1965-03-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once more on a question of privilege which is really a continuation of the question of privilege I put before the house on Friday, with which Your Honour dealt yesterday. I do so now since it is obvious that the Prime Minister nor the government are not going to follow the course which I feel they should, with deference to Your Honour, and move a motion which would allow me to appear before the Dorion commission to assist that inquiry in its work. I therefore move, and I would hope that the Prime Minister or another member of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: -would second this motion:
That if called upon to do so the member for the Yukon be authorized by this house to attend and give evidence before the Dorion inquiry-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite always view these matters very lightly. If they will listen to the wording of the motion they will find it is important indeed. I repeat it:
That if called upon to do so the member for the Yukon be authorized by this house to attend and give evidence before the Dorion inquiry involving debates and proceedings in this house with regard to the things that may be dealt with in the said inquiry.
I move this motion, sir, having regard to the third part of Your Honour's ruling yesterday, and do not intend in any way that such a motion should be moved each time a member of the house wishes to absent himself. Because of the rule in this regard being fundamental, namely that special leave must be obtained to appear before any inquiry or tribunal for the purpose of giving evidence relating to the debates and proceedings of this house, I have followed this course. I
would hope the Prime Minister would join with me in this motion and second it.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Nielsen moves, seconded by Mr. Winkler:
That If called upon to do so the member for the Yukon be authorized by this house to attend and give evidence before the Dorion inquiry involving debates and proceedings in this house with regard to the things that may be dealt with in the said inquiry.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment to the motion in the following terms:
That the said motion be amended by inserting immediately after the word "so" in the first line thereof the following: "the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Postmaster General and", and after the word "Yukon" the words "any other member who may be invited by the commission to give relevant information".
If I may say a word in explanation, we know the Minister of Justice and the former minister of citizenship and immigration are to give evidence before the commission. We have heard it suggested that the Prime Minister may have relevant evidence to give to the commission, and there may be other members. We do not wish such a motion to have to be repeated every time someone is called before the commission. If we are going to authorize the hon. member for Yukon, who I presume has relevant information, to appear before the commission and give evidence without any trammels or inhibitions resulting from the rules of the house, then we should authorize other witnesses who are members of the house and who may be called-I emphasize the word "may"-to have the same freedom to give evidence before the commission.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order in connection with this amendment, on the ground that yesterday the ruling made by the Chair was to the effect that any member whose privileges may be involved in a matter of this kind is obliged to ask leave of the house himself, or some other member may ask on his behalf.
Surely the first element of the situation is a request to an hon. member to appear and give

Question of Privilege
evidence, and I suggest that the ruling yesterday made it quite clear that it is open to an hon. member to decide for himself whether he wishes to give evidence before an inquiry on the debates and proceedings in the House of Commons. I do not dispute the right of the hon. member for Yukon or indeed his decision in this respect, but if he had chosen not to give evidence concerning the debates and proceedings that had taken place in the House of Commons he would have been within his rights to appear before the commission and refuse to do so.
I suggest that if the hon. member for Yukon had taken that course, his wish in this regard would have been respected by the courts, as it was in the only other known case that has taken place in this country. The hon. member for Yukon chose of his own volition to give evidence on the debates and proceedings here. In order to make absolutely sure that after he had given evidence no other member could accuse him of a breach of privilege, he has come to the house and asked for leave.
I suggest it is improper for any hon. member to make a decision with respect to this matter, in the first place on behalf of another member, who must decide for himself whether he wishes to give evidence on the debates and proceedings of this house. That is the first impropriety in the motion. The second is that it is improper, in the light of the ruling yesterday, for the hon. member for Greenwood to seek to give leave to hon. members who have not requested leave. It is improper to ask the house to give leave to members who have not been asked to appear before the commission, thus arrogating to the house a decision which is a matter of privilege for a member himself.
I suggest that in the light of the very clear ruling yesterday in respect of this matter, this amendment cannot be put because it is out of order.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the representation made by the Minister of Labour is of course without any justification whatever. Privilege is not the privilege of members of parliament; the privilege is the privilege of parliament itself. Indeed, it is not something that belongs, as it were, as a private possession of a member; it is a privilege basic to the operation of parliament. In this case, as I see it, the hon. member for Yukon has acted strictly within the traditions of parliament. In no way does he challenge your ruling of yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. MacEachen.I
The matter is very clear, that no member of parliament can under the circumstances be called to give evidence regarding proceedings in parliament or matters arising out of those proceedings. Therefore the hon. member's motion is in order.
As far as the amendment is concerned, surely no one is going to be condemned for assuring in advance that those whose names have been mentioned as potential witnesses shall receive a like clearance on the part of parliament. As the hon. member for Greenwood has stated, we would not want to have these motions regularly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I think his suggestion that not only those named but all other hon. members should be included in the ambit of the resolution is a most generous gesture. Therefore the amendment is in order, assuring as it does the preservation of the privileges of parliament. If any one of those named, or any other member of parliament, were to appear before the commission and give evidence regarding those matters which clearly ought not to be given in the traditions of parliament-


Erik Nielsen: They already have.


