiles and parts into the United States from Canada, will the date be retroactive to January 1, as was the case with the Canadian agreement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was asked the other day. The answer is the same, that in the agreement with the United States the administration has undertaken to seek from the United States congress retroactive legislation to the date of signature of the agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a further supplementary which I should perhaps direct to the Minister of Finance. Is there not an 11 per cent sales tax on the machinery used by these factories? The Minister of Industry seemed to deny that, but is that not so?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister of Industry to deny the allegation that accompanied my hon. friend's question. The tax applies to all factories whether they be Canadian owned, United States owned or owned by any parent company in any other country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister say whether it applies to a manufacturer in the United States? It only applies to a manufacturer in Canada.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was necessary on orders of the day to make it clear that a Canadian tax does not apply to businesses in the United States; but if my hon. friend wants it made clear I am happy to do so.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS IN FURNITURE TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a related question either of the Minister of Industry or of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government considering any possible reductions in tariffs on furniture coming into Canada from other countries, either through a similar arrangement as that pertaining to automobiles and automobile parts with the United

States, or through negotiation during the present Kennedy round of tariff negotiations?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, it would be quite inappropriate for many reasons to answer this question. First of all, it is a matter that would be introduced in the budget, and is therefore secret. Second, it may or may not be subject to negotiation, but it does not matter whether it is or is not because it would be still secret in GATT. Therefore I can say nothing.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce following upon the one asked by the hon. member for Perth. The minister will realize that this matter is of extreme importance to the people in both our respective constituencies. Because of the negative and I might say innocuous reply to the question, I am wondering whether the minister could not answer a little more definitively by saying no. If the furniture item is not to be used in future for bartering in our tariff position, surely he can tell us that it is not included in the list of items, thereby relieving a lot of anxiety.


Mr. Sharp:: The only reply I can make to my hon. friend is that if I were to follow his suggestion I would expect an infinite number of questions about every item in the Canadian tariff, out of which members would soon be able to ascertain the policy of the government.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked last week about whether the government had received representations from the province of New Brunswick for additional moneys for the municipal development loan fund. Representations were made to the deputy minister of finance on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: Who asked that question?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert. The answer is that no further allocations may be made under the terms of the act.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Alberi):: supplementary question of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Will the government
Inquiries of the Ministry bring in new legislation to make further municipal development loan funds available to those provinces which require them, and thus fulfil the promise which was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the legislation was before the house?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can accept the statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made such a promise. In fact I would be very surprised if he did.


Malcolm MacInnis: He has not denied it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: He has not yet had a chance to deny it. I would assure my hon. friend that this and other matters are receiving consideration.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the reply he gave earlier concerning the municipal development and loan fund. I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that many municipalities, certainly in British Columbia, are unable to proceed with necessary and usable works because of the near exhaustion of their quota, whether he could not upgrade the consideration this and other matters are receiving by the government to something that would be more suitable to the urgency of the cause.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the municipal development and loan fund was introduced at a time when it was highly desirable to increase the level of construction activity throughout Canada, and for that reason one of the conditions of making loans was that the projects for which the money was being lent would be in addition to the normal plans of the municipality. This worked out very well, as I am sure my hon. friend will agree, and the level of construction activity in Canada is much higher that it was, especially I believe in the province of British Columbia. These are facts which undoubtedly will be taken into account by the government in considering what, if anything, should be done in connection with this particular legislation.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR BANK AMALGAMATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister report to the house whether or not any negotiations are under way for

Inquiries of the Ministry the amalgamation of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto-Dominion bank?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO PRESENTATION OF BUDGET BEFORE PROROGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister is considering the introduction of a budget prior to the beginning of a new session?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe, who last Friday inquired whether any payment had been made to the province of Quebec under the Canadian student loan plan. The answer is no. The act provides that payment to non-participating provinces shall be made not later than six months after the end of the loan year, and the loan year ends on June 30 next.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Last Wednesday the Secretary of State promised to check with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about the playing or nonplaying of "O Canada". Can the minister now advise the house?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have not yet received the information, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
CANADA PLAN-LETTER FROM GOVERNMENT ACTUARY On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
Over the week end, a senior government official, namely Mr. John Kroeker, made a statement in which he referred to a personal letter he sent to the Prime Minister on August 26 about the Canada pension plan and in which he asked:
Why are Canadians not told the truth about this proposed pension plan?
He then set forth three possibilities: the Canadian leaders did not understand the plan; they were afraid to stir up the anger of Canadians or they held the public in complete contempt.
In view of this letter, could the Prime Minister make a statement or table this letter, with the consent of the house, so as to put it on the official record?


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



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) asked the Prime Minister a question about the interpretation of a reply I had given to one of his questions put on the order paper, which reply was tabled in the house on March 10, 1965. That question concerned the interpretation of the extension of a letter carrier service from a main locality. Here is the answer to that question asked by the hon. member for Megantic.
The basic requirement for the establishment of an independent letter carrier service is the presence of 2,500 delivery points in a concentrated and built-up area.
However, if two or more neighbouring localities have together the required number of delivery points, a letter carrier service may be established if those localities agree. Such an agreement is necessary because, under such circumstances, the post office of the most important locality becomes, normally, the dispatching point for mailmen and, at the same time, post offices in smaller localities are closed down and replaced by sub-offices of the new letter carrier post office.
When the density of homes in an area next to a locality with letter carrier service permits the establishment of such a service on

an economic basis, it may be established irrespective of the number of delivery points.
That does not constitute the establishment of a new independent letter carrier service, but simply the extension of a service already in existence.
The letter carrier service recently established in Charny is an extension of the Levis letter carrier service.
Besides Levis, letter carriers of the Levis post office are serving the St. David de l'Aube-Riviere, St. Telesphore and St. Romuald d'Et-chemin, localities in the immediate vicinity, on the western side of Levis. The 1,080 delivery points in Charny, a locality adjacent to St. Romuald d'Etchemin, get a home delivery service which is merely an extension of the service already given in the surrounding area.
In short, in order to set up an independent letter carrier service there must be 2,500 delivery points, but where such a service is already existing it can be extended to other delivery points no matter what the number is; there is no minimum.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell the house if, according to the answer he has just given, the service can be extended six or eight miles from that central point, in this case Levis. In short, to what distance from the area's central point can the letter carrier service be extended to serve an adjacent locality?


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely a question for the order paper.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: May
I address my question to the minister of northern affairs on a subject that I brought up a week ago. Will he give assurance that grazing and hay cutting permit fees will remain the same during the current year in Riding Mountain national park?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am not satisfied with the situation, and I want to debate this subject at ten o'clock.
Canada Pension Plan PENSIONS



PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRIBUTORY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
That Bill C-136, now before the house, be amended to authorize, in the place of the age adjusted pension now provided for by part IV of the said bill, that a pension under the Old Age Security Act in the full amount of the pension available to those who have attained 70 years of age be paid commencing 1 January 1966 to those who have attained 69 years of age, commencing 1 January 1967 to those who have attained 68 years of age, commencing 1 January 1968 to those who have attained 67 years of age, commencing 1 January 1969, to those who have attained 66 years of age, and commencing 1 January 1970 to those who have attained 65 years of age.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry it was not possible for me to be here on Friday, but since then I have had the opportunity of reading Hansard and I wish to comment that I would have thought the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have learned her lesson by this time. She gave a very political introduction to the resolution, and apparently did not learn her lesson of July 18, 1963.


The Chairman:: May I suggest to the hon. member that his remarks are not germane to the resolution.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I quite agree they are not, but I appreciate that a certain amount of leniency must have been shown to the minister on Friday.
Briefly, this resolution is preliminary to amending part IV of the bill by progressively reducing the age limit to 65 years, starting January 1, 1966, for the receipt of old age security of $75 a month. Under the government's previous proposal it would have been possible to receive an actuarially reduced old age pension, but now the full amount of $75 old age security will be paid; and we are in complete accord with this.
There is also an income tax amendment involved which will take away the automatic exemption of $500 extra per year granted those who have reached 65, and keep it from them until they reach age 70. I had hoped this would not have been the case, but as we are anxious to see the amendment which the minister will propose we will agree to the resolution.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Aiken:: Could the minister tell the committee what were the considerations which induced the government to give the full old age pension on an age reducing scale, something which was not proposed by the special joint committee?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Hon. members will recall that the principle of paying pensions at 65 was part of the Canada pension plan from the beginning, but payments were to be scaled down from the full amount at age 70. Two considerations were involved. One was the increase in revenue arising from taxation, as indicated by the Minister of National Revenue on Friday last, and the second stemmed from a recommendation of the special joint committee with respect to people who at the moment and in the future could not be contributors to the Canada pension plan, people who are at or about the age of 65 years.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then I assume some of the discussions which took place in the special joint committee were responsible for the change in government policy?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This is quite true. The government studied the report of the special joint committee at considerable length and, as hon. members know, almost every recommendation of the committee was incorporated in government amendments which have now been adopted.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have not made any overall contribution to the debate on the pension plan, but I would like to make a few remarks while we are considering the resolution.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps I should bring to the attention of the hon. member that we are dealing here with a very limited resolution, and still have to discuss clause 1 of the bill. That might be a more appropriate occasion for general remarks.


Robert Norman Thompson: I agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question arising out of the exchange between the minister and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka. If I understood her correctly she said one of the considerations leading to the change that is now proposed was the recommendation of the special joint committee in paragraph 9 of its report, which is as follows:
The committee also recommends that the government give consideration to further measures regarding the position of those people who, because they are or soon will be retired, will not be substantial contributors to, or beneficiaries from, the Canada pension plan.
[Mr. Monteith.l
If the proposal to lower the eligibility age at which old age security is made available is an implementation of this recommendation that something be done for those who will soon be retired, what about the people who will be 66 and 67 in the year immediately after the pension plan comes into effect? If the government is seeking to implement paragraph 9 of the report should it not make the full old age pension available right away at age 65?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As in so many things, one must use the cloth available and stretch it as far as one can. This was all the government thought could be drawn from the funds available in the next five years.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I want to stay within the strict ambit of the resolution, but the minister might help the committee by saying what the government proposes to do about the old age assistance program. As a result of this resolution the area presently covered by old age assistance on a means test basis between the ages of 65 and 69 will be taken over by old age security. Old age assistance is a joint federal-provincial program.
I asked the Prime Minister this question two weeks ago and, if I recall his words correctly, he said this was a matter of policy, that it was a large area which the government intended to take under consideration, and presumably after holding discussions with the provincial authorities he would be able to make some kind of statement. Does the minister feel this is the appropriate time to make such a statement; because we are considering a resolution that in effect will do away with a program that has been operative for quite a few years? If the minister is in a position to make a statement I shall resume my seat now and allow her that opportunity.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that it would be inappropriate for the minister to make such a statement at this time, because to my mind it would definitely be altogether beyond the terms of the resolution under consideration.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: With due deference to your ruling Mr. Chairman, this resolution would have the effect of scrapping the existing federal-provincial program. It therefore becomes completely relevant that the committee should be advised of the plans the government has to replace it, if any. As of next year there will be no old age assistance program for people aged 69, and the year after that there will be no program for those aged 68.

Canada Pension Plan
Surely it becomes absolutely relevant that the minister should tell us what the government intends to do in these circumstances. It there are to be two programs running concurrently I think many of us would have something to say about two programs affecting people between the ages of 65 and 70, one on a universal basis and the other on a means test basis.


George Louis Chatterton: If your ruling is to stand, Mr. Chairman, we shall have no opportunity to question the minister as to the effects of the amendments to the Old Age Security Act on other programs such as the Old Age Assistance Act. In earlier stages of this debate ministers themselves have made statements indicating how changes in the legislation would be affected by the old age assistance program and vice-versa. I respectfully suggest this is the proper place at which to discuss this matter because these amendments will directly affect the Old Age Assistance Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If so, let us do it on the amendments when we get back to the clauses.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Surely if we are being asked to adopt amendments to the Old Age Security Act which will have a direct effect on the old age assistance program, the committee has a right to know what the effect of the passing of this resolution on the old age assistance program is likely to be. I do not think we can properly consider the advisability of a reduction in the age of eligibility for old age security benefits until we know what the effect would be on the old age assistance program. As my hon. friend has said, in 1970 everyone over the age of 65 will be covered by old age security provisions. What is to happen to the old age assistance program? It will become unnecessary, but what will be done about it officially? I think we should be given an explanation.


Lucien Lamoureux: All I can say to the hon. member and to others who have raised this point is that the committee is bound, as is the Chair, by the terms of the resolution, and there is nothing in this resolution to indicate the suspension of the old age assistance program. I suggest this is not the place to discuss such a wide and far ranging subject as the one just raised by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I too am anxious to remain relevant to the question before us, and I will therefore put the following question to the hon. lady. In view of the fact that this resolution if enacted would have the effect 20220-7824
of terminating the old age assistance program, which is a federal-provincial program, can the hon. lady tell the committee what negotiations were carried on between the federal and provincial authorities at the time it was decided to extend old age security benefits into the field now covered by the joint program in accordance with the plan administered by the provinces? If there is to be no change, that is fine. Otherwise I should like to know what the situation is.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I dealt with this in my comments on Friday last, and they will be found in the left hand column of Hansard at page 12296. I indicated that about a year ago we began discussions with the provinces with regard to a new assistance program, and that a meeting of ministers of welfare has been called for next month to deal with this subject. It is not correct that the passage of this provision would oust the jurisdiction of the provinces in connection with this program, which is a shared program under which in some provinces-reference was made to British Columbia-as much as $100 a month is made available, including supplementary assistance. The present provision will not displace it by any means. However, for more than a year the government has been in consultation with the provinces regarding a new approach to all federal-provincial assistance programs.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: May I ask the minister a further question, then. I may say I was not here when she made her statement on Friday. May I ask her whether the governments of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories participated in the discussions which led to the present situation, and whether they will be invited to take part in this proposed new conference which the hon. lady has announced for next month?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member may recall that he asked me the same question last spring after the meeting of welfare ministers had taken place. I indicated that both were represented, and both will be invited again.


George Louis Chatterton: I have before me an advertisement which appeared in the Vancouver Sun dated April 4, 1963. It is headed "The Liberal Policy-June election, 1963". One of the subheadings reads "Make $75 Old Age Assistance Available to Single Women and Widows at age 60." May I ask the minister whether after a lapse of nearly two years this represents what she is working toward?

Canada Pension Plan


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member has referred to part of the shared cost program which we have just been discussing. Any announcement will be made after due consultation with the provinces, a process which has now been going on for over a year.


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask whether the announcement will be made before the next election or after?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hope members of this government will do what they always do, that is think first of our citizens as a whole and not of an election.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I see that some of my colleagues are asking for a statement regarding the negotiations which took place between the provincial governments and the Minister of National Health and Welfare or her officials, with a view to including in Bill No. C-136 everything connected with the old age security and assistance scheme-


Mr. Olson:: On a point of order, the translation is not coming through.


An hon. Member:: It is now.


Gérard Perron: In my opinion the hon. minister should make a statement concerning the negotiations which were held to this effect.
In fact, there is concern about the possibility of the old age assistance plan being wiped out due to the fact it will be annexed to Bill No. C-136.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member is raising a matter which has already been raised by an hon. member a while ago.
I am of the opinion that we cannot at this time raise a matter as general as the one the hon. member for Beauce is referring to.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare answered certain questions, and I would suggest to the hon. members of the committee that the discussion should not extend beyond the terms of the resolution which is now before us.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the speech which was delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in introducing this resolution, and it seems that the scope is wide enough to permit discussion of section 4, since everything is related thereto.
Here is my question. As it is alleged that another member asked the same question, I

shall put another one relevant to the same matter. In connection with the implication which might result from incorporating to Bill No. C-136 what is now involved under legislation already enacted concerning old age security and old age assistance, I put this definite question to the minister.
What would happen in the case of a province which would like to recover 100 per cent of its taxation rights, commonly known as direct taxation on salaries?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am afraid I do not understand the question. I am not sure that it is relevant, in any event. I do not know whether it is the translation or the question itself, but I do not understand it.


Gérard Perron: I will give some explanations which will enable the minister to answer the very definite question I asked.
In view of the fact that the necessary funds for old age security for persons who have reached the age of 70 come out of general revenue under a 1J per cent income tax paid by all Canadian taxpayers, and that old age assistance provides a pension jointly administered by the federal and the provincial governments, which contribute on an equal basis to those benefits, if those two acts are annexed to Bill No. C-136, what would happen to a province which would wish to recover the total amount of the income tax?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. To my mind, this question is far beyond the scope of the resolution before us.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, does this resolution not allow us to examine the schedule to part IV of Bill No. C-136, whose purpose is to integrate to this bill any previous legislation concerning old age security and old age assistance?
Could the minister give us an answer on this?


Lucien Lamoureux: Once more, I wish to remind the hon. member that the present debate is restricted to the resolution. We are not discussing Bill No. C-136 proper; we are examining a specific resolution, and as far as possible, the discussions must deal with the resolution and not with Bill No. C-136.


Gérard Perron: Under part IV of Bill No. C-136,
Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: According to item No. 95 as it appears on the orders of the day.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that we have accepted the principle, certainly for five years from now, of giving old age pensions to everybody at the age of 65 without a means test, and I could not agree more with this principle. I do not understand why it is necessary to have all this complicated machinery set up in between. I do not understand why we cannot just pass the bill and say that we should pay everybody the old age pension at age 65. If it is only a question of money-and I realize, of course, that is a very big question-I do not understand why we cannot do this. I do not know on what principle we say that under the law of Canada one person should be able to benefit by social legislation and another person should not be able to benefit.