John George Diefenbaker: One or other has already done that, but such should not in any way be allowed by parliament. I come back to where I started; the privilege is not the privilege of the member of parliament, it is the privilege of parliament for the benefit of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, the reason for this privilege is that the freedom of a member of parliament shall not be circumscribed. The reason we have a motion such as this, and an amendment in order to clear up the position of others who may find themselves called, is to assure that the rights of parliament shall be preserved.
I heard hon. gentlemen opposite jeer a moment ago. This is not a jeering matter. This is something that is of foremost and preeminent importance to the preservation of parliament. If Your Honour has read the Duncan Sandys case you will have noticed it was made perfectly clear that if a representative in parliament could be called as a witness, that person could be placed in a position where an autocratic government would have him called so as to ascertain, through the medium of evidence, the source

of his information. To allow members of parliament to be cross-examined as to the sources of their information would place them in a position of subservience and would deny them that freedom which is essential to membership in parliament.
I take as an example the Sandys case. It was made perfectly clear that the privilege is not the privilege of the individual. A member receives information; someone passes information on to him. What would happen if our freedom were interfered with in that connection so that we could be cross-examined on the sources of our information? We would immediately close our sources of information, and in closing them would deny parliament its complete and absolute freedom of speech.
This is important to parliament. I doubt if at any time during my time here, and I have been here quite a long while, has there been a motion before the house more important than this one, not only to the present parliament but to parliaments that will follow hereafter. It deals with the maintenance above all else of the freedom of parliament, the assurance of freedom of speech which must not be limited in any way by subpoenas issued outside the house. To admit that that were possible would simply give to a tyrannical government-and I am not in any way indicating this one is in that position-to a tyrannical government less beneficent and benign than the present one, a challenging right over the freedom of members of parliament and, as such, a subversion of parliament. Therefore I submit the subamendment is well taken in every way. It is a most helpful and generous action.
The Prime Minister should have moved this motion. He refused, and now private members of parliament have had to do the work which he should have done.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I have been able to work out a solution which I hope will be acceptable to the house and, much as we might like to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it might save a little time if this suggested solution were to prove acceptable. I am not closing off debate, but I should like to suggest to the house that both the motion and the amendment be withdrawn and the following motion be adopted if the house sees fit to do so. It is:
That any member called upon to attend before the Dorion commission be authorized by the house to give evidence as to proceedings within
Question of Privilege
this house with regard to things that may be dealt with in the said inquiry.
I believe this would cover all relevant cases and be of use to all members of the house at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should be glad to move that motion.


Erik Nielsen: There is one omission which I feel should be remedied. I feel there should be a reference to "attending and giving evidence with relation to the debates and proceedings in this house". Without an amendment showing-


Mr. Speaker:: I have discussed this matter on two occasions with the hon. member- certainly I have done so on one occasion- and my view was that the words "to attend" were neither important nor necessary to this over-all motion. As a matter of fact their inclusion would not be in accord with the ruling of yesterday. The important thing is to secure the consent of the house for the evidence to be given. I am not going into the reasons surrounding standing order No. 5, but the position should be fairly obvious after the ruling given yesterday. So I hope the motion I suggested to the house a few moments ago will be accepted in the circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Since it was my original motion, perhaps I might be given the privilege of moving it and, once again, of inviting the Prime Minister to second it.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances I think the honour should be given to the hon. member for Yukon, seconded by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I also desire to raise a question of privilege involving all members of this house, one which concerns the integrity and impartiality of your own position, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of the rules and rights of this house.
I have in my possession a document, Mr. Speaker, which closely allies your name and the imprint of your position with an unworthy

Question of Privilege
and partisan purpose. The document was published by Hamilton political action committee on behalf of a party represented in this house. I refer to the New Democratic party. A copy is in my possession, and I am raising the point of privilege at the earliest possible time.
On an inside page of the document, under the heading "Who is working for you?", appears an actual photographic reproduction of the front page of what is commonly known as the Hansard index, which as all hon. members are aware is an official publication of this house. This reproduction bears the coat of arms of Canada, along with the authority of you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as Speaker, and the imprint of the queen's printer. The inference, Mr. Speaker, is that this portion of the document was printed with the official sanction of this house, and I believe is a flagrant abuse of the prerogatives of parliament and a serious reflection on the office of Speaker.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that a precedent was set in 1960 which supports my belief that this document constitutes a prima facie case of abuse of the rights and privileges of this house. You will recall that on February 16, 1960 the then C.C.F. member for Timmins, now the N.D.P. member for the same riding (Mr. Martin), raised a point of privilege about a similar use, or abuse, of official Commons documents. This precedent involved the photographic reproduction of the cover of Hansard, bearing the coat of arms and the authority of the Speaker and the queen's printer; as in this case, the reproduction was made for non-official propaganda purposes by a private organization.
The debate of February 15, 1960, page 1055 and February 16, pages 1100 to 1104, expresses the almost unanimous view of the house that a prima facie case of abuse of house privileges had been established in this earlier case to which I referred. Indeed, the Speaker of the day ruled that this was in fact the case. The prime minister of the day, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), expressed the view that-
-your authority, Mr. Speaker, is called into issue inferentially.
He conceded that a breach had been committed, but he questioned whether it was serious enough to require definite action. This comment is found at page 1101 of Hansard for February 16, 1960. He added that the document-
-might tend to imply that the Speaker has authorized the publication of the document in question-
In the same debate the former member for Burnaby-Coquitlam stated that the photographic reproduction involved "the high office" of the Speaker and "the prestige of the coat of arms of Canada" in a base propaganda there was a prima facie case of breach of our rules and privileges in this house. This argument was further supported by the present member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
The Speaker of the day ruled that in fact there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege inasmuch as-
-this appears to be an official report published under the name of your Speaker-
He stated that:
-anything that relates to control by the house present or future over its own reports, having the possibility of abuse of such publications in mind- which is easily imaginable-requires me to allow this matter to go forward by finding at least prima facie grounds for complaint.
This ruling will be found at page 1104 of Hansard for February 16, 1960.
Mr. Speaker, your colleague of 1960 held that a question of privilege can be raised when "there is an abuse of the reports" of this house. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this reproduction is an abuse, not only because it reflects on the integrity and impartiality of you, Mr. Speaker, and your office, but because the matter is placed in a way which gives an unfair and misleading impression of the duties and activities of members of this house.
I might say that the primary basis upon which I advance this question of privilege is that it is an abuse of the rights and privileges of all members of this house. However, I do so also on a second ground, namely its highly misleading nature. The document is headed "Who is working for you?" and then follows an actual reproduction of the front page of the Hansard index, with, Mr. Speaker, as I say, your name as Speaker and the queen's printer imprint thereon. Then is shown a photostated reprint of the index in Hansard under each particular member's name, which is a course leading to nothing else but the inference that whoever should have the most references under his name in Hansard is the one who is working the hardest. Especially, Mr. Speaker, is it misleading when a goodly portion of the references here are to questions which have been placed on the order paper. Any hon. member can stay at home and never come to parliament, merely for-
[Mr. Munro.l

warding such questions to the house and having them put on the order paper.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso):
That the subject matter of this complaint be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for appropriate action.


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the precedent which was quoted by the hon. member for Hamilton East-and this precedent I recall very well because, as he said, I was very closely involved in the matter-I suggest that we do at this time the same as we did at that time, namely give the house an opportunity to view the document he referred to in his speech. We are asked to make a decision on this matter. I suggest that it be held over until tomorrow to give hon. members a chance to see the document to which the hon. member has referred.


John Carr Munro: I am tabling the document, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Graff  ley:@: You cannot table it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am called upon to decide whether there is or is not a prima facie case here. I must say that after looking at this document-I have seen it today-and basing myself on the decision in the Sperry and Hutchinson case of 1960, which is to be found reported at pages 1104 and 1105 of Hansard for February 16, 1960, I do find a prima facie case, and I am prepared to accept the motion. What the house does with the motion is entirely up to the house, but it is my duty to put the motion.
It has been moved by the hon. member for Hamilton East, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West:
That the subject matter of this complaint be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for appropriate action.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. W. Prillie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this question of privilege is neither as weighty nor as lengthy as the previous ones. It relates to the number of complaints which have been made in the house recently about members receiving house and departmental publications not in their own language.
House Building Program When I got back to my office yesterday this blue volume was there. It does not say "Estimates" but says "Budget des Depenses". I am not angry with the Department of Finance, nor the government, nor the Prime Minister, nor the distribution office, but it would be easier to read it in the other language.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of time would have been saved had my hon. friend just given me a call, when I should have been glad to fix him up.