An hon. Member:: Is it a question of money?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will get around to the point of whether it is a question of money. If we have accepted the principle that all people, when they reach the age of 65-and I say again that I thoroughly agree with this principle should be in receipt of old age pension or old age security, one or the other, and without this expensive means test, let us do it in one step. I do not think it is only a question of money. Canada has never been so prosperous. You pick up the newspapers and look at the financial pages and see that the profits of all companies are up 35 per cent, 18 per cent or 27 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, and this is very timely propaganda in an election year. We say to ourselves "Is balancing the budget the only thing worth while in an election year, or are we going to pay the debt which we owe to our old people?" We have a great educational program. I am quite sure the government will not take all the credit for that or for the training program for our young people. We are looking to the future and are willing to go into the red temporarily to pay for the education of our young people. Why not pay our old people, who have already earned their way, what is coming to them? Why should they not be allowed to share in this 37 per cent, 18 per cent and 54 per cent profit that we are showing? If it is only paper profit, let us share the paper profit with them, and do it now. Why wait five years?
Many of us are at my advanced age. My father and mother may not live another five years. So if we are going to have this social
Canada Pension Plan
legislation well on into the future, it will liot benefit my father and mother nor the parents of many other people. If it is only a matter of money, come out straight and let us say so and let us pass it and have a deficit budget. When this party was running the nation's affairs we budgeted for a deficit for the needs of the Canadian people, and it has paid off magnificently. We invested in our future, and you people over there are riding the crest of this wave. We used our imagination and this vision which you laughed at so much, and it paid off. We built railways into the north country, and they are bringing ore out already.
Our old people who pioneered that country and went in there when there were no railroads and no security of this kind whatsoever should receive this benefit now. If we are so prosperous, why put it off until tomorrow? Do it now. Why wait till spring? Why wait' till the spring of 1970? Let us do it now. Believe me, if you bring in an amendment yourselves, or will listen to an amendment of ours and pass it, you will find an unanimity in this house that you have not seen for years.


An hon. Member:: This is getting to be socialism.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, I am not getting to be a socialist. I am willing to share with the old people for what they did for me. My education was paid for by my father and mother, and now that I am able to make a decent living I am willing to share it with them. If it means an increase in taxes, let us be honest and pay it now. Let us take it out of this year's or next year's revenue. If we are not prosperous, tell us the truth. If Canada cannot afford to pay it in an election year, tell us the truth; tell us we are broke. But you know we are not; this country was never so well off.
I think we have all shared in this. I do not pretend it was only this party that was responsible for it. Peril a p s other people over there also worked for it. The old people worked for it, and I think it is time we paid them off. And don't throw socialism at me; there is a great deal of difference between social security and socialism, as everybody knows.
We owe this money, as a matter of fact. It is just a question of paying our debts. We are not afraid to go into debt in time of war, for national security; and we should not be afraid to go into debt in time of peace to pay off our old people. I am consistent about this. I spoke two weeks ago in the house and suggested we should pay them $100 a month and not $75; and I think we can pay

Canada Pension Plan
that. Probably 25 years from now, when we look back at these days of prosperity, we will wonder why we did not pay it. To me this bill appears to be a dream of bureaucracy.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member that we are not discussing the bill in general terms. The hon. member has referred to the bill. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I just want to remind the hon. member that we cannot really be discussing now the details of the bill itself. We have to consider a very specific resolution.
1 will invite the hon. member to restrict and limit his comments to the resolution.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am trying to restrict myself to the resolution, Mr. Chairman, but if we allow this resolution to pass without thinking about what it will do, it is going to be too late. We are legislating for the future, as I see it-for at least 50 years ahead-and we are establishing a rigid formula here. We are doing something that we may not be able to undo. Surely there is no need for haste and we have the time to discuss it for another half hour or so.
We have had this resolution before us three times in various forms. I think it is very appropriate that the government has withdrawn the resolutions from time to time and hammered them out. We have had one of the finest committees, I am sure, working on this matter, and they have come up with improvements.
I think if we spend a little more time looking at the situation we may be able to come up with a simple resolution which will get us out of our difficulties, and keep us out of them for at least five years. As I have said before, under a changed formula we would be able to pay what we owe to these old people at this time rather than five years from now.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I do not understand the effect of this resolution, but it does seem to me that now is the time to discuss it and clarify it. It does relate to Bill C-136, as is suggested by the resolution itself.
The bill seems to suggest a phasing out of the Old Age Security Act. If that is the case, and I am reading the resolution correctly, perhaps we should make one final appeal to the minister and the government to have that phasing out take place now, so that the resulting savings can be applied in some way under the Canada pension plan. Perhaps this could
IMr. Bigg.]
then be extended to cover those individuals who will not be covered under the present provisions. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Athabasca and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if we are going to phase out the old age security assistance, then certainly it would be less expensive to do so at this stage.
As I look through this resolution I find that in one year certain individuals will receive benefits and in other years certain other individuals will receive the same benefits, on a progressing basis; but I should like to impress upon the ministers concerned that this procedure could also take place in reverse. While I realize that in any legislation of this kind a line must be drawn, when this line is drawn people who find themselves on the wrong side will be disappointed. If we are going to phase out old age security provisions and save a certain amount of money by doing so, let us do so at this time, and use the savings to enlarge the benefits payable under the Canada pension plan.
I do not intend to compare old age security with the pension plan, but I would suggest that the resolution now before us for consideration represents the greatest possible criticism of the pension plan. Apparently an individual who reaches age 65 in 1965 will not receive any benefits from this plan. Nor will an individual who reaches age 65 a year later receive any benefit whatsoever, and this applies throughout the provisions of this plan. I think this area of the plan should be reconsidered and examined, having in mind what will take place within a short period of its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister at this time to make some explanation regarding the phasing out of old age security. Will there be a saving to the taxpayer and, if so, will that saving be applied to the Canada pension plan? Perhaps the minister will give me an answer at this time. I have only two or three other comments to make.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, I would object to the passage of this resolution at this time without some explanation having been made by the minister. I should like to know why widows aged 65 could not be included-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member's suggestion is beyond the terms of this resolution, and I am sure he realizes that it cannot be translated into an amendment. If his suggestion is not acceptable as



IS, 1965

[Stage Direction]
an amendment, it cannot be accepted as proper debate at this stage. I suggest to the hon. member that he is going beyond the terms of the resolution, and remind him of standing order 59(2) which indicates that the committee discussion should be strictly related to the resolution or the matter under consideration.
Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Chairman. What I was attempting to do was relate my questions to the apparent phasing out program which is inherent in this resolution. In reality I was asking the minister to give some explanation in this regard.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I feel bound by the ruling you have just made, that we cannot now discuss other welfare programs in general terms, but I do wish to ask a specific question before this resolution carries. I feel that I must ask this question now because it would definitely be out of order following the passage of the resolution.
When old age security is eventually reduced to age 65, payable on a universal basis to all Canadians, will there then be areas in which the old age assistance program will operate?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There will be areas in which either the old age assistance program or another assistance program will operate, yes.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
The house resumed from Friday, March 12, 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.
On clause 119.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to explain the amendments which are being handed around?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: While my hon. friends are looking at the amendments which are to be moved, they will note that they affect clauses 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 and 124. I will confine my remarks at this point to clause 119, as required by the rules. I have circulated all the amendments at once but I do so purely as a matter of convenience for all hon. members so they can see the proposed amendments together.
With regard to clause 119, subsection (1) of section 3 of the Old Age Security Act will
Canada Pension Plan
now provide for the payment of a pension of the full amount to persons who attain the age of 65. However, this must be read in conjunction with clause 122, which sets out the progressive stages by which the pension at the reduced age becomes available, commencing in January, 1966 in respect to persons who have attained the age of 69 years, and so on, down to age 65 in 1970.
Section 3 (1) (b) (ii), as contained in clause 119, implements recommendation No. 8 (b) (i) of the report of the special committee. This adds a third ground of eligibility based on residence and should overcome all possible objections in respect to persons who have spent the greater part of their working lives in Canada and who are not able to meet the present residence requirements. It will prove helpful to many persons who, for one reason or another, leave Canada before the age of 65 but who have spent virtually all of their working period in Canada. It will enable such persons to make application on attaining the age of 65, subject of course to the provisions of clause 122, and be granted a pension without having to return to Canada to re-establish residence, as is the case at present. It will be particularly helpful in the case of younger wives of pensioners who have left Canada with their husbands and established residence elsewhere. Pensions are payable out of Canada to persons otherwise eligible who have resided in Canada for 25 years since age 21. The 40 year period will therefore automatically cover this requirement. This will meet a problem which my predecessor, I am sure, will remember gave rise on occasion to difficult cases, about which I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has at various times made representations to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wonder whether we could have a point of procedure clarified. I see no problem but perhaps it should be clear. I take it that in view of the fact that we passed the resolution a few minutes ago, and in view of the fact that amended versions of clauses 119 to 125 have been distributed, can we just assume that what are now before us, as they come one by one, are the new amendments? In other words, we do not have to go through the process of having an amendment each time, or do we?


Lucien Lamoureux: I understand that as a matter of form one can be substituted for the other, but I am informed that each amend-

Canada Pension Plan
ment will be moved separately clause by clause, so that the record will be clear. Of course some other procedure can be followed if the committee so decides. It will probably be better from a procedural standpoint if each amendment were moved as each clause is considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, a minister has now moved that clause 119 be amended, as set out in the revised draft. If that is the case perhaps it had better be read into the record.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 119 is as follows:
119. Subsection (1) of section 3 of the Old Age Security Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Payment of pension
"3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this act and the regulations, a monthly pension may be paid to every person who
(a)	has attained sixty five years of age; and
(b)	has resided in Canada for the ten years immediately preceding the day on which his application is approved, or, if he has not so resided,
(i)	has been present in Canada prior to those ten years for an aggregate period at least equal to twice the aggregate periods of absence from Canada during those ten years, and has resided in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the day on which his application is approved, or
(ii)	has resided in Canada after attaining eighteen years of age and prior to the day on which his application is approved for an aggregate period of at least forty years."


Mr. Benson:: I so move, in amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the amendment will receive the unanimous approval of the committee, but perhaps I might be permitted to say a word on it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member proceeds I am wondering whether clause 119 is properly before us and whether there is an amendment to the clause before the committee. The hon. member did raise this point but I do not recall clause 119 being called and I do not recall an amendment being moved to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that is what we did just now. Initially the chairman called clause 119, and the last time the Minister of National Health and Welfare was on her feet she read clause 119 in its revised form. I took it that her colleague moved that clause 119 be amended in that form.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: She actually made a motion.
[The Chairman.]


Lucien Lamoureux: To my understanding the Minister of National Health and Welfare moved the adoption of the clause itself, and the Minister of National Revenue moved the adoption of the amendment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speaking briefly to the
amendment, it does two things of substance. In the first place, it establishes the age of 65 as the basic eligible age for the receipt of old age security. If we can just defeat clause 122 when we get to it, then clause 119 will be all the better. Clause 119 as it stands is fine, but clause 122 is the clause which delays its full implementation for five years.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You should not have
warned her.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I was trying to alert the members on this side of the house to be here as well.
The other point of substance that is effected by the revised clause 119 is, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out, the implementation of recommendation No. 8 (4) of the committee, in which the committee urged that something be done about the position in which many people find themselves who have had to leave the country and are not able to come back for the one last year in order to qualify for their pension under the Old Age Security Act.
We have been over this a good many times in the House of Commons and we went over it pretty thoroughly in the committee. I have a good many letters in my files from various ministers of national health and welfare saying that this change could not be made. Now it is going to be made, and in my experience, which I am sure must be the experience of others, it is going to mean a great deal to a good many people who have had to go to some other clime for reasons of health or had to return to the United Kingdom or some such part of the world. As a matter of fact, I have taken the trouble to check all of the cases which I currently have in my files and this provision for 40 years, which some people when they first see it regard as quite lengthy, does cover every case; and I suspect that my experience in this regard is similar to that of others. These are people who have lived here until 65 or 68, or perhaps the husband has reached 70 and the wife has not, and because it is difficult to come back these people cannot get a pension. Now they will be able to do so. We are doing something for people who

have, in my view, earned this right. However they have left the country. They cannot vote for or against anybody in Canada. We are doing something for people that ought to be done for them. I am glad that this recommendation of the special joint committee has been accepted by the government and that it is here as part of clause 119 in its amended form.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to say a word or two on this clause 119. It does, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, have two main points. It brings the age at which one might be a recipient of old age security down to 65. I think this next matter has been looked after as well as can be expected. There is a problem which the minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have both mentioned, that is the provision in the act to the effect that an applicant has to be in Canada for the last year prior to making his or her application for old age security. This rule has caused a real hardship amongst people. It has now been suggested that as long as an applicant has been in Canada for 40 years following his or her eighteenth birthday, that person should receive the pension. Some may complain about this length of time, because it brings a person to 58 years of age. I should like to think this is really the prime of life and one may have many useful years ahead.
I really have not had the time to consider this 40 year period. It may meet the need, but I am just wondering if by any chance there is the possibility it goes too far. However, we certainly wish to support clause 119, I am pleased to see this change has been made from the provisions of the old part IV of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 120-Basic amount of pension.
Edgar John Benson: I move:
The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 3 thereof, the following section:
"3A. (1) The basic amount of the monthly pension that may be paid to any person is $75.
(2)	Where, either before or after the coming into force of this section, a pension has been authorized to be paid to any person, the amount of such pension shall be adjusted annually, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulation, so that the amount that may be paid to such person for a month in any year after 1967 is the product obtained by multiplying
(a) the basic amount of such pension, by
Canada Pension Plan
(b) the ratio that the pension index for that year bears to the pension index for the year 1967.
(3)	In this section, "pension index" has the meaning assigned by section 20 of the Canada pension plan, and the pension index for any year means the pension index for that year calculated as provided in that section.
Section 121, part IV of Bill C-136 added three new sections, as sections 3A, 3B and 3C respectively. Section 120 as amended, merely adds one section as section 3A which is adapted from 3C as set out in section 121 of part IV. This provided for an annual adjustment of pension in line with the rises in the pension index which is referred to in clause 20 of the bill. This will permit adjustments to be made after December, 1967 in accordance with rises in the cost of living.
The new section makes one small addition to the former section 3C in specifically defining the basic amount of the monthly pension as $75.


George Louis Chatterton: I should like to say a few words in regard to clause 120, more specifically with regard to the pension index. This clause provides that, in the future, the old age pension will be automatically adjusted by way of the pension index. The pension index is really just a consumer price index. One of the explanations given by the government for the inclusion of this automatic escalation of old age security is to remove it from the sphere of political pressure. In other words the pension will be automatically increased as the consumer price index goes up.
My contention is that if the old age security pension is to be increased, the pension index is not the proper yardstick. I would prefer to see the old age security treated in a prescribed manner, say by way of an advisory committee that would periodically decide or recommend to the government how much they considered the old age security pension should be properly increased. My contention is that, in view of the fact the pension index is not a proper index for adjusting old age security, there will be pressures in the future on the government to change the index used.
In support of my contention that the pension index is not the proper index to use, I made a few rough calculations with regard to the effect of the consumer price index in the future on the amount of the old age security pension, and the effect on old age security if other indices were applied. I contend that if the pension is realistic now at $75 per month, then in order to retain that same relationship between the $75 per month and the average earnings of Canadians today,

Canada Pension Plan
the index that should be used is not only the index for the gross national product but also the average earnings of all Canadians.
The proposal here is that if the consumer price index goes up by less than 1 per cent, then there is no adjustment in the old age security pension in the following year. These small increases of less than 1 per cent gradually accumulate, and when they accumulate to 1 per cent there is an adjustment. Moreover, if the consumer price index goes up by more than 2 per cent, then the maximum adjustment is only 2 per cent. As an example, the maximum increase could take place in the old age security pension by 1968, and that would be the first year of the adjustment. It would amount to $1.50 per month, which is a bit less than a quarter of the six bucks about which everybody has heard.
If you take the experience of the period 1946 to 1963, that is about a 17 year period, you find that the gross national product index per capita in terms of current dollars would have increased something over 100 per cent. Now, the experience of the consumer price index would have indicated an increase of only 73 per cent. Again, if you take the average weekly wage between 1946 and 1953, the increase is about 159 per cent. Therefore assuming-and one can logically assume- that the experience of the past will be somewhat duplicated in the future, it is obvious that the old age security pension will lag in relation to average earnings. Surely the real test of whether or not a retirement pension is adequate is the relationship of that pension to the average earnings and spending of Canadians. This was amply demonstrated in evidence given to the special committee, particularly by Mr. W. M. Anderson.
Taking the same figures in the consumer price index, between 1946 and 1963 there was an increase of 73 per cent. If the old age security pension was to be adjusted by this increase, then during that period the $75 would be increased by about $40, but by virtue of the fact no consumer price increase of more than 2 per cent in any one year will be applied to the old age pension, if you employ that feature of the government's proposal then, according to my rough calculations, during the 17 years I have listed the old age pension would go up by some $25, which is distinctly different from what the actual increase in the consumer price index would be.
In summary, if the government feels the old age security should be indexed, then the

index that should be employed should be such as to maintain the constant ratio between $75 and the present average earnings, so that that relationship would apply at all times. I hope the minister will give consideration to this. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has talked along these lines and I trust the minister will give it consideration so that the adjustments made in future to old age security pensions will be realistic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have said a good many times during the course of consideration of the Canada pension plan that I regard as one of its most ingenious and useful arrangements the wage indexing scheme under which the rate of pensions is adjusted at the time they are put in pay. But I cannot understand that a government which was smart enough-maybe it was the civil servants who had the wisdom-to come up with such an ingenious and socially progressive principle, lets it die once people go on pension.
What we have done by working out this wage index and applying it, as we do, when putting pensions into pay, is to give people at the point at which they retire the full benefit-maybe the word "full" is too strong but I do not think it is-of the changes that have taken place in the economy while they have been working. Their pensions are calculated, not on the basis of the absolute dollars they earned, 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago, but are calculated in the terms of the proportion their income has been of the accepted wage index. This is a means whereby people when they retire get pensions that are realistically related to the wage standards of that time, to the economy, to the affluence, the gross national product-to any of these indicators.
It seems to me that if we have been smart enough to come up with this kind of plan to put pensions into pay on a realistic basis, we should use that same principle from that point on. But no, we use the wage index up to the point of retirement and after people have retired the only indexing in the pensions they get is in accordance with the changes in the cost of living.
I can see it is an advance to get the principle of indexing of pensions that have been put in pay on the statute books. I have been asking for this for retired civil servants, C.N.R. employees and other groups all during the years I have been in this chamber. I think the idea that once pensions have been put in pay they should stay at a set figure until the recipients die is completely inhuman

and antisocial. It is good to get this principle started, but if we were smart enough to work out this wage index scheme for calculating pensions at the time they are put in pay, why not use the same ingenious arrangement, the same progressive approach, to the indexing of pensions after they have been put in pay?
We have all recognized that when people retire their pensions should bear a relationship to the economic conditions of that time. In other words, when a person retires at 65 his pension should relate to conditions when he is 65, not to conditions when he was 20. In my view the same consideration that brought us to this conclusion should apply to people after they retire.
After a person retires the cost of living, as statistics of the past indicate, continues to go up. Now the government says, "All right, we are going to help people cope with that rising cost of living." But other things change as well. The wage index goes up; other people are getting more wages. The affluence of the country goes up. The gross national product goes up. New things are brought on to the market.
There was a day when people retired and there were no television sets. In my view, when television came into being people who had retired before then had just as much right to income to buy television sets as people working at that time. We have no idea of the changes that will take place in our economy, in our standard of living, in our affluence, if you will, in the years after people retire. I suggest these changes that take place in the climate around our people, even if they are improvements in our standards of living, even if there is greater affluence, are just as much factors in the lives of retired people as they are in the lives of working people.
Since we are accepting the principle that as conditions improve people should share in those conditions, we should give our retired people the benefit of the best index we have been able to work out. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has given some statistics. No doubt he culled them from the same table I have in front of me, and though I suspect I may have done so before I would like to put some of these figures on the record.


Edgar John Benson: You did it on clause 20.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that was two or three weeks ago. The government has done nothing about it and so I am going to try again. We are now at clause 120. Some 100 clauses have
Canada Pension Plan
gone by and the government has not acted on this point.


Edgar John Benson: For a hundred years prior to this government it was never acted upon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has taken this government 46 years to act on some things it promised the people of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Just two years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact some of the promises of 1919 have not been acted on yet. This table is to be found at page 151 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special joint committee, in the issue for Wednesday December 2, 1964. There are four columns in the table. One is the gross national product at market prices in current dollars; the second is the gross national product at market prices on a per capita basis; the third is the consumer price index with 1949 being regarded as 100; and the fourth contains average weekly salaries and wages. Some of these columns start in 1926. The first year in which there is a figure in all four columns in 1939. So I should like to give the figures for 1939 and 1963 in all four of these columns.
The gross national product at market prices in current dollars in the aggregate was $5,636,000 in 1939. It was $43,007,000 in 1963 which is an increase of seven times or more. On a per capita basis it was $500. This is the gross national product at current prices. It was $500 in 1939; $2,276 in 1963-it had more than quadrupled. This is the gross national product on a per capita basis. I am now going over to the fourth column. Average weekly salaries and wages in 1939 were $23.44. In 1963 the figure is $83.41, again a multiplication of nearly four times. The last two quantities I have given are the significant ones. The gross national product on a per capita basis has gone up by more than four times between 1939 and 1963. Average weekly salaries and wages increased by almost four times. But we notice in the third column that the consumer price index in 1939 was 63.2 while in 1963 it was 133. That is an increase of only slightly more than twice.
So here, if I may eliminate the first of the four columns for the purpose of comparison, we have three scales. We have an increase in the gross national product on a per capita basis amounting to almost four times. We have weekly salaries and wages going up almost four times. But we pick out for our older people the consumer price index which has only gone up twice; we give them the benefit of the slowest moving index of the three.

Canada Pension Plan
What I am concerned about is not just that we have picked out something which is mathematically to the disadvantage of our older people. I am concerned about the fact that we do not seem willing to recognize- certainly this clause does not recognize it- that our older people are entitled not only to have their pensions protected against increases in the cost of living, but that they are also entitled to have their pension income protected so as to meet increases in the standard of living. Remember, they are still Canadian citizens; they are still part of the Canadian family. The changes which take place in the standard of living and in the climate about us are just as real to them as they are to working people or to the younger people. People who are still working will be seeking and getting increases in salaries and wages when they have an opportunity to do so. Those opportunities, in our experience, are implemented. But there are also these other people, and they will number millions as the years go by, to whom we shall say: No, the only adjustment we will give you in your pensions is in respect to the cost of living index; you will still be able to buy the same basket of goods and services as you did when this legislation was first introduced, but do not expect anything else in the basket; do not expect to share in improvements in our economy or in the growing affluence of our society.
In my view this is far from good enough. I acknowledge the minister's statement the other day that the $75 figure contained in this clause is not fixed for all time. That is an admission of something I have always known to be a fact-you do not take the pension question out of politics by any kind of legislation. And I am not sure there is anything wrong in that. After all, what is politics but the right to concern ourselves with things which concern our people? And one of the things which concern the people of this country is their standard of living. So I see nothing wrong with the whole question of pensions continuing to be a political issue. To say to our older people that the kind of adjustment they can expect is of the order of 75 cents or $1.50 at the most on a $75 basis, while others are getting much more substantial increases and when our gross national product is rising, seems to me to be entirely unsatisfactory.
Despite all the representations which have been made, clause 120 is the same as it was when the bill was brought in; it has remained unchanged throughout all the discussions which took place in the committee. I think

the government should tell us why they are not prepared to take the good and ingenious wage index scheme they used to put pensions in pay on a proper basis, and relate it to pensions after they have been put into pay as well. I agree we should have an index, but we should use the index which is best and most favourable to our older people. The cost of living index is not good enough. The wage index is the one which should be used in this clause.


Mr. Leboe:: I think all of us have been concerned by the fact that pensions lose their buying power over the years. People who are obliged to live on pensions or fixed incomes have suffered because of increases in the cost of living. I think it is most desirable there should be stability in the purchasing power of dollars derived from pensions or fixed incomes.
But I am not at all sure we should be trying to secure this result through the method set out in the bill before us, that is, by relating pensions to the price index. I believe some appropriate body might be set up to adjust pensions periodically as needed in accordance with the consumer price index, but I do not believe pensions should be tied automatically to the price index. It seems to me we are setting a dangerous precedent here.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre told us he had been advocating an extension of this system into many different fields. I believe we could easily reach a stage, if we pursued this line far enough, at which we would lose all responsibility and restraint in connection with maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar at an even level. We might reach the position where this type of indexing would extend so as to cover bonds, annuities and a whole field of activity. The labour unions might say, if this principle were established, that wages should be tied automatically to the consumer price index. I think this is a most dangerous precedent and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, where it will stop once we get started on this process. I think we should at this time be prepared to give serious consideration to the future in this connection.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked if the minister could give us an explanation as to why the pension index was chosen to escalate the old age security rather than, say, the earnings index as applies in the other



[Stage Direction]
portions of the Canada pension plan. Has the minister any explanation in this connection?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I really do not think I can add anything to what I said in connection with clause 20 of the Canada pension plan proper. Exactly the same argument as was put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was put forward on that particular clause. The government of Canada, in first attaching an index to pensions in pay is indeed taking a unique step in Canadian pensions. I believe this is the only pension plan in the 97-year history of this country that has been attached to an index. It was decided that once a person comes into pension-that is, once they have a pension in pay-the purchasing power of this pension should be sustained at the level it was when it went into pay; and thus the pension index has been established so that all pensions in pay will be adjusted by the changes in the cost of living index.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has pointed to the wages index which is used as an earnings index to adjust the amount of the average of his earnings on which a contribution is made over the years to calculate the pension which a person gets on retirement, and he has put forward the argument that this earnings index is the index that should also be used to adjust pensions in pay. Of course, in putting his argument forward he looks back at the period of the past 20 years when earnings increased at rates greatly in excess of increases in the cost of living and, he says this will give a higher amount to the pensions in pay. Certainly it would. But it would also be much more costly to the exchequer. Just as in the Canada pension plan, it was decided that the most the government could reasonably do in adjusting pensions in pay was to use the pension index, which is based on the cost of living index, as a means of guaranteeing that once a person is pensioned he will at least retain the purchasing power of the amount of the pension he got when he first was retired.
I really do not think I can say any more in addition to what I said when explaining the pension index and the earnings index back on clause 20.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, last Friday I believe the minister said that the present 3-3-4 tax would support the increases now proposed, including the increase by way of the consumer price index. Can the minister
Canada Pension Plan
say whether he has had any figures prepared as to what would be the situation with the old age security fund if the earnings index were used rather than the consumer price index?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman, we have not done this. We have just done it on the cost of living index. However, as my hon. friend knows, there might be quite a difference and it could result in an additional charge against the treasury. The calculations indicate that without an increase in old age security taxes we are able to offer to the pensioners of this country, or the older people of this country who will become pensioners, a flat rate pension of $75 per month payable at age 69 next year, and in five years at age 65, without increasing old age security taxes. Certainly the calculations do not leave a large margin; and in my opinion the amounts to be paid out could not be increased substantially without an increase in taxes.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I am
astounded by the admission just made by the minister. Two weeks ago we asked for an economic report on the old age security fund, and we have not received it. The minister told us on Friday, in general terms, that the 3-3-4 tax was the basis of the present proposals; but now he admits-or I am sure he cannot deny-that an earnings index would be a more equitable one. The minister now says they have not even had an estimate prepared of what might be expected if the earnings index was used. This was recommended by many members of the committee, namely that the earnings index be used rather than the consumer price index; but now the minister says they do not even know what this would do. This is the way things have been going.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I am astounded by what the hon. gentleman just said, namely that he wanted an economic report on the old age security fund. I would like him to define what he means by an economic report on the old age security fund. What I think he means is a financial report on old age security, and not an economic report at all. I have indicated to him that our calculations based on the provisions of part IV, and this is what I undertook to do, showed that the old age security fund would carry this through to 1970 and beyond that period-although of course when there is a projection with regard to revenues beyond 1970 it is a very subjective thing-without any increase in old age security taxes. I do not see that an eco-

Canada Pension Plan
nomic report on old age security would mean anything.


George Louis Chatterton: Perhaps I used the wrong term, Mr. Chairman. What we asked for-and I think the minister knows what we want-1 was the same type of report on the old age security fund as was made on the Canada pension plan; that is, the actuarial report as to what the expectations would be in the future and the economic report which would indicate the impact on the economy. As to the fund itself, it is the actuarial report which would be a forecast of what might happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is one other aspect of this clause about which I think something should be said, and one or two of my colleagues might have something to say in this connection as well. This is the clause that determines that the amount of the old age security pension is to remain at $75 a month. We are dealing with an amendment to clause 120, subclause 3A(1), thereof, which reads as follows:
The basic amount of the monthly pension that may be paid to any person is $75.
Everyone knows that there are many people in this country who feel that the time has come to increase the amount of this pension, and we feel-for reasons that I have given a good many times and therefore do not need to repeat-that it should be raised to $100 a month. We feel very strongly that the pleasure with which the Canada pension plan will be welcomed in this country once it is implemented, despite what some newspaper editorial writers are saying, is going to be dimmed by the fact that there has not been provided at the same time an increase in the pension of those who are now on old age security. Everyone knows that if it were possible under the rules of the house for a private member to move that the figure of $75 be changed to $100, that is precisely what I would be moving at this point. But everyone knows, also, that there is not any trick of the rules by which a private member could move such a motion at this stage of our proceedings. I have drafted the appropriate motion, Mr. Chairman; the only trouble is that I cannot put my name at the top of it. I will read the motion and then I will send it across.
The motion reads:
Moved by the Minister of-
-blank:
"That the amendment to clause 120 be amended by deleting the words seventy five dollars from subclause 3A (1) thereof, and by substituting therefor the words 'one hundred dollars' ".

I would like the messenger to take this over to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and she can decide which minister ought to move it. Perhaps she feels because she moved the original motion she should not move this one. The Minister of National Revenue has already moved an amendment so he cannot move this one, but I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs sitting, in his seat. He has been out of politics for a number of months and this is old home week for him. I am sure he would like nothing better than to move this substantial improvement in the benefits under the old age security in this country. I have another copy that I can send over to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, if I could move this amendment I would move it, but if I even suggested it to you as one knowing that it was not in order I would have to accept a rebuke from the Chair even for trying.
I suggest that it ought to be moved, and that if the appropriate minister would sign his name we could really do something which we ought to do for the older people of this country.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I can assure my hon. friend that nothing would make either myself or my colleagues on this side of the house happier than to be able to move an amendment such as the one he has proposed, while at the same time be able to say to the people of Canada that we are not going to have to increase old age security taxes. My hon. friend throughout his grandstanding was perfectly aware that an amendment such as this would cost the treasury of Canada $821 million next year. He knows that in order to raise that amount we would have to just about double the old age security tax in this country. Everyone on this side of the house is completely aware of the problems of old people, and have a great deal of sympathy for them, but we must at the same time have sympathy for the taxpayers, businessmen and individuals in this country who have to pay the bills.
It is therefore with great regret that we have to turn down the invitation of my hon. friend.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall that I intervened in this debate briefly on Friday night, at which time I suggested that old age pensioners be paid $100 per month, commencing January 1, 1966. The minister rose in his place and put forth the same views he has now expressed.

Mr. Chairman, this house and the people of this country should be made aware of the fact that the government and, I regret to say, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, turned down an amendment proposed by the Conservative party in the committee, which would have made it possible to pay $100 per month at age 65 without any increase in taxation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege. The members of the Progressive Conservative party moved no such amendment in the committee. They moved an entirely different proposition. It was I who moved this amendment and it was that party which voted against it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That may be so, Mr. Chairman, and I did not deny that on the first occasion I spoke. However, I repeat that the members of this party did move an amendment which would provide old age pensioners with $100 per month at age 65 as of January 1, 1966, by increasing the Canada pension to the extent of $25. Surely the minister should not now indicate to the house and to the people of this country that such an increase is impossible because the government has to act in a responsible way in so far as the taxpayers and businessmen are concerned. The proposition we put forward would not cost the taxpayers five cents in extra taxes.
The hon. minister asked me at that stage of our committee proceedings whether I would vote for increased taxation in order to pay $100 per month to old age pensioners at age 65. While I do not subscribe to his suggestion that there would be an increase in taxation as a result of the adoption of our proposal-I do not think all my colleagues on this side of the house would go along with me in this regard-I would vote for the increase in taxation which the minister now says would be caused by the implementation of that provision, because he has turned down the opportunity given to him by the proposal made by Conservative members of that committee.
Let me state again that the proposal put forward by the Progressive Conservative party was to grant $100 per month at age 65 without increased taxation, and I think that point must be made clear. It is all very well for the government to create the image with the electorate that it is doing everything possible, but surely they must examine the other side of the coin. This is like suggesting that the government accepts all the credit for
Canada Pension Plan
putting Mr. X in jail, but cannot accept any responsibility for letting him out.
I make these few remarks at this time, Mr. Chairman, so that the people of this country will understand that there was an alternative method of paying $100 per month to that of increasing taxes, as suggested by the minister. I supported that alternative at the time it was proposed in the committee and I am now prepared to support the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if someone on the other side of this house has the intestinal fortitude to move it as an amendment.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the statement made by the minister, in which he mentioned the $800 million odd it would cost to implement the proposal to pay $100 per month at age 65.
Surely the minister is aware that the additional purchasing power placed in the hands of individuals across this country as a result of the increase from $75 to $100 would create sufficient extra business in this country with resulting increases in taxes to offset the $800 million to which he has referred. I do not think the figure he used is a realistic one. As far as we are concerned, we do not accept seriously the claim made by the minister that this increase in benefits would cost $800 million. I believe that the increase would in effect allow the recipients in this country to take advantage of goods and services available, increasing business and employment, and in turn result in increased taxation, which would offset that cost.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, after the heartbreaking appeals made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, once again, thanks to his knowledge of parliamentary procedure, succeeded in putting on the record quite a number of requests on behalf of our older people-I hope nobody will think that they were made only for political reasons- I must say that I do not have the privilege to move an amendment, since that would entail additional expenses for the government; I will not move a subamendment either, but I am convinced that, in spite of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may think, it would not be doing too much for people who lived for several years in a climate of insecurity to change the figure of 100 to 125.

Canada Pension Plan
At this point, I feel it is my duty to point out to the house that our concern differs on at least two points.
Some apply to the study of this clause. Our concern is this. Will the standards set up on a $75 a month basis remain as such for a long time or is an increase possible depending on the price index. Others would prefer to see the increase related to the salary index. Others still are concerned with the tax increase which might follow. As the Minister of National Revenue said earlier, I would certainly prefer to give $100 rather than $75 but it would cost, according to his figures, $821 million extra to meet that payment of $100 a month.
The majority of people are concerned since as a safety measure these words have been added: "an adjustment on the basis of the price index." It is therefore recognized that this is a situation where economists and actuaries are not too sure where we are going.
The price index, the cost of living index or the salaries index do not necessarily comply with a request for price accounting or cost price accounting as concerns salaries.
I hope you are not under the impression that I want to play politics with this clause of the bill. Not too long ago it was claimed on television when bank notes and marks were bandied about that the monetary policies advocated by the Creditistes would constitute the worst danger of runaway inflation in this country.
I am wondering if most of those who talked about clause 120 this afternoon did not stress the danger of inflation, since it is deemed advisable to increase the basic amount of $75 in keeping with the price index.
Some would prefer the wage index basis. Others fear a general tax increase since part IV of the bill and not section IV-because I made a mistake about an hour ago by mentioning section IV instead of part IV and someone succeeded very well in getting around my question.
There are many who recognize that there is really a possibility of inflation under clause 120 as far as the present pension plan is concerned, since reference is made to a basic payment of $75 with a possible increase according to the cost of living index. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told us that we should adapt ourselves to the needs of the times. He mentioned that some people were in receipt of a basic pension before the existence of television therefore, those people did not have to

buy any t.v. sets at that time but now, one must face those new needs.
Reference could also have been made to the $46 billion production disclosed by the official statistics for 1963; a total production of $46 billion in Canada. When you consider the number of less than $2,000 salaries paid to small wage earners from whom Bill No. C-136 will precisely get a part of that income, I think we should be that much more concerned about the amount of the contribution, because no one was prepared to admit that it was a tax although we were given the privilege to call it a tax, if we wished to, but the minister would not say that it was a tax, he rather pretended that it was a contribution. What will be that contribution in 10 or 20 years from now?
Since inflationary matters are being discussed this afternoon and since there is a fear that the minimum of $75 will not be sufficient to enable old people to make a decent living, I think there should be more concern about what the contribution will be, that contribution which we were allowed to call a tax, even if no one, in government circles, will say it is a tax, although it is one, and mostly a tax on poverty. That part precisely deals with the minimum pension of $75, which is related to the whole tax situation. Now being related to the whole tax situation, it is not a tax on poverty such as the contribution about which there seems to be no concern as to what it will be in 10, 15 or 20 years.
I shall have an opportunity to quote figures concerning this contribution problem during the discussion on clause 1. While the actuaries anticipate that the minimum deduction of 1.8 per cent will be sufficient to accumulate funds up to $8 billion 10 or 20 year hence, I will prove the mathematical impossibility of these estimates and I shall prove that it will be necessary to increase the contributions of the small wage earners who already have hardly enough to live on.
This part of Bill No. C-136 does not worry them. They are not wondering what will be the contributions and what part of the salary will be withheld when 4 per cent of the salary of the employee and 4 per cent, being the employer's share, will have to be paid.
I wished to point out that it is not the monetary theories advocated by us for many years but the financial policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives that are responsible for this inflationary system.