IMMIGRATION


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the house that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be in the house today to make a statement in the case of Professor Sibley. I have heard from him that he has been held up in Winnipeg owing to aircraft trouble, and he does not expect to be able to take off until some time this afternoon. Therefore I would ask the indulgence of the house to permit him to make this statement tomorrow instead of today.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the winter house building incentive program. As hon. members know, we have been keeping a constant watch on the completion of housing under the winter house building incentive program with a view to determining whether or not an extension of the period for completion would be justified.
Last winter, because of shortages of materials and certain classes of skilled labour, the final inspection date of housing under the program was extended to April 15. This was done because the very success of the program had made it difficult for many builders to complete their housing units earlier.
This year the program commenced on November 15, which was 15 days earlier than last winter's program and, as a consequence of this adjustment in the program period, the situation in respect of the supply of material and labour has been much improved. My information is that there have been no shortages of building supplies and that, apart from

House Building Program-isolated shortages of specially skilled workers in the finishing trades, there has generally been a sufficient supply of construction labour.	:
There has been, however, this winter some exceptionally severe weather in certain parts of the country which has had the effect of delaying construction of some housing units under the program. I have received many representations from builders, as have other members of parliament, requesting an extension of the program mainly because of these severe weather conditions. On the other hand I have received representations from some builders with large housing projects requesting that the program not be extended.
On balance, however, having regard to the weather conditions which prevailed in many areas, I am pleased to announce that the period for completion of housing under this winter's program is being extended to April 15, 1965 in accord with a request made by the national house builders.
Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention to place before the house an item in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1965-66 to authorize this extension of the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numerous representations that have been made, not only to the government but to members of the opposition, to the effect that this program is not in effect for a sufficiently long period of time to enable builders to complete homes in accordance with the specifications set out by the government, the government has now acceded to the request which has been made, so these people will now qualify for the $500 bonus. I think greater success could be achieved under this program if the government saw fit now-and this may be something that the Minister of Finance could take into consideration when he is preparing the budget which he expects to bring down shortly-to eliminate the 11 per cent sales tax which the government imposed on construction materials, which has brought the price up and has caused the cost of living to rise, creating inflation to some extent in this country.
This program cannot be classified as one which has proven to be a success. It is true that in the first year, and I give these figures from memory, some 35,000 units were completed, but there was not a substantial increase over that number in the second year, at which time, because of the success of the program,


the figures should have indicated that more and more people participated. I think the figures show that the number of units built under this program in the second year was almost identical to the number in the first year.
This program has been much less successful than the municipal winter works incentive program, which has shown an increase in each and every year. That program was started by the previous government when it was in office and is being carried on successfully at the present time. Unless some other incentive is provided to the housing program, such as the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building material, there will be a decreasing number of participants in the coming winter.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party welcome the minister's announcement. It is undoubtedly true that weather conditions this year have been particularly severe in many parts of Canada, and it is only fair and proper that the winter housing program should be extended until April 15, but I am not suggesting for a moment that this will solve all the housing problems. If the government really wants to stimulate housing the first thing it could do would be to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Nevertheless, this extension will help to prevent certain hardships being placed on individuals who through no fault of their own have been unable to proceed far enough with their winter house construction programs to benefit from the program.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that all the arguments which have convinced the Minister of Labour to extend this winter house building program to April 15 apply equally to an extension of the winter works incentive program, because the same bad weather which made it difficult to get housing starts under way and advanced to the point where they will be completed by a set date applied even more to the municipal winter works incentive programs. A great many of the municipalities, as part of their winter works incentive programs, have been laying sewer and water lines. This type of work is extremely difficult during the type of winter we have had, particularly in the past few months. Therefore I would hope that the minister, who has kindly acceded to this extension of the date with reference to winter housing, will now seriously consider extending the date in respect of the winter works incentive program, particularly because it affects so many municipalities and areas of Canada.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Social Credit party are grateful that the minister has seen fit to make this announcement in respect of the 15 day extension to the winter house building incentive program. On a number of occasions during the last two months I have brought the situation in this regard to his attention. Great difficulty and hardship have been worked not only upon those people in the business of building houses but also upon those individuals who are going to own those homes, in that they have geared their financial positions in respect of down payments and initial costs to the fact that there is a $500 bonus available. I am sure this announcement will be received with considerable satisfaction across the country.
I should also like to state that we have now reached almost the end of March and the deadline is drawing near, and it would have been helpful if this announcement had been made several weeks ago.
I join with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in urging the government to extend the winter works incentive program in a similar manner, because I realize that a number of municipalities, cities and towns are in great difficulty as a result of extreme weather conditions which, incidentally, still exist at the present time in many parts of the country. It is equally imperative that the government extend this program.
I realize that these programs are partly aimed at encouraging winter employment. Nevertheless, to deny either municipalities or home owners the opportunity to participate in the financial benefits which accrue will also work a hardship upon them, so I again urge upon the minister the need to consider a similar extension to the winter works program as far as municipalities are concerned.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we were also glad to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) announce that the period of winter works would be extended until April 15 as concerns housing construction. Many builders will benefit from this 15 day extension, but I wonder if the minister, while deciding upon this extension, took into consideration the designated areas which also encountered very cold temperatures, not only in a particular district, but in many others?
Furthermore, did the minister examine the situation which exists in unorganized par-
House Building Program ishes, that is, in parishes which are not constituted as municipalities? The minister well knows that in those unorganized parishes, winter works did not start on the first of November or December last, nor even on January 1 last, because the federal government wished the municipal council or councils held responsible for the carrying out of those winter works, whether in a designated area or not. I believe that the officials of the Department of Labour then were not up to the situation, and today many unorganized parishes are requesting a further extension beyond the one which was granted.
I come from a designated area, an underdeveloped area, and the minister has no solution to offer toward solving the problems which face many unorganized parishes in my riding, and also parishes in my neighbouring riding, Pontiac-Temiscamingue.
While I appreciate that this 15 day extension will allow large builders to receive the $500 bonus, this does not help labour in unorganized parishes, which could not start their projects sooner, because the present government did not assume its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized, as pointed out earlier by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), that instead of giving a $500 bonus for each house built, in order to help the Canadian consumer the 11 per cent sales tax should be abolished. As a matter of fact, this 11 per cent sales tax on building materials easily eats up twice the amount of $500 handed out by the federal government for every house built. I think it does not make any sense.
On the one hand I can understand the government being proud to say that houses are going up everywhere but, on the other hand, the 11 per cent tax-and the finance minister is perfectly aware of the situation- eliminates, as it were, twice the amount of $500 granted on each house built.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this 15-day extension is not enough. It may be enough in some parts of the country, but not for the country as a whole. In fact, in my own area where winter lasts until May work will be stopped on April 15, when winter will still be very much with us. As a matter of fact, winter is as long and hard in my region as it is in some parts of western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister should reconsider the matter of a further extension as well as the question of reducing taxes in order that the consumer may benefit from the $500 bonus as well as from a further amount

Inquiries of the Ministry of $500 which the Minister of Finance took from house buyers last year.
Should the minister need further information or suggestions, I think he would find the Social Credit doctrine and theory most useful to adjust consumer goods and services to the needs of Canadian consumers.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while I am in entire agreement with the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Sibley case be discussed tomorrow when the minister returns, there are a couple of questions that concern the Prime Minister particularly and which only he can answer.
When he made his statement in the house last Friday was he aware that an order had already been made to refuse the professor admission into Canada? Was he given information by the immigration branch to that effect? When he stated later that Mr. Sibley had not yet tried to gain admission to Canada and said he was sure there would be no difficulty, was he aware of the order in question that had been made the day before? Since receiving such insufficient information from the immigration branch has he found out who it was failed him and gave him information that was without basis in fact?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that I had no knowledge of this matter until it was raised in the house. It was a matter being dealt with by the minister and the department concerned. I will have to find the answer to the second part of the question with regard to whether Professor Sibley had been informed in advance. I should like to check on that. So far as the third part of the question is concerned, once I got in touch with the immigration branch the officials gave me all the available information as quickly as they could.


John George Diefenbaker: Did they give the Prime Minister the information that the order had been made on Thursday? Did they give it to him then? This was no routine affair. Everybody knew what was going to happen to Sibley in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point I will have to check whether that information was conveyed to Sibley.