Mr. Salisman:: Mr. Chairman, this clause as amended provides a pension of $75 a month. We in this party feel that it should be $100 a month and I should like to speak on this question. Let me take this opportunity, first of all, to express my general endorsation of the income related provisions of this plan. As it has been said in the house, I think this plan is of far reaching and historic importance. However, I think it is only half a program, and that it is necessary to complete the program by the provision of $100 a month at age 65.
Since this is my first opportunity of addressing the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I should like to take a moment before going into the other matters publicly to express my appreciation of her and her department for the excellent attention which have been given to the problems in my riding. I am sure that my constituents are very grateful for the efficient manner in which she has dealt with these problems.
Now, having said that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Max Saltsman: It does not take long to learn here. In the speech of the minister the other day she said that as the plan now stood it was both fair and practical. I submit that this plan, unless it provides $100 a month at age 65, for a large segment of the population of Canada will be neither fair nor practical. It will not be fair to the present generation of our elderly people. They could very well become the forgotten generation, while we are concerned with making plans for the distant future.
This is a generation which probably has worked harder than any other generation in the history of Canada will ever have to work. This is a generation which has survived two wars. I am trying not to get emotional about this, there is no point in that; I am merely pointing out that this is a generation which has gone through probably the worst economic conditions of recent times. This is a generation which was taxed to provide most of the social capital we now have in Canada. This is a generation that financed our present prosperity, that paid for our roads, hospitals and schools. It contributed to the financing of municipal services.
As someone who has recently come from a municipal council, I can state-and I am sure all hon. members here are aware of this- that there are many people who, after having saved for an entire lifetime to own a home of
Canada Pension Plan
their own, are now finding it almost impossible to meet the cost of maintaining that home. These people come to their local council and ask them to find some way of reducing the taxation on their homes so that they might continue to own something they have worked a lifetime to build. We all know that councils cannot do this sort of thing; they cannot reduce taxation for one person and not for another. Not only that, but they need this type of taxation in order to provide the services which are absolutely necessary today.
When I served on a council I was quite aware of this problem and I am still aware of it. The problem can be met only at this level; and this is why I am appealing to the government to endorse the suggestion that the pension be increased to $100 a month because this is the only way we can help the older people of the country. I think we have an obligation in this regard.
Another matter I want to raise is that I do not think this bill is being fair to the consciences of the young people of Canada. We hear a great deal about mortgaging our future, but I do not think it is the young people who are mortgaging their futures. It is the old people who have mortgaged their future for the sake of the young. I think that the young owe this generation something, and if we must have higher taxes, then let us have higher taxes to meet this cost. We have a deep and abiding obligation to the older people of this nation.
I also do not feel that the provisions of the bill are fair to the economy. In this regard I hope the Minister of National Revenue will excuse me if I seem presumptuous-I have that presumption which comes only to the younger members-but I should like to make a suggestion about how he might be able to find the magnificent amount of $820 million about which he talks so blithely. I think that unless we are prepared to find some way of putting money into the consumer sector of the economy when we are withdrawing almost a billion dollars a year from the Canada pension fund for capital investment, we might find ourselves in very serious difficulty. The economy is going to need consumer dollars. We are not going to get these consumer dollars by withdrawing almost a billion dollars a year for capital investment, worthwhile as capital and social investment may be. I feel it is equally necessary for the government to

Canada Pension Plan
recognize that consumption must be maintained. Unless we are prepared to assure the consumer more income and social justice, there will be nothing practical or fair about the Canada pension plan.
I have no doubt that there are other ways of doing it. There have been rumours that taxes will be cut. I say here today that if the government cuts taxes, if the government feels the economy of this nation is strong enough to cut taxes but does not give an increase in the old age pension, then the government will have a lot to answer for to the Canadian people. The refusal of the government to implement old age security at age 65 will indicate something else. It will indicate that the government has no confidence in its ability to achieve the growth rates outlined as necessary in the report of the economic council of Canada. The report indicates a number of things. It indicates that our national output must be up 45 per cent by 1970; that as many new jobs must be created in the next seven years as were created in the last 14 years; that unemployment must be down again to 3 per cent. We need a growth rate of 5.5 per cent of the gross national product every year until 1970. Employment will have to rise at an annual average rate of 3.1 per cent and productivity will have to be increased.
If the government meets these objectives, which I feel it must meet, there can be no excuse for saying that we cannot afford to pay $100 at age 65. I think it must meet these objectives. It must show its confidence that it will meet these objectives by giving $100 per month at age 65 to our people now. I do not believe there is anything that will establish that degree of confidence in this nation as will such a measure at this time. I feel these goals must be met, without question, if Canada is to reach its potential. A government, committed to such a growth pattern should not tell the people of Canada that $100 per month is not within the capabilities of this nation. The increased tax revenues resulting from this increased growth could easily handle this obligation to benefit our labouring people.
If this growth takes place, income taxes under the present rate provisions may be expected to more than double by 1970. This will be the greatest source of revenue of all and will make it possible, in my opinion, to finance the sort of thing about which we are talking. This infusion of additional money into the economy should go a long way toward stimulating the economy to the objective in 1970.

The Minister of National Revenue, when he talks about $820 million, uses a figure that boggles the imagination. However, when he uses that figure he does not indicate whether or not there are compensating savings if the old age pension is instituted at these rates.
I had intended to put a number of questions on the order paper, but since this debate has been proceeding so quickly I think I might ask these questions of the minister now. I should like to know how much money will be saved when the minister takes into consideration the moneys that are now being paid to people over 65, or who are 70 and who are in receipt of a pension from the disabled persons allowance. I should like to know whether or not administrative costs could be saved by having a universal old age pension. I believe the minister has answered this question, but I should like to know what will be saved in terms of old age assistance, now that I understand the additional taxes from the 3-3-4 formula will be sufficient to raise $278 million by 1970. In view of these increased revenues, no change in taxation will be needed in order to bring the pensionable age down to 65. I should like to know how much money would be saved if a worth-while pension were given at age 65? How much money would be saved from the unemployment insurance fund?
There are people collecting money from the unemployment insurance fund, who are registered with that fund, and who are not unemployed but who are unemployable. They are being financed out of the fund. The Gill commission report has indicated that the fund should be protected. When we are talking about money, I think we should recognize that the government is bearing the entire cost of the administration of that fund. It is subsidizing it to the tune of $60 million a year, and it is using the fund as a social insurance agency. This is an unemployment insurance fund, and the government should accept the recommendations of the Gill commission. It should put the fund on an insurance basis and should release some of that money for old age assistance, where it properly belongs.
There are other programs in which the government is presently involved with the provinces and with the municipalities. There is a hodge-podge of social service programs in this country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; the committee has been listening with great interest to the speech being made by the hon.

member. However, I have some doubt as to whether he is not now embarking upon a path that will lead him farther away from the question we should be considering, and which is limited to clause 120 of this bill. I would ask him to keep in mind that, according to the rules, he should limit himself to the subject matter before the committee which, at the moment, is clause 120 of this bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I speak to the point of order? May I draw attention to the fact that the whole discussion revolves around whether or not the pension should be raised to $100 per month. The Minister of National Revenue has pointed out to the committee that this would mean an increased cost of $820 million, and really asked the committee where he is to get it. The hon. member is now in the process of pointing out how this money can be procured, and how savings can be accomplished in order to carry out the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It seems to me that if the Minister of National Revenue is going to be allowed to oppose the suggestion of $100 per month on the ground it is going to cost a large sum of money, then any member of the committee is in order in discussing how this money can be raised, or saved by forgoing some other program.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam, I am afraid I cannot agree with the suggestion he is making now. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself recognized the amendment to which he referred would be out of order. If the amendment would be out of order, a debate on that amendment would be equally out of order. I allowed the hon. member for Waterloo South quite a bit of latitude. I do not intend to restrict him unduly, but I think it is the duty of the Chair to caution him that he has to keep in mind standing order 59(2).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely, the whole question before the committee is the amount of the pension, and whether or not it is adequate, whether or not it should be adjusted. The ministers have spoken on that subject; others should be allowed to do likewise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I should like to say that what we are talking about is whether or not the amount is adequate or inadequate. We are not discussing an amendment. We are dis-
Canada Pension Plan
cussing whether or not this amount is adequate. The hon. member is trying to prove it is inadequate and, second, pointing out that the minister's argument that money cannot be procured is fallacious.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no cause calling order. You are not going to push this through by yelling order.


Mr. Churchill:: On the point of order, I was following with intense interest the suggestion being made by the hon. member for Waterloo South, who was presenting a very good argument. It is not an amendment which is in front of us. It is just a suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that if the government were alive it would move an amendment along the lines he has suggested. The proposal before the committee is that there should be a higher pension, and the hon. member is suggesting ways and means by which it could be made available.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to address my remarks as pertinently as I can to the subject. I have a further number of questions I would like to direct to the Minister of National Revenue, and I feel this question of costs is very pertinent to the whole matter. That is the great argument involved. I do not think anyone would argue for one minute that there is a single person in this chamber who would be against increasing old age pensions. The core of the entire argument is the question of whether the nation can afford such a cost, and it is on that question I would like to speak.
I would like to ask the minister whether he has made a study to see what increases in revenues would accrue through the increased activity of such a sum of money being pumped into the economy? I would like to ask him whether he has made a study to see what stimulative effect this would have on taxes? I would like to ask him has he made a study to see to what extent unemployment would be reduced by such an infusion of consumer spending?
When he was speaking the other day the minister said there was a question of priorities. He pointed out that we have many problems in Canada-that we have problems in education that have to be met; that we have problems in the development of other forms of social capital; that we have problems of medical services that have to be met-and the minister felt these problems and priorities had to be taken into consideration. However,

Canada Pension Plan
I feel this is a priority of such a nature that it must be met first, and not only will the meeting of this priority take care of a social problem but it will also help the whole economy.
When the minister talks about priorities does he feel the $35 million loss suffered by the Post Office Department on second class mail is more important than paying old age pensions? I wonder whether the Minister of Industry feels that the $50 million he is giving to the automotive companies of Canada is far more important than money given to the old age pensioners of Canada. I understand he is doing this in the interests of employment, but I think more employment would accrue to the nation through old people getting money to spend.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If the hon. member would not mind my interrupting, he is one of the newest members here, and although this is not a maiden speech it is very nearly one- and an excellent one. Does he not remember that a few months before he ran for parliament the House of Commons raised old age pensions $10 a month at an expenditure of an extra $116 million per year? It is not fair to single out one $50 million sum and say nothing is being done when, in a sense, this government since coming to power has raised something like $250 million extra for pensions.


Max Saltsman: I recognize the merit of the statement made by the minister and I do not for one minute say nothing has been done; but I do say that not enough has been done, and not enough has been done in a courageous way. Has this country ever gone broke or suffered economically by giving money to old people? There has never been an instance in Canada when pensions were raised that the increase was not followed by a period of relative prosperity. No one has tied down increases in old age pensions to recessions in Canada. I would like to raise one more question, and then I will leave the restless troops to their voting.
We talk about national unity in this country. We use very grand phrases and everybody is in favour of national unity; yet over and over again we see areas in which the federal government is not prepared to move boldly and decisively and give leadership to the nation. The government has this opportunity now. It has the opportunity to recognize the gulf and the gaps that exist in income in Canada. It has an opportunity to do something about this at the national level,

and if the federal government will not act the provincial governments will have no alternative but to take over authority and responsibility.
The farmers in Canada are getting a less and less share of the national wealth as the years go by. Yes, we have done many things. We have tried many things to help the farmers in Canada, but this is one of the few areas in national policy where a pension at a certain age can go to every Canadian, whether he be a farmer or industrial worker. This is one area in which we can close the gap in earnings between the farmer and the industrial worker. We have the opportunity to do it and I think we should do it.
I would like to point out that the province of Quebec is getting 87 per cent of the average national income it might, whereas the province of Ontario is getting 117 per cent. If we talk about national unity, if we talk about one nation, if we talk about bringing people together, what better way of closing the economic gap than having the government provide these pensions? These pensions go to farmers, industrial workers, French Canadians, ethnic Canadians and English Canadians. They can go a long way to solving some of the problems we have today.
If we have a problem today in confederation, if there are arguments between the provinces and the federal government, I think to some extent we have brought these on ourselves. It is time we were aggressive and took the proper kind of steps to indicate to the provinces that we are willing to assist in overcoming these problems.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke before me in connection with the old age pension set at $100 a month, I should say that he was right in referring, particularly at the conclusion of his remarks, to the fact that, to the extent to which we would assist the older people in our country, these people would contribute not only to the economic stability, but also to the unity which is endangered here at the moment, precisely by using the credit at their disposal to improve our Canadian economy.

The party to my immediate right has urged the principle that old age pensions be raised to a minimum of $100 a month. I agree with that proposal put forward by the hon. mem-

ber for Winnipeg North Centre, but I think the hon. member is still far too modest in his demand. The minister has pointed out that to pay such a pension would cost $820 million. In my view $100 would certainly meet the needs of senior citizens to some extent, but it would be more realistic and more practical to increase it to $125.
I wish to explain briefly how we might raise this extra $25 for each senior citizen in our country. It was lately announced that the Canadian government had advanced $200 million interest free in order to support the pound sterling in the United Kingdom. This money came from the Bank of Canada. Why not guarantee $25 more for our old age pensioners by using the Bank of Canada in the same way as we guaranteed the pound sterling? Would this cause inflation? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. Neither would it increase taxation, though it would certainly increase the purchasing power in the hands of the people of this country.
The older generation is, at this moment, helping the younger citizens of our country; they have their interests at heart. Believe me, this extra money will not be saved, it will be put back into the economy; it will stimulate the economy and help close the gap between the purchasing power of our citizens and the production available to them. Let us provide not only the $100 a month suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Let us make available this extra $25 and finance it, not by going into the pockets of the taxpayers but by taking advantage of the presence of the Bank of Canada. It would be more practical and more realistic in accordance with today's needs to think in terms of $125. We all know that the cost of living is no less for senior citizens than it is for the young. Indeed, the cost of medical care is often greater for old people than it is for younger people. I think the hon. member for Mercier would be proud to announce that in addition to $100 old age pensioners were to be given $25 more, based on our capacity to produce, and guaranteed by the Bank of Canada. I urge the minister to consider this suggestion because it is one which will commend itself I believe not only to members of this committee but to everyone in the country.


Robert Norman Thompson: The proposal has been made to the government that old age pensions should be increased to $100 a month effective immediately, thus eliminating the need for clause 121 in this amendment to the Old Age Security Act.
Canada Pension Plan
The Minister of National Revenue has stated this proposal would cost more than $800 million a year and that it is not financially feasible. I would ask him whether as an alternative the government would not consider raising old age pensions at the rate of $5 per month per year to coincide with the reduction of the minimum age requirement one year at a time, until the old age pension had reached $100 a month. This would deal with the obvious gap which has been created by the bill now under consideration.


Mr. Pefers:: It was not my intention to speak on this clause until the Minister of National Revenue made the observations he did, telling the committee we could not afford the proposal for increased pension rates. Spokesmen for the Liberal party have always taken this line.
The minister gave us the figure of $800 million which, I take it, is the total cost involved in providing $100 at the age of 65, without taking into consideration the savings which would result from the elimination of the Old Age Assistance Act and a number of other sizeable pieces of legislation under which money is paid to people between the ages of 65 and 70. This is not an unusual attitude to take; the Liberals have been adopting it for a long time. I was interested to read a statement made in the house by the senior member of this party, the hon. member for Kootenay West, on March 30, 1950. Old age security measures were being discussed at that time and government spokesmen were putting forward the same arguments as they have been putting forward today. My hon. friend said:
These are several approaches to the question of old age security. In the main we find there are two plans put forward by members of the house and by people outside the house. The first is some scheme of compulsory contributions based on the insurance principle. The second is the payment of old age pensions from taxation based on ability to pay.
Then he went on to say he was in favour of the second of these approaches.
Members of the party to which I belong have always been of the opinion that legislation which provides benefits for the Canadian people needs to be paid for. We also believe that old age security is the responsibility of all the people and that if we are to pay higher old age pensions taxes may have to be raised. But have we not been dishonest, politically, with the old age pensioners for a number of years, now? I have run in four elections and one of the major planks in the

Canada Pension Plan
platform of every political party has always been an increase in old age pensions. We have heard Liberal party spokesmen saying in the past: We cannot give an increase; the economy of the nation will not stand it. We all remember the $6 which they said represented their limit. Well, we saw another political party raise that figure, and since then the Liberal party has raised it again. On all these occasions the money has been found.
There is one factor which in my opinion is wrong with the whole pension plan and with Liberal thinking on pensions in general. They have never been willing to tax across the board; they have been willing to tax only one segment of the population. They have never been willing to remove the $3,000 limit on the old age security tax. Perhaps the minister would tell me why persons earning more than $3,000 do not have to make a fair and reasonable contribution to the old age security system we now have. I was of the opinion that the government would need to reach a decision about revising the age of eligibility. If a general election should come, mark my words, the Liberal party will promise the old age pensioner an increase immediately after the next election, no matter whether it is held this year or next year. They will make those promises, and make them regardless of the position of the treasury. But they have given the undertaking now in a fair, reasonable and honest way to the Canadian public; they are going to use it again as an election issue.
I decided that I wanted to know from my constituents whether they were interested in reducing the age at which the old age pensioner would receive his pension, and also if they favoured increasing that old age pension, and I also added, "Even if this will cost more money and increase your taxes, are you in favour of reducing the age to 65 and increasing the amount of the old age pension?" I have received from my constituents, on a mailing list, what I consider to be a reasonable and fair sampling of opinion in my riding. I am quite happy to say on behalf of those people that 87 per cent of them said yes, they were in favour of even increasing taxes to provide an increase in the old age pension and a decrease in the age at which people would receive a pension. This means that only 13 per cent of the people in Timis-kaming are of the same opinion as the Minister of National Revenue, namely that this country cannot, will not and is not prepared

to raise taxes to support an increase in the old age pension and a decrease in the age.
The Prime Minister is in the chamber at the present time. I am sure he is not just here for fun, and certainly he is not here just to listen to me. I am quite sure he has been informed of the wish and aspirations of the member for Winnipeg North Centre that one of the ministers should consider moving the amendment that we, by the rules of this house, are not permitted to move. I would hope that the Prime Minister would discuss during the supper hour the possibilities of giving the committee the opportunity of making the decision as to whether they are willing to endorse the proposition that has been outlined by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I know there are many members of the Liberal party-I am sure this is true-who faced the problem long ago of deciding that the old age pensioners in this country are not the responsibility of their families but are the responsibility of the nation. I think the speech made by the hon. member for Waterloo South was an excellent one, and I believe that the proposals he made are ones that the government must consider; because I think it is entirely up to the people of Canada, and their elected representatives are the people who have to decide in regard to this question. They should have the opportunity to decide whether or not this is how we Canadians want to spend our money. I am sure there are few members in this house who would not be willing to go back to their ridings and say, "Yes, we have raised the old age pension and we have brought the age of retirement into line with the practices in industry and employment in this nation. We have decided to pay for it out of general revenues and the taxation of this nation, because we believe that the people who have made the contribution to this country that has been made by those who are now reaching retirement age are the responsibility of the economy of the country". We should all be pledged to raise the gross national product to an extent where it can carry in decency the old aged people of this nation.
The Minister of National Revenue has pointed out that this will cost $820 million. I think he will agree with me that this is not the actual cost to the Canadian public. I believe he will agree that there are two classes of old age pensioner. The hon. member for Kootenay West, when speaking on this subject in 1950, pointed out that there are two classes of old age pensioner; there are those



[Stage Direction]
who cannot afford to keep themselves in retirement, and there are those who can afford it. At that time he pointed out that those who could afford a retirement fund to provide for themselves amounted to probably less than 15 per cent of the retired public. But I think the minister will also agree that in regard to the other 85 per cent who will be drawing old age security, this money is not like other moneys paid in taxes; it is not like money you spend on national defence; it is not like money you spend in many, many other ways-but by putting it into the social security of our nation and the social capital of our nation the government gets this money back very rapidly. There have been some who have said this money probably only passes through five stages before it goes back to the federal treasury. This is money that has to be spent. It meets the needs of the economy; it meets the needs of a people, and for this reason it goes back very rapidly into the economy.
I think the minister could quite easily come back before the committee after supper and inform us that the amount is not $820 million but that the total cost in real expenditure might amount to $200 million. The minister shakes his head, but I am saying that the amount of $820 million that he speaks of is not the correct figure of the expenditures we are going to make. It is a figure that is exact in so far as it goes, but it is not the true picture of the cost to the Canadian public. It is a figure that can be arrived at for total cost, but cost in regard to social security is not actually a total cost but only a partial cost, because this makes up the fabric of our economy. Moneys that are eventually returned to the federal government in connection with social security are not a total cost.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to embark upon a long, detailed discussion of how money returns to the federal treasury and what becomes of it, but I believe the minister can legitimately say that this is not the amount it will cost the public. I am also sure that the 87 per cent of the people in my riding who are willing to make the necessary contribution to raise this pension to $100 are representative of the people across Canada, and that if a national poll were conducted it would produce figures very similar to those I have used.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before we call it six o'clock it is my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members that the following questions
Canada Pension Plan
are to be raised at ten o'clock this evening: First, the hon. member for Northwest Territories-northern affairs-provision to permit Eskimos to vote; the hon. member for Winnipeg North-administration of justice- Vancouver-conviction in absentia as habitual criminal; the hon. member for Marquette- national parks-Riding Mountain-policy respecting hay cutting and grazing.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: The committee has before it for consideration an amendment to clause 120 as proposed by the Minister of National Revenue.
Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments to discuss the proposal presented to us by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The hon. member's proposal is very interesting, but I for one cannot support it. Does the hon. member really think we can pile tax upon tax on the taxpayers of this country ad infinitum? The hon. member introduced this proposal during the January-February sittings of the special joint committee on the Canada pension plan, and he took some pains this evening to point out that his party voted for the proposal at that time. Perhaps he took more pains to point out that the rest of us did not vote for the proposal, and by doing so I suppose he is suggesting that we are not particularly concerned with the welfare of those individuals of this country who are to receive pensions. I am sure all parties, not just the one to which I belong, would deny that suggestion categorically. We are just as concerned with this group of individuals as his party is, the only difference being that we would attempt to look after them in a different way.
The party to which I belong took some pains at the sittings of the special joint committee to prepare what we thought were responsible and intelligent proposals embodying methods of obtaining larger pensions for pensioners. The proposal we made at that time was a more responsible proposal than that suggested by the hon. member, because the money required by our proposal was to come from the Canada pension plan. I am quite sure that the necessary money could have been found in that way.

Canada Pension Plan
Very large funds are being set up by the Canada pension plan. It is my view that a great deal of the money is being provided to assist provincial governments in socially acceptable works which they wish to carry out. As I have pointed out in respect of this subject, it is my feeling that the provincial governments can find this money in other ways, because they have experienced little or no difficulty so far in this regard. The hon. member has pointed out that we do not seem to be very concerned with the aged of this country. Perhaps it will be of interest to note that when in office the party to which I belong raised old age payments on two occasions. Last October this same party provided the lead which resulted in an increase in payments to $75.
During the sittings of the special committee members of the Progressive Conservative party made suggestions which would have obtained for all retired Canadians a pension of $100 per month. The specific suggestion to which I have referred embodied ways of carrying out increased pension payments in a much more responsible way than could be envisaged in the proposal put forward by the New Democratic party.
Perhaps at this time I may be allowed to report what we actually did suggest at those committee meetings, and this proposed amendment is to be found in the last volume of the proceedings and evidence of that committee, at page 2056, and reads as follows:
Therefore to correct these gross omissions and inequities the committee recommends that consideration be given to amending Bill C-136 to provide that:
(a)	all persons over age 70 receiving old age security benefits shall receive an additional uniform flat amount of not more than $25 a month to be paid from the Canada pension plan fund when the first benefit payments are made from the fund.
I need hardly state at this point, since these new suggestions have been made that we begin the pension payments at age 69 and then down to 68, 67, 66 until finally we reach 65, that our recommendations would now include the additional $25 per month during this whole age period.
Then paragraph (b) of that amendment is as follows:
(b)	all persons between 65 and 70 who meet a retirement test and who elect to draw the actuarially reduced old age security payment shall receive an additional uniform flat amount of not more than $25 a month to be paid from the Canada pension plan fund when the first benefit payments are made from the fund.

I think that supports the statement I have just made, that we obviously intended to include those who will now receive payments from age 65 and onwards. We also suggested how the money could be found to accomplish this purpose.
I am intrigued by the comment of the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that the increase from $75 to $100 per month would require an additional $800 million and some odd in the first year. I must confess that I find this figure difficult to reconcile with the information we received to the effect that the increase of $10 in the old age security last fall only cost $116 million. Perhaps I am mistaken in that regard, but that is my impression of the information we received.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the hon. member will allow me, I should give some explanation at this point. The proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that the additional $25 be paid from age 65 on, which will require much greater expenditure than an increase of $10 per month payable to those over age 70.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I thank the hon. minister for his explanation, but I think I should point out that the increase of $25 per month which we suggested, using the same calculation as was used in arriving at the $116 million in reference to the $10 per month increase, would only amount to $290 million. I am sure that the funds created by the Canada pension plan could easily carry that increase. I am sure we are all aware that there will be very large funds created by the Canada pension plan.
With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think I have emphasized the fact that the party to which I belong is just as concerned with that group of retiring individuals in this country as is any other party. This group has done its share not only during committee proceedings but during the proceedings of this house to indicate to the public that we are so concerned.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was a little concerned when the committee began its sitting at eight o'clock that we were going to be in a position of having to agree to the passage of this clause in its present form, because it appeared that there would be no one on the ministerial benches except the tight-fisted Minister of National Revenue who could possibly rise to the occasion to reply to some of the suggestions which have been

advanced. In fact, I was quite concerned earlier this afternoon when I felt sure in my own mind that our present Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of his long held former portfolio as minister of national health and welfare, was sitting on the edge of his seat to move the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. But 1 noticed how abruptly the Minister of National Revenue, in his hardhearted way, jumped to his feet to cut him off from that opportunity.
However, my hopes and anticipations have been rising steadily during the last few minutes because I notice that not only has the Secretary of State for External Affairs come back into the house but the Prime Minister has come into the house with a very amiable smile on his face, and I am sure that he has by now given consideration to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming just before six o'clock. I am sure we would all be very pleased and highly honoured if the Prime Minister himself would rise to put forward the proposal from the treasury benches which was suggested so eloquently earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment
carry?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, before this item carries I think it is important that we should take a little further look at it than we have today. The government seems determined not to increase beyond $75 a month the basic pension allowable under the pension plan. But there are more than only the bare essentials involved in the question whether it should be $75 or $100. After all, by virtue of its name of the Canada pension plan a certain impression has been created in the minds of the people of Canada, and as I look at the plan there are vast numbers who will benefit very little from the plan as presently constituted. From the questions about it coming to me through the mails at the present time I believe many people are wondering just what benefit the plan may be to them. I feel that at this time all we are extending to those who are employable and employed is the benefit of-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring to the hon. member's attention that we are not discussing the general principle of the bill at this time. Neither are we at the resolution stage, second reading or on clause 1. We are discussing clause 120, specifically an amendment to clause 120, which is part of part IV 20220-783
Canada Pension Plan
of the bill dealing with amendments to the Old Age Security Act. I would suggest to the hon. member that he restrict his consideration to this aspect of the bill.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, this is what I was getting down to in my introductory comments. I have the particular clause before me and I am well aware of what is before the committee at the present time.
I thought this afternoon that the hon. member for Waterloo South stated very clearly the choice which is before parliament at this time. I was a little surprised that the Minister of National Revenue indicated the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would cost $815 million. I think that when these other matters which were mentioned today are taken into consideration the actual cost to the treasury of this country would be much less than the $815 million suggested by the Minister of National Revenue.
I was interested to see this afternoon and again this evening a number of the members of cabinet who have not been in their places too often during this debate in the committee. As I look at them tonight I cannot help but feel that there is a division among the cabinet members on this particular matter. I hope that before the vote on this particular amendment is taken they may be able to resolve that division among themselves and come out in favour of the figure included in the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I have nothing further to say at this time, except that even at $100 as a basic pension we would not be paying too much to those receiving old age security.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, clause 121 reads, in part, as follows:
The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 3 thereof, the following section: "A. (1} The basic amount of the monthly flat-rate pension that may be paid to any person. ..is seventy five dollars.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, that provision of part IV of the bill before us is not doing justice to the Canadian people, to the people we are representing here in the House of Commons.
A few weeks ago when the Prime,Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced that the old age pension would be increased to $75 a month at 65 years without any means test in 1970, I stated then that such a pension would not be enough to permit our fellow citizens, those

Canada Pension Plan
we are representing in this house, to meet their obligations adequately.
Subsection 2 of section 3A states:
Where, either before or after the coming into force of this section, any pension has been authorized to be paid to a person, the amount of such pension shall be adjusted annually, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulation, so that the amount that may be paid to such person for a month in any year after 1967 is the product obtained by multiplying-
Then, you have to multiply. I continue:
(a)	the basic amount of such pension, by
(b)	the ratio that the pension index for that year bears to the pension index for the year 1967.
I think that even the most experienced lawyers in the house are lost in conjecture. Nobody understands. I see that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) seems to agree entirely with me. Lawyers themselves do not understand anything, not only about section 120, clause 3A, paragraphs (1) and (2), subparagraphs (a) and (b), but about the whole bill.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is a charming woman, does not understand anything either; she nods in assent and she is the one who is introducing this bill.
Mr. Chairman, why waste our time with clauses worded in this fashion, when nobody understands anything about them?
I said time and again that it was not the intention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada to grant a pension to those who had reached the age of 65, but to collect within 10 years billions of dollars from people who are presently working and then have our children pay for the pension we will receive when we reach the age of 65 or 70.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of clause 120 of Bill No. C-136 is not so much the establishment of a pension fund as the collection of new taxes for the government which today is administering our country. But this motive is hidden under the pretext that we are assisting people at the age of 65.
I claim that this clause, like the other clauses of Bill No. C-136, parts I, II, III or IV, constitute another mode of taxation which they do not want to call as such. However, under the pretence that a pension will be paid 40 years hence, funds are gathered to finance the deficit of the present government.
Furthermore, clause 120 provides that the pension index is the same as that stipulated in clause 20 of the Canada pension plan. Therefore, from clause 120, one must revert
[Mr. Caouette.l
to clause 20 to see what is the pension index mentioned therein. The pension index is figured for any year, as provided for in the said section.
As I said a while ago, lawyers cannot understand this. The government does not know what to do with its bill.
I see that the Minister of National Revenue finds this funny because he undoubtedly needs additional funds to administer his scheme.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare also is laughing.
However, Mr. Chairman, we are not at all ready to agree to a new tax levy which is being called old age pensions instead of additional tax. At that time we will not get our money back, we will be paid a meagre pension out of the money that will be collected from our own children.
I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has no children and probably will never have any. However, we have children and, 20 or 30 years from now we do not want them to have to pay us a pension that the minister is trying to get out of us today to make up in fact the federal government's deficit.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 121-Exception where applicant over 65 years when application received.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause No. 121 be amended to read as follows:
Section 4 of the said act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsection (1) thereof, the following subsection:
"(la) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a person who has applied to receive a pension attained the age of 65 years before the day on which the application was received, the approval of the application may be effective as of such earlier day, not before the later of
(a)	a day one year before the day on which the application was received, or
(b)	the day on which the applicant attained the age of 65 years,
as may be prescribed by regulation."
This clause is adapted from section 122 of part IV. It provides for the approval of an application for pension as of an earlier date than the date on which the application was received in those cases where there has been some delay in making application after the applicant has attained the age of 65 years.
It will be noted that section 122, which provides for the progressive reduction in age will govern the application of this section during the five transitional years that are provided.

This provision will permit the payment of a pension benefit where there has been some delay in making the application for benefit up to a period of one year. This is particularly helpful in the case of older persons who may find when obtaining evidence of age that they are older than they had realized.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to say a word on this clause. I am heartily in accord with the intent behind this provision in that it does make it possible for some elderly persons who have, by error or omission, neglected to file an application in time to receive old age security upon actually attaining the age required. I have many times had the experience of individuals who, for one reason or another, found that they were one year older than they thought they were. As a consequence, they missed out a year's old age security. 1 have known it, upon occasion, to be more than one year. However, I do not quarrel with the idea of making this provision retroactive one year. I am not prepared to say it should be two years. However, I do remember one particular instance in which there were three people from the same city in Canada who found out they had missed their old age security by two years. I can only say that this does fill a need in connection with this legislation and we are heartily in accord with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I too should like to say a word about this provision. We welcome this amendment to the Old Age Security Act which is provided by clause 121 of this bill. As the Minister of National Revenue has pointed out, the new clause 121 does precisely what the former clause 122 did, only it takes account of the new eligible age of 65. In my experience, which is no doubt similar to that of the hon. member for Perth, this will cover the person who discovers he is older than he thought he was and in such a case now suffers the loss of a year's pension.
Is clause 121 worded in such a way as to take care of people who qualify for the pension at 69, 68 or 67? Former clause 122 specified age 70, and this new clause specifies at age 65. If the bill goes through in its present form, what about a person in 1966 who could have qualified for the pension because he was 69 but did not know it at that time? My concern is that the clause as printed seems to refer so precisely to age 65.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member will remember that last summer when dealing with
Canada Pension Plan
youth allowances this was one of the things we introduced in that program. It was a new program and it was felt a lot of people would not know about it. It only covered a two year period and so we included a provision whereby people might collect allowances for a year back, no matter how late they applied.
This question has been raised a number of times in respect to old age security. Indeed I as minister have found it a difficult thing to deal with when people, through error, have not known about their age and have applied too late. Sometimes they have lost a month or two and the minister has had no discretion to do anything about it. When the director of old age security checked back through cases on file, he found most would be covered if in effect a year's grace were given so that anyone who had reached almost the age of 71, and through loss of birth records found he was a year older than he thought, would be able to collect back pension payments.
Accordingly, when the decision was made that one should be able to get the flat rate pension at 65, going down each year as provided in clause 122, it was conceded that the same right should be given to everyone. Many people might be out of the country and so would not hear of this new scheme, and we do not want Canadians to lose any part of these pensions simply because they have not heard of them. To placate the fears of my hon. friend, the clause is written so that persons whose birthday brings them to age 65, even if they go almost a year beyond that, will be able to apply and have the pension as of that date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My concern is with the interim period. I am concerned about the years during which the eligibility age is coming down a year at a time. This clause makes provision for those who have attained 65 without knowing it; but what about the person who, next year, attains 69 without knowing it? Does this clause cover such a situation, or is it covered by some regulation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As of the date they are entitled their rights crystallize, and for the next year, even though they do not know they are entitled, they will be able to collect back to a year before, to the time their rights crystallized.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to ask the minister a question.

Canada Pension Plan
Did not the minister receive a few moments ago, from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a draft amendment to the effect that pensions should be paid at age 65 without any test or discrimination whatever, immediately and not in 1970?
I am told that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is anxious to see the pension plan approved.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member referring to a discussion that took place in committee this afternoon concerning clause 120? The amendment he has in mind was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to clause 120 and not clause 121.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, you tell me that the amendment was moved when clause 120 was under consideration. Clause 121 reads as follows:
(la) Notwithstanding subsection (1). where a person who has applied to receive a pension attained the age of 70 years before the day on which the application was received,
I think that my remarks are in order, because I am now reading clause 121 which stipulates:
___the approval of the application may be effective as of such earlier day, not before the later of-
Now, which date is as of such earlier day, not before the later?
Imagine how this clause is likely to enlighten the Canadian people as a whole.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare burst out laughing on hearing this sentence from clause 121.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry but I must interrupt. I do not know to whom my friend was referring. I was not laughing. My parliamentary secretary asked to speak to me and I turned to speak to him but I was not laughing at anything my hon. friend or anyone else said.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should be listening to the member who has the floor, not to another minister from the cabinet who does not even know what he is talking about when he talks about this pension plan on any clause.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: I hear my hon. friend from Red Deer say order. He should have been told order in Ethiopia, when he was there a few weeks ago.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In reply to my hon. friend may I say that, much as he deserves it, my parliamentary secretary is not yet a member of the cabinet.


David Réal Caouette: No, it was not the parliamentary secretary. It was another minister, and a similar one to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is fairly complete. I understood that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-he is probably one of the few in his group to urge the passing of this pension plan-had moved an amendment, and you tell me that it was on clause 120. That amendment could be applied to clause 121 in order to ask the government to apply the pension plan or to provide for the old age pension without a means test at 65 years, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre requests so tenaciously.
His amendment has not yet been put to a vote, I believe, and is still valid at this time.
At any rate, I should like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to tell us whether it is true that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has sent her an amendment providing for the payment of a pension to any person of age 65 under this clause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman, I have to get rid of all waste paper at every meal break to leave room for the next.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think this is a good amendment. If I understand it correctly, the proposal means that should any person apply late, that is, after he is eligible, he would be entitled to retroactive payment for a period up to one year. This is true for the whole five years of the transitional period from 70 years down to 65 years. If it is finally established that an applicant could have been eligible for more than a year from the date of approval, however, he will only be paid on a retroactive basis in respect of one year. Is that correct?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is correct.


Mr. Thomas:: I have a question for the minister with regard to this proposed amendment. Does it apply to people who are now 70 years of age, or older? Will it apply as soon as this bill becomes effective? It has come to my knowledge that a certain individual for reasons known only to himself failed to make an application for old age

pension until a month ago, although he is now 80 years of age. Will this new provision take care of his case and can he recover a year's payments in arrears when this legislation is proclaimed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: From whatever date it becomes effective. The bill provides for regulations and under these regulations provision will be made that an individual-in this case he is 80 years of age, and he will be, say, 81 when the bill becomes effective- will be able to draw retroactive benefits in respect of one year. From time to time we are confronted by these late applications. It is not so often the man who is late in applying as it is the woman who is inclined to be ashamed of her age-a married woman, perhaps, who has not made it clear to her husband that she is entitled to a pension. The intention here is that every person shall be able to collect up to a year's pension retroactively, provided he or she is qualified to do so, and I am informed by the director of old age security that this provision will cover most of the cases where there has been difficulty or delay in providing proof of age.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: This will make no difference, I take it, to the present rule that it is the date of the application which counts, not the date upon which proof of age is produced. In other words, this will date back to the time at which the application is made, even though it may have been three or four months before age could be proved.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. I think many hon. members are not aware of the nature of the current provision. Suppose some one applies in July, after reaching age 70 in January and finds he cannot produce proof of age. Even though the provision of proof may take a year the pension will date back to the time at which the applicant actually qualified. Should an applicant have qualified before he applied-suppose he qualifies in January and applies in February-notwithstanding that it may be some months before he can produce proof of age, the pension would presently date back, not to the qualifying date but to the application date. This amendment will mean the pension does not date back to the date of application but can date back as far as a year before that date should the applicant be qualified.


Raymond Langlois: I have one question to ask concerning these qualifications and the possibility that a qualified person may forget to make an application or choose not to do so for various reasons, some of which the hon. lady
Canada Pension Plan
has mentioned. Is there not some method, by using electronic machines, of finding out ahead of time the dates upon which a person will become eligible for a pension? Civil servants working on the scheme would then be able to advise prospective applicants ahead of time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is possible, in the same way as we shall be starting this coming summer to warn parents of children who are reaching 16 about the youth allowances which continue through the ages of 17 and 18, provided the children go to school. However, we cannot rely completely on this because, as members will appreciate, people die and one cannot be sure that they will qualify for old age pension. Furthermore, we shall not necessarily have all the records in the first five year period. Records of birth, marriage and death are matters for provincial jurisdiction and though we have records covering the younger end of the scale-youth allowances and family allowances, for example-our records do not cover everyone who will reach the age of 65 in the earlier years. Thus there is no way by which we can automatically advise people who are approaching the time when they can draw a pension in these earlier years.
At the end of the five year period, of course, everyone in the country will know that they can get a pension at the age of 65. I might also point out that some people will be out of the country and that many will change their addresses; there is a high percentage of changes of address in this country. Many people will, no doubt, continue to apply for pensions through their members of parliament as at present.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 122-Commencement of pension to persons under seventy years.
Edgar John Benson: In connection with clause 122 I move, Mr. Chairman:
That the said act be further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 4 thereof, the following section:
"4A. Notwithstanding anything in this act, no pension may be paid to any person for or commencing in
(a)	any month before January, 1966 in which that person had not attained 70 years of age;
(b)	any month before January, 1967 in which that person had not attained 69 years of age;
(c)	any month before January, 1968 in which that person had not attained 68 years of age;
(d)	any month before January, 1969 in which that person had not atained 67 years of age; or

Canada Pension Plan
(e)	any month before January, 1970 in which that person had not atained 66 years of age".
This clause is adapted from clause 121 of part IV, which in that part dealt with the age-adjusted pension. The effect of this clause is to provide for the progressive reduction of the age of eligibility from 70 years to 65 years by 1970. For example, a person who in January, 1966, has attained the age of 69 years will be eligible for the full amount of the monthly pension, and so on successively to the year 1970 when all persons who have attained age 65 will become eligible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all aware of the significance and importance of clause 122. Indeed, as I stated earlier, I think it is a clause that the committee ought to defeat. I notice that those who might be persuaded to vote for it are here in good numbers. I hope that those who think the clause should be defeated get in here as well, before the vote on this clause is called. It will be no surprise to hon. members when I say that I spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out ways of presenting amendments to this bill that would achieve some of the changes that we in our party thought should be made. I made it clear on an earlier clause that I accept the rule that a private member cannot move an amendment that would directly involve the expenditure of moneys. In that case I drafted the amendment and offered it to the government. I am sorry that the government did not see fit to move it.
Another point concerning which I tried to find some way to draft an amendment was with respect to this proposal of the government that the paying of the pension at age 65 was to come about only by stages; in other words, that it would take five years to bring it into effect. When I looked at the draft of the earlier bill and when I thought of ways in which the government might prepare this amendment, I felt there was not any way in which a private member could move an amendment so that we could get a vote on the question, namely that the full pension should be paid at age 65, starting right now. I must extend my warmest thanks to the government, because the government itself has drafted the clauses in such a way that we do not need to move an amendment. All we need to do is be here in sufficient numbers to vote on this important clause.
If hon. members will take a look again at the bill they will see that in clause 119 as amended, which we have already passed, we

have declared that the old age security pension is to be paid to every person who has attained 65 years of age. There are certain other qualifications, but there is nothing in clause 119 that delays the implementation of that provision that the old age security pension be paid at age 65. However, the minister has pointed out that when one looks at clause 119 he has also to look at clause 122, because it does provide the qualification; but the qualification that is provided in clause 122 stands entirely on its own feet. The clause as a whole says that the provision already set out for the pension to be paid at age 65 is modified by this proposal that it be paid at age 69 in the year 1966, at age 68 in the year 1967, at 67 in the year 1968, at 66 in the year 1969, and that it shall be 1970 before it is paid at the age of 65. If we defeat clause 122 then the operative portion, so far as the eligible age is concerned, will be clause 119.
I hope, therefore, that those who feel the pension should come into effect right away will be here to vote against this clause.
I know that the Minister of National Revenue, and others for that matter, will no doubt, if this develops into a debate, again raise the question of cost. No one in this house is unaware of the fact that social benefits cost money. We are also aware of the fact that wealth is created socially, and we think it is proper that this wealth should get back to the people on a basis decided by parliament. But, Mr. Chairman, I feel I must again draw attention to something that has happened with respect to this question of taxation for the purposes of old age security. When the House of Commons, not last fall as the hon. member for Kindersley suggested, but the fall before last, in 1963, persuaded the government to raise the then old age security pension of $65 a month to $75 a month, the government said that it had to be matched by an increase in taxation. So the then 3 per cent tax on personal income for old age security was raised to 4 per cent. We were given the distinct understanding that this one percentage point increase was necessary to pay that $10. But, Mr. Chairman, when Bill No. C-136 was brought in, it had in it a proposal for an actuarially reduced old age security pension to be paid at ages below 70, working down to age 65. In fact, it included $51 a month in 1970 for those who would be 65 years of age. When we had this subject under discussion in the special joint committee we were told that the government had discovered it did not need to impose any additional taxation to pay $51 a month at

age 65, or $55.80 a month at age 66, $60.60 a month at age 67, and so on.
This was interesting to us, and we were given various explanations. But it was very-clear that the tax that was needed in 1963 to pay $10 a month apparently produced the money to pay these actuarially reduced pensions as well. Now we come along to a third stage. The government agrees, for reasons that we can all speculate about, that the full amount of the old age pension should be paid at these low ages and that we should not go in for these actuarially reduced arrangements. This we warmly welcome. But again the government says that no new taxation is necessary; we can pay for this out of the old age security taxes already being collected. We are reminded that in the meantime it has been imposed on building and construction materials so the tax is already there.
If we can go through these three stages without any additional taxation being required, why cannot we suggest that perhaps if the government sharpened its pencils a little more it would discover that it could go a stage further and pay this full $75 a month to people between 65 and 70, not on a delayed basis but by doing it immediately in the year 1966. Let me say again, as we have said before, that if taxation is necessary for this, we are prepared to support it. My colleague from Timiskaming said this afternoon that we think the ceiling of $3,000 on the old age security tax should be removed. That has been our position ever since this tax was brought into being; but the experience we have had is that the increase in the old age security tax in 1963 originally was to provide only $10 to those over 70. Then it provided an actuarially reduced pension down to age 65; now it is producing a full pension down to age 65 by 1970. This suggests to us that if there was a little sharpening of the government pencil it would And that it could go the whole way and pay $75 at age 65 immediately.
I say again, Mr. Chairman, that the reaching of this age 70 situation is a significant milestone in the history of social security, and even if we lose the fight I am now trying to wage, we have won a terrific battle in getting this down to age 65 four or five years from now.
But why should we ask people who will be 65 in 1966, or within one or two years of the adoption of this provision, to wait until later, considering the fact we have already agreed to this principle? We do not need to move any amendment because there
Canada Pension Plan
is no private members problem and no problem of procedure involved. All we need do to achieve the purpose I suggest is defeat clause 122 of the bill as amended. I hope that when the vote is called those who feel that pensions should be paid at age 65 immediately will vote accordingly.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, clause 122 is typical of the type of logic used by hon. members on the government side of this house. They suggest that individuals aged 65 are entitled to old age security benefits, but only if they become age 65 in 1970. In other words, those individuals who turn age 65 next year will not be entitled to these benefits because they will have become 65 years of age too soon. I suggest that is typical of the logic used by hon. members of the government party. The same type of argument has been applied to other provisions of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask for some order on the Liberal benches?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


George Louis Chatterton: I realize that hon. members on that side of the house do not understand this plan, or do not wish to understand it, but the least they could do is remain quiet so that other members of this house who have something to say are able to do so in conditions of relative order and quietness.
The original clause 121 of part IV of the bill evidenced this same type of illogical argument. Under the original provisions actuarially reduced old age security was envisaged. Under these provisions an individual could accept an old age security pension at age 65, but at an actuarially reduced amount of $51. Many hon. members during our committee proceedings pointed out in respect of this provision that it was illogical, because individuals reaching age 65 who were in need would accept the $51 per month and would be stuck with that amount for the rest of their lives. Apparently the government listened to those arguments at that time. Unfortunately the amendment now proposed by the government was not submitted to that committee. If it had been, perhaps the same complaints might have changed the government's mind again.
By what earthly reason should a person who reaches age 65 in 1970 be in greater need of old age security than a person who reaches 65 in 1966? By what remote argument of logic can the government justify such a proposition? How could anyone who understands the needs of elderly people justify a provision such as this?

Canada Pension Plan
I realize that when an instant benefit program is introduced, where everyone will receive certain benefits as of the day of inception, certain people will ask why the provisions were not adopted yesterday. However, when the government says in advance, and this is clearly spelled out in clause 122 of this bill as amended, that individuals who reach age 65 next year will not receive any benefits, but those who reach age 65 in 1970 will receive $75 a month, surely this is illogical and there will be a good reason for complaint. Furthermore, some of the individuals who will receive benefits at age 65 in 1970 will at the same time receive benefits from the Canada pension plan. It may be true that these benefits will not be great, but these people will be receiving something. On the other hand, individuals who attain the age of 65 in 1966 will not receive one penny from the Canada pension plan. I suggest that is one more inane feature of this proposal. I cannot understand the argument of the government in support of such a proposal as this.
If we provide an instant benefit as of this year some individuals will ask why these benefits were not provided earlier. In spite of that obvious fact this government is giving notice that it will provide old age security benefits to individuals who are 65 in 1970, but not to those who reach 65 before then. What more illogical argument could be presented by any government, particularly to a citizen of this country who at 65 in 1966 asks why he is not entitled to that which will be available to a citizen who reaches 65 in 1970? I am shocked by the government in its use of an argument such as this. I have never heard any more illogical explanation given in respect of any proposal.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, all members of this house, including those on the government side, who believe that if individuals who reach age 65 in 1970 are entitled to old age security pensions, then individuals who reach 65 in 1966 are also entitled to old age security pensions, should vote to defeat this clause as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) sitting on the government side of the house. That hon. member, as all other members on every side, is interested apparently in the problems of people who are 65 years of age and over. That hon. member should stand in his place and ask the government to remove the whip from their backs and allow hon. members to vote as their consciences dictate. As far as I am aware, there will be some members on this side who will

object to the suggestion that we increase these benefits, because there will be an attendant increase in taxes. I am sure they will vote according to their consciences. I am sure that others will agree with me and will vote in favour of-


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Walter Groos: I have been invited by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich to comment on his suggestion. In return I should like to ask that hon. member whether he made any recommendation in respect of a pension plan of any sort from the government side of this house regarding pensions at age 65 or any other age.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, let me remind the hon. member that before he became a candidate for the Liberal party he was a card carrying Conservative.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think it would be just as well if we were to confine our remarks to a consideration of clause 122 as amended, which is now before this committee.


George Louis Chatterton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I might say that I would not have strayed from the consideration of the clause had it not been for the hon. member's intervention.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege. I should like to repeat my question to the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege. Go back to sleep.


David Walter Groos: The hon. member interrupted me, Mr. Chairman. I asked him whether he is on record anywhere, as a member of the government party, recommending anything-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Once more I must ask the committee to confine itself to a discussion of clause 122.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the chance to give an answer to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.). Apparently the hon. member has a very short memory, because I distinctly recall that not many years ago there was a question about "six

Canada Pension Plan
bucks"; but that has apparently escaped his attention. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that before clause 122, or part IV, or the whole of Bill No. C-136 is passed the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) and other hon. members on the other side of the house who feel that something should be done for these people who are in need will stand up and express their opinions as their consciences guide them, and not vote as their whip tells them to vote.
Clause 122 provides us, as the previous hon. member said, with a perfect vehicle to express to the government this illogical and completely incomprehensible provision whereby the government says what they said under the Canada pension plan. They said under the Canada pension plan that those who are in need now need no consideration; it is only those who will be in need at some future time from now who will benefit. The same argument applies in this case. The government says that those who are in need in 1966 deserve no consideration; only those who will be in need in 1970 receive consideration.
This, Mr. Chairman, is typical of the legislation; it is ill-conceived and ill-considered. It has not been thought out. If this kind of matter had been submitted to the joint committee and subjected to scrutiny, tested by the evidence of knowledgeable people, it might have been pointed out to the government that this is a weakness, and the government might have relented and changed the clause, as the previous clause 121 was changed. But now they have made so many mistakes and retracted so often that they cannot possibly retract again. Therefore in spite of the feelings of the members of the government opposite, hon. members know that the whip is over them and that they must vote for this clause as it presently stands, which is why they are all here tonight.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, clause 122 is a true picture of what the Prime Minister was telling us some ten days ago here, in this house, when he stated that by 1970 a person aged 65 or over would be getting, without a means test, a pension of $75 a month.
I believe that, a few hours ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sent the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of National Revenue a draft amendment suggesting-because he himself could not move it-an additional expenditure, in this case a pension of $100 a month upon reaching the age of 65 and that, not in 1970, but right now in 1965.
There we would be inclined to give the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre our strong support as long as the pension he is suggesting is not taken out of the pockets of Canadians whose present annual income is over $5,000, $7,000 or $10,000.
We are witnessing a strange thing in the house tonight. Both the party in office and the Conservative party in opposition are stubbornly fighting each other, calling each other this and that, from Vancouver to Halifax, because some contend that the government which was defeated in 1963 would have done a better job than the present one. And yet, the Conservatives were not doing much better with regard to the abovementioned pension plan. With regard to clause 122, the Liberals are doing exactly the same thing. Nothing has changed.
I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance who is in his seat right now, as well as the Prime Minister of Canada should not say that Canadians will get a pension of $75 a month in 1970 but a pension of $75 now, with a possible increase to $100 a month as soon as possible, because under the present living conditions in Canada, our senior citizens are entitled to a better treatment. The Prime Minister is aware of the situation because not so long ago I met people from his riding of Algoma East, and I can assure him that they have much admiration for him but would have much more if he asked the government of which he is the leader to decree-


An hon. Member:: 


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) ask for $250 a month. I understand that the hon. member would be for the passing of such legislation, but because the government does not want to introduce it, the hon. member would have to vote against it. That is the position of the French Canadians in the Liberal government. They talk one way and vote differently. Mr. Chairman, in the riding of the Prime Minister, people admire him as leader of a group; I also admire the Prime Minister of Canada. However, I do not want the Prime Minister to be the slave of some group but to go forward and improve the living conditions of pensioners, the old people, the senior citizens of our country.
Those people when they reach 65 can no longer find jobs. The right hon. Prime Minister should go ahead, right now in 1965, and

Canada Pension Plan
give them the pension to which they are entitled in 1965 instead of 1970.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will vote in support of the right hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Secretary of State, everybody, including Real Caouette, will support the right hon. Prime Minister for this pension plan will pay out immediately an amount of $75 at age 65.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, we in this party are very pleased with the amended clause 119 which we passed a few minutes ago. As has already been explained by hon. members who took part in the debate on the amendment, we should like to give effect to the provisions in clause 119 without downgrading them somewhat by passing the proposed amendment to clause 122. Therefore without going into any of the details or repeating any of the reasons which have already been given, we think a major step forward would be made if we rejected this amendment, which does in fact take something away from clause 119.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a very brief question, and I hope to receive an answer. We tried to find out what would be the nature of the new agreements concluded during recent meetings between officials of the province of Quebec, which will have its own pension plan, and the federal authorities.
This is my brief question. After those meetings and future meetings, after Bill No. C-136 is passed, can we expect that clause 122 of the bill will remove what we had, what was applied for many years under the Old Age Assistance Act? Will that be removed automatically, or will this clause result in the removal of what was included in the preceding agreements under the Old Age Assistance Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to make a few remarks further to express my views and particularly for the information of the right hon. Prime Minister who was not present when I spoke before the dinner adjournment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond Langlois: -when I explained my views shortly before six o'clock during a discussion concerning the granting of a pension at the age of 65.
The Minister of National Revenue inferred or plainly said that this would cost $831 million and advanced various arguments to show that the cost would be too high.
Now, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, when I want information from backbenchers on the other side of the house, I shall ask them questions, but at this time I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: We have nothing to tell
you.


Raymond Langlois: When I hear the chit-chat of the backbenchers, I realize that all they can do is to follow the leader and vote as they are directed by their whip.
Now, if I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, it is for the purpose of assisting the Minister of Finance who is having serious difficulties at this time to find the funds required to pay a $75 pension immediately. Here is my question. Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether he could not apply to Canadians the same treatment-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Raymond Langlois: Someone in the group to our right takes pleasure in yelling-


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Raymond Langlois: -takes pleasure in yelling "order" and no one could say that member is a Creditiste.
Now, to come back to my point, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister the following question. Could he tell the house whether it would be possible to apply the policy he advocated to stabilize the pound in England, that is $200 million without interest-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member will recognize, I am sure, that his present comments and suggestions are far beyond the scope of clause 122 which is now before the committee.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that we are now considering paragraph 4(a) and all the other subclauses, that is a,

b, c, d and e, of clause 122. At present, some people have reached the required age to receive the pension provided under this plan, but we are told that this cannot be done for lack of money. But I can tell the Prime Minister where to find the money-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Raymond Langlois: -and that is where he found the $200 million interest free loan, to England. Would it not be possible to use the Bank of Canada to pay an immediate pension to the aged-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member is out of order. Is the committee ready to vote on the amendment?
tText]
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment? Order, please; I would ask that no more members come into the chamber from this moment.
Amendment (Mr. Benson) agreed to: Yeas, 86; nays, 51.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was against the amendment and I am also against the clause as amended. Perhaps there are some other members who would like to vote.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?
Clause as amended agreed to: Yeas, 87; nays, 52.
On clause 123.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would ask my hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue to move the amendment to clause 123 as follows:
123.	(1) All that portion of subsection (1) of
section 5 of the said act preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Suspension of pension.
"5. (1) Where a pensioner, having absented himself from Canada-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we have order in the committee? There are shouts from all sides of the chamber which cannot be condoned. The minister has the floor and should not be interrupted.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -either before or after becoming a pensioner, has remained out of Canada after becoming a pensioner for six consecutive months, exclusive of the month in which he left Canada, payment of his pension for any period he continues to be 20220-7844
Canada Pension Plan
absent from Canada after those six months shall be suspended, but
(2) Subsection (2) of section 5 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: Idem.
"(2) Where a pensioner, either before or after becoming a pensioner, has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding ninety days, payment of his pension for any period he continues to be imprisoned shall be suspended, but may be resumed upon his release from imprisonment."
This provision was not contained in part IV of the bill and is new. The amendment to subsection (1) of section 5 of the Old Age Security Act is now required because of the provision that a person who has absented himself from Canada-


Lucien Lamoureux: Could we have order
please?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -may now be granted pension on attaining age 65 years if absent from Canada if he resided in Canada for 40 years since attaining age 18. The provision therefore recognizes absences from Canada either before or after the person became a pensioner and will permit of payment to that person when the provision becomes applicable.
The amendment to subsection (2) of section 5 is necessary to overcome a slight anomaly in the present provision, and also for administrative reasons extends the period during which a pension may be paid to a person who is serving a term of imprisonment.
The anomaly relates to the fact that the present section only refers to a pensioner and does not cover the case of a person who may have been sentenced before becoming a pensioner. The change now makes it immaterial whether the person was convicted before or after becoming a pensioner.
The present limitation on the payment of pension for periods in excess of 30 days has given rise to certain administrative difficulties, as well as to cases of hardship where individuals leaving jail without any assets have had to apply for public assistance. It is felt that the amendment will go a long way to meeting such cases because experience has shown that sentences in the case of such persons are not as a rule for serious crime and are likely to be for a period of 90 days or less.


Edgar John Benson: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not want to comment at length on this clause. I do not quite understand the reason why it would be more

Canada Pension Plan
administratively feasible to handle this with 90 days instead of 30 days, but I do understand the hardship angle and I do not quarrel with that particular provision. Subclause 5(1) (b) at present states that the payment may be continued for any period he remains out of Canada after those six months if he had resided in Canada for 25 years after he had reached 21 years of age. Is this part being deleted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What it says in the right hand part of the page is not included in the balance of the new clause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If my hon. friend will read the printed amendments he will see it is only that portion of subsection (1) of section 5 preceding paragraph (a) which is being repealed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, paragraphs (a) and (b) remain in the amended act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I merely wish to say a word of welcome to the first part of this clause. Obviously it is a consequential amendment arising from our desire to make it unnecessary for certain people to come back to Canada for that last year. I gather that if such people, as part of their 40 years after age 18, spend 25 of them subsequent to age 21 in Canada, they can draw their pension without coming back to Canada every six months. This is a sensible provision and we support it.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question to ask in order to have a few points clarified.
Clause 5 (2) provides that:
Where a pensioner, either before or after becoming a pensioner, is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 90 days, payment of his pension during the term of his imprisonment shall be suspended, but may be resumed upon his release.
I should like to know what would happen in the case of a person held in custody for more than six months but where sentence has not been passed, as was the case with Lucien Rivard who escaped before receiving his sentence. Had he been entitled to a pension, would he have lost automatically the said pension for having been in custody for six months, before being sentenced, now that we do not know where he is?
Under such circumstances, having been in custody for more than six months, would his

pension be automatically cancelled under clause 123?
[Text}


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I know my hon. friend will be happy to know that in such unique circumstances the individual who is incarcerated and not convicted of any offence would not be deprived of his pension. Indeed, it may be very helpful if he took a vacation, as in this particular case if he then applied we might know where to send it to him.
It is fairly common for individuals to be sentenced for an offence in the county court and imprisoned in a county jail to serve a sentence of three months or less. In such cases very often the regional offices are not informed until some time after the individual has moved back into society. If there were one month's suspension the cheque might be forwarded, taken to the jail and cashed, and then it is very difficult to catch up later. But where there can be a three month suspension this will give us an opportunity to catch up, since it is not considered in the public interest that someone who is incarcerated after conviction and is, as it were, a guest of the public, should in addition be receiving an old age pension from the public purse.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 124.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 124 be amended to read as follows:
124. Paragraph (f) of section 6 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefore:
" (f) providing for the making of an application by and the payment of a pension to any person or agency on behalf of any other person or pensioner where it is established in such manner and by such evidence as may be prescribed by the regulations that such other person or pensioner is by reason of infirmity, illness, insanity or other cause incapable of managing his own affairs, and prescribing the manner in which a pension authorized to be paid to any such person or agency on behalf of a pensioner shall be administered and extended for the benefit of the pensioner and accounted for."
This is the same as clause 123 of part IV. It provides more specifically for the administration of pensions, including matters of accounting, where a pension is paid to some person or agency on behalf of a pensioner who by reason of mental or physical infirmity or other disability is not able to manage his affairs. It is really just a change of numbering.


Gérard Perron: I have a few questions to ask because last week the Quebec minister of family and welfare stated that the administration of the old age assistance and social assistance act legislation would be entirely revised.
It is well known that at present there are in Quebec agencies which determine these parts of the funds which are provided by the government and by the federation des oeuvres de charite publique. Such agencies are affiliated with the social welfare agencies which come directly under the Quebec department of family and welfare.
Last Thursday, the Quebec minister of family and welfare announced that a completely new structure would be provided for that administration. However, he did not say exactly what would be included in the resolution which will probably be introduced in the provincial legislature.
We would like to know whether persons unable to determine themselves to what they are entitled under the Quebec social assistance act will also be subject to this part of the law which says that agencies will be able to act on behalf of any person who-
-by reason of infirmity, illness, insanity or other cause is incapable of managing his own affairs, and prescribing the manner in which any pension authorized to be paid to any such person or agency on behalf of a pensioner shall be administered and expended for the benefit of the pensioner and accounted for.
A while ago I asked a question in order to know whether the allocation of the social security and old age assistance pension benefits incorporated in Bill No. C-136 would mean the joint non-participation of the Quebec government and the federal government in the payment of some pensions, in case of disability or infirmity, through the agencies which, in the province of Quebec, are recognized as agencies capable of administering on behalf of some pensioners these amounts of money and which very often, truth to tell, are very badly administered? I heard, this very week end, at least three families of the same parish in my riding complaining about it.
If the provisions of this clause also affect the portion paid by the federal government to the provincial government, under the Old Age Assistance Act, because of the fact that an agency will be able to administer the amount of the benefits which will be due under Bill No. C-136 in the province of Quebec, I would like to know clearly whether the agencies which exist already in the prov-
Canada Pension Plan
ince of Quebec will be taken into account and whether, at the talks the minister mentioned on the occasion of the meetings which took place one or two months ago with the authorities of the province of Quebec, the problem of the agencies of the province which already administer the pensions of persons considered unable to administer them themselves will also be discussed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is provision in section 91 of the Old Age Security Act for the governor in council to make certain regulations. One of them provides for the payment of benefits to a person or an agency on behalf of anyone who is incapacitated. Clause 123 was intended to be the corollary of those requirements. The requirements respecting the incapacity of a pensioner under the Old Age Security Act are subsections (1), (2) and (3) of regulation 13. In these instances, where the director has stated that a pensioner by reason of infirmity, illness, insanity or other cause is incapable of managing his own affairs he may direct that the pension be paid to an agency or an individual on his behalf. There is also a requirement that the agency or individual receiving the money has to account for it in a form which the director may indicate.
Normally, the authorization of an agency or body capable of acting for someone who is incapacitated in these circumstances is a matter of provincial law. Lawyers will be familiar with the term "public trustee". I think all the provinces have made arrangements in this respect though I am not certain which officers act in all cases. But this is a matter for the provincial governments-it is for them to say which individual, commercial or state agencies shall be accepted.
The situation may arise where a monthly pension cheque is the only asset of someone who has to become a patient at a mental hospital. It may be that a daughter or other relative has had to look after this aged person for some time, incurring doctors' and other bills. She may be able to show by affidavit or otherwise that these debts were incurred on the patient's behalf, and the cheque may then be sent to reimburse her. In each case it is a matter of who is qualified under the provincial law to act instead of and for the benefit of the person who is incapacitated.


Gérard Perron: I should like to ask the minister a second question.

Canada Pension Plan
Could she tell us if following the recent talks between officials of her department and the provincial authorities it has been decided to eliminate some of those agencies in Quebec, against which numerous complaints have been lodged and which have become real political dens?
I got the impression, from the statement made by the minister, Mr. Lafrance, last week, that they would end up by taking over full responsibility for handling the funds now being distributed under the Old Age Assistance Act and the social assistance provincial legislation. I should like to know whether we can expect the Quebec government to take the responsibility of distributing those sums, a task which it was deemed necessary in the past to assign to agencies which, in many cases have been guilty of discrimination.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, there have not been any such discussions. Such agencies are the responsibility of the provincial government and are not our business at all.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me honestly and sincerely whether the federal government is contributing now to social assistance in the province of Quebec?
Could the minister answer my question immediately?
Could she also tell me, in the event the federal government would be granting such assistance, to what extent it is being given?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not think it had anything to do with the old age security situation. The hon. member is dealing with old age assistance but I think he must know that the old age assistance program is a shared cost program toward which the provincial governments and the federal government each pay 50 per cent. It has nothing to do with this clause on old age security.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that section 123 provides the following:
.-providing for the making of an application by any person or agency on behalf of any other person or pensioner-
There is no question here of old age pension.


An hon. Member:: Yes.
fMr. Perron.]


David Réal Caouette: But not only that-
-as well as the payment of a pension to any such person or agency-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I should like to refer to the point of order which was raised by the minister a moment ago.

We are considering at this time-and I take the liberty of bringing it to the hon. member's attention-the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, and clause 124 ought clearly to be considered in this context, namely within part IV, and any reference to the pension plan while considering clause 124 or any other pension paid under the Old Age Security Act, goes beyond the scope of that clause.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your learned suggestion.
You are reminding me that we are dealing in fact with part IV of the legislation concerning the old age pension; however the fact remains that section 6, subsection (f) of the said act has been repealed and replaced by the following:
-providing for the making of an application by and the payment of a pension to any person or agency on behalf of any other person or pensioner where it is established in such manner and by such evidence as may be prescribed by the regulations that such other person or pensioner is by reason of infirmity, illness, insanity or other cause incapable of managing his own affairs, and prescribing the manner in which a pension authorized to be paid to any such person or agency on behalf of a pensioner shall be administered and extended for the benefit of the pensioner and accounted for.
At this stage, I would like to know with regard to people suffering from mental or physical infirmity or other disability what proportion is paid annually in the province of Quebec by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare? Is it 50 or 60 per cent? What proportion is paid in the province of Quebec and what proportion is paid by the province of Quebec under the same circumstances?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: All the payments under this program with regard to old age security are made 100 per cent by the federal government. There is no sharing on this program. It is old age assistance which is shared, which is a completely different thing, and has a means test. It is an assistance program for the indigent. With regard to this program

with which we are dealing, the only thing before the committee now is a pension which is now payable at age 70 and which by virtue of this legislation will be payable in succeeding years to those aged 65.


David Réal Caouette: Actually, Mr. Chairman,
would the minister agree that there are means tests for all those people?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, none whatsoever. This is all the flat rate $75 a month now payable at age 70.


David Réal Caouette: At age 70?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. lady if there is any indication that the government anticipates extending, or have even thought about extending, old age assistance to age 60. This is an important question under the present situation, because we are diminishing the age of eligibility for old age pensions down to 65. Since we are dealing with clause 124 of the bill I might say to the government, and not facetiously, because I think the hon. lady will know quite well that in the past few months, and as a matter of fact maybe over the last year, I have been rather adamant and vehement in my views about bringing the position of the farmer in eastern Canada to the attention of the government-and I reiterate that I do not want to appear facetious-that if the government does not move in the field of eastern agriculture to lift up the incomes for farmers the minister may have a tremendous number of people on her hands under this section of the bill, because the government might drive a lot of people insane.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Did the minister say
"Order"?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, this is not so-


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair is saying "Order". I am suggesting to the hon. member who has the floor now that we are dealing with amendments to the Old Age Security Act, and nothing else. The hon. member is not dealing with clause 124 at the moment.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I have before me a letter written to me by a constituent of mine. It was written in the last couple of days. This
Canada Pension Plan
man is from the riding of Grey-Bruce, and his address is R.R. 7, Markdale, Ontario. Listen to this. It is extremely important in the present circumstances.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Is the hon. member now addressing the Chair on a question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: I will hear the question of privilege.


Eric Alfred Winkler: My question of privilege is in regard to clause 124 of part IV of the bill that we are considering. I relate this to the remarks I made previous to my question. I do not wish to read all this letter, but I want to put some points in this letter on the record in connection with the section of the act that we are now considering. It is an extremely formal letter, written by a Mr. Don Russell, with whom I must say I am not extremely well acquainted; but he says;
Dear Sir;
I am-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Why do you say "Order"?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly continue reading the letter.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If Your Honour will watch the hon. member, who is not in his seat, at the other end of the chamber, I will be pleased to continue. The letter says:
Dear Sir;
I am sending you this letter as a farmer and a member of your constituency, in the hope that I may impress upon you the urgent need for something substantial being applied to the government's agricultural policy.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The state of economics, and prices being received by a vast majority of farmers-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -has continued declining to a point where they are at a dangerous level, and cannot be tolerated much longer.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the hon. member wants to co-operate with the Chair and I am sure, also, that he cannot reasonably suggest that there is a question of privilege in reading the letter to which he is now referring. I am convinced that he
12384	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion knows just as well as I do that we are now dealing with clause 124, part IV, of this bill, which has reference to amendments to the Old Age Security Act, and this letter is entirely irrelevant to that clause.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, it may appear to you to be entirely irrelevant to clause 124. It may be that I might be better advised to defer my remarks in regard to this letter until we return to clause 1 of the bill, when I can bring this matter to the attention of the committee. In the meantime, I do not want the hon. lady to think that this is an acceptable situation across the land, because I think the present government is driving many of our farmers crazy, and I do not want them all to be eligible under this clause of the bill.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the members of the committee would be willing to carry this last clause, leaving only clause 1?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think we would be agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I still have a few questions to put regarding the agencies and the procedure to follow under the Old Age Security Act, since it is claimed that this clause only covers old age security and deals with holdbacks on certain pensions paid under the old age security, in amounts of $10, $15 and even $20, because the Quebec social assistance would have made overpayments to persons not entitled to such payments.
Under these circumstances may I call it ten o'clock so that we may obtain the information we need.

Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, today on orders of the day I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whether in view of the stand he had taken in respect of the civil rights question in the United States his government was prepared to
[The Chairman.]

introduce immediately legislation which would give the territorial franchise to those 10,000 people, mostly Eskimos, who live in those parts of the north where as yet, citizens, even though they pay territorial taxes, are deprived of the right to vote. At that point the Prime Minister replied that he could see no connection between a civil rights question in respect of Canada's northland and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I did not raise this question today in an attempt to embarrass the Prime Minister or the government generally, but because, along with many other Canadians, I observed a demonstration on parliament hill yesterday and was impressed with the fact that people all over the world are concerned with an old, yet new concept-that everyone is really everyone else's neighbour, and that if one does not have the right to vote he is not free.
I raise this question also because I hope to capitalize on what I feel is a spirit sweeping the whole continent, and with the hope that in this way, by bringing the matter to the attention of hon. members in this chamber, 1 can impress upon them the necessity for changing the present situation. It is within the power of this House of Commons to see to it that not one more territorial election takes place in respect of which every adult individual 21 years of age and over, Eskimo or otherwise, is not entitled to vote.
Hon. members of this committee may realize that it was not until 1962 that the right to vote in federal elections was extended to the Keewatin district, the eastern Arctic and the central Arctic. Prior to that time there was no law preventing an Eskimo from voting, but he did not have any way of getting on the voters list. There was no machinery whereby individuals living in those areas of this country could get to a poll or have their names placed on a voting list.
Having regard to the territorial council, which is the embryonic equivalent of a provincial legislature, there are only four areas or constituencies of the territorial north. These four constituencies-not by accident-are those areas of the north populated predominantly by white people. That has been the pattern followed in the granting of franchises. Wherever there was a cluster of white people, who tended to be more vocal in fighting for their own interests, a territorial franchise was given-but nowhere else. Last November the council of the Northwest Territories unanimously passed a resolution requesting the federal parliament to see to it that the

territorial franchise was extended to all residents of the eastern Arctic, the Keewatin district and the central Arctic region, areas which are inhabited predominantly by Eskimo people.
I have been raising this matter ever since I came to the House of Commons. I brought it to the attention of this house when the Prime Minister made his statement in London last July 12 to the effect that the right to vote should not be granted along racial lines. He was attending the commonwealth conference at that time. My remarks at that time can be found at page 5380 of Hansard. I have raised this question on every opportunity I have had in this chamber. I have asked the government to extend the right to vote to all the people of the Northwest Territories.
At page 5971 of Hansard it will be found that I said the following in this regard:
Do not let 1964 end without being able to say to Canada, and in fact to Southern Rhodesia if we are going to give lectures, that every Canadian citizen over 21, regardless of where he may live in this country, has the right to vote for his own council.
The statement of the Prime Minister to the students yesterday, read by proxy, said, in part, this:
I honour those in Alabama or anywhere else who are lighting within the law for their rights as free citizens...
I know that the United States government is deeply concerned and is striving to remove the causes of this concern through its civil rights legislation.
I too, Mr. Speaker, know that the President of the United States is concerned. I want to know whether the Prime Minister of Canada is concerned. It is one thing to put a barricade before a courthouse in Selma, Alabama, to prevent people from registering. But it is another thing to provide no place at all for people to register, which is what we are doing in this country. I would ask whoever speaks for the government tonight, in a spirit of civil rights and in a spirit of co-operation and non-partisanship-and I am sure this request will draw universal support from the house-to amend the Northwest Territories Act by adding to it a provision to enable people who live anywhere in the north to vote. If we do not do this, if we cannot do it, or if we will not do it, then I say to the Prime Minister and to all members of this house, for God's sake let us at least quit sending telegrams of condolence to people who are prepared to give their time and their effort, if necessary their lives, to fight a civil
15, 1965	12385
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion rights issue which will have proven to be bigger than the people who sit in the House of Commons.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not intend to endeavour to deal with this matter in relation to any conditions or problems existing in the United States, but rather only in light of the position in Canada. I am going to suggest to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories that I think there is a measure of anachronism in his complaint at this time. I think he is aware of the entire background. I also think he supported the party of which he is now a member in 1962, at which time he will surely recall that his party drew up two bills providing for the separation of the territories into the areas of Mackenzie and Nunassiaq. He will further recall that his party did nothing with these bills; they did not even bring them to the House of Commons.
If we go a little further we find the hon. member for Northwest Territories sitting in this house on July 8, 1963 when we introduced those bills which would, in part, have provided the reform for which he is pleading tonight. And what did he do? He opposed them day in and day out and fought the bills all the way through, not on this basis, I grant you; not on the basis that we were extending the franchise to the Eskimo people, but on other bases.
All I want to say is this: We want to be progressive. I think we have been progressive in respect to the territories, and we intend to be so in the future. I have been working very closely with the commissioner and the * council of the Northwest Territories. There seems to be in that body at the present time a degree of ferment which is healthy and progressive and good, and I am glad to see it.
I think we have a council, both in elected members and appointed members, which probably is more determined and vigorous than has been the case for some time. I know full well the resolutions they have passed, and which they have referred to us. I am not going to charge my hon. friend with anticipating what we are going to do, but I am going to tell him now that we are going to move very quickly in this field. It is a matter of policy which will be announced in the house in due course, and I think that when it is announced even he will be more than satisfied with our actions.
12386	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-VANCOUVER- CONVICTION IN ABSENTIA AS HABITUAL CRIMINAL


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, yesterday some of us had the opportunity of witnessing an inspiring demonstration here on parliament hill. Thousands of Canadian citizens gathered to express their belief in the fact that people are entitled to elementary justice. The question I asked today, Mr. Speaker, also deals with a case of what I believe to be injustice. One Jean Louis Henry, a man in his fifties, is in a maximum security cell in Kingston penitentiary facing imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. He was declared an habitual criminal by Magistrate Douglas Hume last December in Vancouver. His trial was held and sentence was passed while Henry was in another prison near Sudbury, 2,100 miles away.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who have been brought up to believe in the concept of British justice believe that a person is entitled, when he is accused of a crime, to know that he is accused. He is entitled to be present when he is accused. He is entitled to have counsel when his case is heard. He is entitled to enter a defence, and if he is found guilty he is entitled or his counsel is entitled to explain the circumstances in order that there may be some mercy. None of these conditions prevailed, so a man has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the crown prosecutor was not appointed by the federal government and he is not directly responsible to the federal government. However, the crown prosecutor in Vancouver is taking action which has a very definite effect on the federal administration of justice. He is taking action under a section of the Criminal Code passed by the parliament of Canada. I want to say that I find it amazing that we have a crown prosecutor of this type in Canada in the year 1965. I think he would have been more suitable a couple of hundred years ago. At the time of the inquisition I can see him turning the screws or putting somebody on the rack. In the middle ages, I can see him chopping off somebody's hand because he stole a loaf of bread. I am told that in the last 30 years, in the whole of the province of Ontario less than 10 people have been declared habitual criminals. In the city of Vancouver in the last three years, 46 people have been declared habitual criminals and are now serving life sentences.


I think that the parliament of Canada, and the government at the time this section of the Criminal Code was enacted, never intended this section should be used as frequently as it is being used. I am told that there is a man 30 years old who has been declared an habitual criminal and who is now serving a life sentence. If he lives to the normal age at which people are living these days, he will serve 45 years in prison. Even if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is not concerned about the morality of this situation, I suggest to him he look at the cost to the country. It is now costing us in the neighbourhood of $3,000 per year to keep a person in a federal penitentiary. This one man who is 30 years of age will cost the people of Canada some $135,000 before he dies. This is the kind of situation which is going on. One cannot blame the Minister of Justice for what the crown prosecutor in the city of Vancouver is doing, but the minister ought to take a hard look at what is happening.
If we have to have that provision in the Criminal Code-and I have some doubt that it serves any useful purpose-the minister ought to look at the clause which says that "the accused is entitled to be present at his hearing." Does that mean he has a right to be present at his hearing? The crown prosecutor in Vancouver takes the position that he may be present, but there is no responsibility on the crown to see he will be present. The Minister of Justice should quickly look at this section of the act to see whether it ought to be removed from the Criminal Code, amended or qualified.
If the kind of situation which has prevailed in Vancouver is going to continue, then very soon we will have to build another penitentiary to keep the people incarcerated whom this one crown prosecutor, with the approval of the attorney general of B.C., will have put in our prisons.
If we do not delete the whole section, then it seems to me the Minister of Justice ought to amend it to provide that this can only be done with the approval of the Minister of Justice. I would hope the minister will act in this matter very quickly because it seems to me that justice is being trampled in the dust if the crown prosecutor of Vancouver goes his mad way.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any hon. member will find

very much to disagree with in the general principle cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). However, one additional fact that perhaps he should be made aware of is that in the particular case of Henry an appeal is now under way in the B.C. courts. Therefore I think we in this house should tread carefully in how we comment on that particular case, lest we give the appearance of prejudging the decision of the court. Certainly I on behalf of the government will be careful in anything I might say which could prejudge the court's decision in that case.
As the hon. member mentioned, the preventive detention provisions were added to the Criminal Code by the former government in the 1960-61 session, and it is rather ironic that a study by the home office in the United Kingdom has recommended that the British provisions, on which ours were modelled, should be deleted.
Section 662(l)(a) of the Criminal Code provides that "seven clear days notice" must be given the accused. Section 660(3) states that "the accused is entitled to be present at the hearing," and section 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights provides that "no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to-
- (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.
These are the provisions of the law, but it falls on the B.C. courts to interpret them, and I would say that it is hoped these provisions of the law will be effective to protect the rights of the accused, and that the fundamental principles to which the hon. member made reference will be adequate to ensure justice to Mr. Henry in this case.
The government will be following the case with the greatest interest and, if the provisions of the law are inadequate, then the government will take action to remove the flaw. In the view of the government, which I think the hon. member would share, it is unthinkable that any man should be condemned in any proceedings, whether criminal proceedings or other proceedings, in absentia. It is unthinkable that he should be condemned in absentia when already incarcerated, as was this man in Burwash. The government will follow the case very closely and bring about any changes in the law indicated by the appeal court's decision.
15, 1965	12387
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion NATIONAL PARKS-RIDING MOUNTAIN-POLICY RESPECTING HAY CUTTING AND GRAZING


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) had chosen to answer a polite question from me this afternoon you would not be sitting in your chair at this late hour, nor would other hon. members be in theirs. He was asked a polite question, whether he would give any assurance that the policy of cattle grazing in the Riding Mountain national park would be continued, and whether the same policy would be continued in regard to the cutting of hay. It may not appear important to the minister, but it is very important to hundreds of farmers on each side of the Riding Mountain national park, on the south side in Marquette constituency and on the north side in the Dauphin constituency. There are hundreds of farmers who have depended on grazing their cattle in the park and on cutting hay in the park from the time the area was opened for settlement. These people are concerned, and for good reason. During the Christmas recess scores of delegations came to me because of rumours that no grazing permits and no hay cutting permits would be issued in 1965. They would not like to see a repetition of what happened in 1964 when the government chose to raise the hay cutting fee from 50 cents a ton to $5 a ton right in the middle of the hay cutting season. Those who came in early got permits at 50 cents a ton. Those who were a bit late had to pay $5, and they had no alternative because they needed the hay. I think the minister of northern affairs should order that some adjustment be made to make up for the discrepancy in price between those who bought their permits early and the others who bought them at a later date.
What distresses these farmers-and it distresses me too-is a letter I received from the minister dated March 3 in reply to my letter of January 12 or 13. I may say in passing that it took a long time to answer. The hon. gentleman gives reasons for his attitude and says, in part:
For these reasons grazing of livestock in a national park should be reduced to a minimum and grazing of cattle eventually eliminated.
This is very distressing to the people involved. One would think that the Riding Mountain national park was all parkland. But not one hundredth of it is developed as a park. The rest of it is a forest reserve. There is plenty of grass for all. During the
12388	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion past few years and even before the Conservative government was in power, as many as 2,000 head of cattle grazed in the park, for a fee. The minister thinks they are eating the grass and that the elk are starving. I have not seen any elk starving yet; we have no proof of that.
The price of cattle has gone up and people have been encouraged to increase their herds. They do not have sufficient pasture on their own land; they do not have enough hay. When I complained last year about the fee being raised to $5 the minister said he wanted to make it comparable with whatever was being charged by the farmers outside the park. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that $5 was probably being paid for alfalfa. You cannot compare alfalfa with the swamp hay you find in the park. I will give the house another comparison, and note, in passing, that the price of beef has been going down-and it has been going down since hon. gentlemen opposite have occupied the government benches. The provincial government has reduced the rate for hay on improved land from $1.50 to $1.35; the price of upland hay has been reduced from $1.20 to $1.08, and lowland hay from 90 cents to 81 cents. The minister imposed that ridiculous price of $5 because he wants to drive these people out of the national park and leave it for the elk, bears, wolves and so on.
I asked the minister whether he would say that the present policy would continue for a year. The question was not a serious one for him; he did not answer. That is why you are in the Chair now, Mr. Speaker. Well, he can ignore me but he cannot ignore these farmers. If they are not able to operate their farms they will move to the cities, increase the labour difficulties there and add yet another problem to those facing the ministers opposite. As I say, these people have made use of the park from the time the area was settled. Today the minister says they can no longer get their hay from thousands of acres of land which would otherwise go to waste. Most of this hay is swamp hay. A farmer has to build a road in every time he goes to cut it. He has to clean the meadow and he often has difficulty bringing his hay out. The minister seems to think $5 is a reasonable price. I ask him to reduce that price and bring it at least into line with the provincial rate. At least give us a guarantee-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Just one sentence, Mr. Speaker. At least give us a guarantee that you are going to carry out or continue the policy that you have had heretofore.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very polite question, and had not the Speaker today decided that this was a question that would better appear on the order paper, I would have today given a very polite answer to my hon. friend, as he well knows. However, the hour is not too late for me to turn my charm on him.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Good.


Arthur Laing: I admit at once, having a look at the national parks of Canada, that we seem to be interested in a tremendous number of unusual enterprises, and two of them are selling hay and permitting grazing in the parks. But these are only two of them; they are very unusual. My hon. friend has said a variety of things. He has said that it is a tremendous burden on the farmers to pay $5 a ton for hay. He also said at the same time, or almost in the same sentence, that beef had gone up to such a point that the farmers around there were increasing their herds.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Before you came in.


Arthur Laing: I think probably they are increasing them yet, because we sold more hay out of that park this year than we sold last year; at 50 cents a ton last year and $5 a ton this year.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you charged $5 last year right in the middle of the season.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order.


Arthur Laing: Well, the last season in which hay was sold-


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: 1964.


Arthur Laing: -we sold it for $5. That was in 1964. The year before it was sold for 50 cents. But we sold more at $5 a ton than we sold at 50 cents a ton. So I think there is probably not a great deal of objection as far as the farmers are concerned. We do not want to be competitive with the farmers who are selling hay outside the parks and my hon. friend, being a great free enterpriser, I am certain would adhere to that theory. So far as grazing is concerned, we do not want to be

competitive with the community pastures that are being developed there by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays).


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Does he know that the nearest community pasture is 50 miles away?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that the procedure under which we are operating at the moment does not permit any questioning.


Arthur Laing: The community pastures are charging $1.50 per animal, per month; and we are charging 25 cents in the park. In finality, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend inferred that I did not know anything about cattle. I would think I know as much about this subject as he does, or anyone in this house. He and I know, perhaps as well as anyone in the house, that we did not develop these parks for cattle, and he knows that we are not going to build picnic or walking areas, and so on, in the park where there are cattle.
15, 1965	12389
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion He knows as well as any other member of the House of Commons that you cannot have cattle there and picnic and walking areas too. I could tell a story there, Mr. Speaker, but I will not.
Generally speaking, we are moving along to the point where, as population increases in that park, we are endeavouring to cater to an increased population of visitors. My hon. friend almost argued that the park is too large and we should reduce its size and return that portion back to farmland. I do not think he means that; but in fact that park should be maintained and invitations should be extended to Canadians to use it more in the future. If that happens, we do not want the cattle, mowers, rakes and tedders in the park. We want the people enjoying all the parks in Canada. That is what the parks were set up for. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we will grant licences in the coming year, along the same lines as last season.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.


Tuesday, March 16, 1965