John George Diefenbaker: Conveyed to you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the officials are concerned they gave me all relevant information dealing with this matter after I brought it to their attention at lunch time.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask one simple question. All the available information was useless as far as the house was concerned. It was not factual. Did the Prime Minister have any information from the immigration branch on the Friday that on the Thursday an order had been made and confirmed by the minister? That is the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the point I will have to check. The immigration people sent me the file they had on the matter on Friday at lunch time, and all the details that were in that file were in my possession.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know the Prime Minister has asked that we leave the Sibley case until the minister is here, and I am quite prepared to do so. Apparently the minister has as much trouble getting out of Winnipeg as Professor Sibley had getting into it. I should like to ask the Prime Minister about two matters which affect him directly. First, did he receive on Thursday evening or Friday morning any telegrams from the Voice of Women or other persons protesting the fact that they had heard that Professor Sibley was going to be refused admission? Second, between the time the Prime Minister was apprised of this matter, which was just before one o'clock on Friday, and the time he gave his answer at a little after 2.30, did anyone in his office or in the immigration branch take the trouble to telephone Winnipeg to find out whether Professor Sibley had been refused admission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, speaking subject to checking, I received a telegram from the Voice of Women but I am not sure exactly at what hour it arrived. I believe it arrived shortly before I came into the house on Friday morning. On the second point I will have to consult the immigration branch, because our contact was not directly with Winnipeg but with the department concerned with this matter.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which is relevant to the last question. It is understood

12S83
that a communication with the Prime Minister's office did in tact occur on Thursday evening between 9 and 10 p.m. and that the communication was from a Mrs. Phillips, president of the Manitoba section of the Voice of Women. Did the Prime Minister receive that communication?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have said I received a telegram from the Voice of Women, and I should like to check exactly when it arrived. As I have said, it is my recollection that it arrived on Friday morning before I came into the house.



QUESTIONING OF PERSONS ENTERING CANADA FOR TELEVISION APPEARANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a question concerning persons entering Canada for television appearances. In this case a Mr. Robert L. Green entered Canada through the Toronto international airport Saturday. Inquiries made at that point do not show any record of Mr. Green having been interrogated for customs purposes in the manner described. There has been no direction, order or ruling given to customs officers to treat persons entering Canada for television appearances any differently from any other persons entering the country.



CROSSING OF BORDER BY MAPLE SYRUP WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: And while I am on my
feet, I should like to answer a question directed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) and tell him that the necessary permit was issued, whereby the United States department of immigration will be able to admit maple syrup producers under the regulations controlling the entry of workers of this category into the United States.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs. Is the report correct that a senior member of the Department of External Affairs has been appointed to the position of secretary general of the new commonwealth secretariat that is to be established?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.


Mr. Fairwealher:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just complete my answer? I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was laughing at my response.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I was not even thinking about it. I thought it was such a good answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just wanted to make sure. This is a question that will not be decided until the commonwealth prime ministers meet in June in London.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Has
Mr. Arnold Smith been nominated for the post of first executive secretary of the commonwealth secretariat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this question, Mr. Speaker, the various governments of the commonwealth were asked to put forward names of possible candidates for the post of secretary general of the commonwealth secretariat. In response to requests from certain other governments, and also because we thought he was a particularly able official, Mr. Arnold Smith's name has been put forward as a possible candidate for that post. But a decision will not be made until June. Other names have also been put forward by other governments.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the hon. member for York-Scarborough. In his absence I shall put it to the President of the Privy Council.
I see the hon. member for York-Scarborough is back. As the last report of the committee on privileges and elections has been tabled, can he tell the house whether he intends to move soon that it be concurred in?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would not think of moving concurrence in the report until the evidence is available in both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as such a motion requires 48-hour notice and the government is able to have its reports translated within 48 hours, when pressed to do so, and since, on the other hand we have already received those reports in English but not in French, does the hon. member intend to move concurrence in this report as soon as possible? [Text]


Maurice John Moreau: I would be happy to make further inquiries for the hon. member concerning the translation of the evidence, and I am quite prepared to give the information as soon as I have it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is a meeting of the NATO defence ministers scheduled for this spring; and if so, when and where?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: There has been a proposal that the defence ministers meet in May and that the meeting take place in London. I think this has been decided, although I have not seen the confirmation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that both the Greek and Turkish ministers will undoubtedly be there, is the question of Cyprus on the agenda; and if not, will the Canadian government request that it be put on the agenda?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it is on the agenda of the defence ministers' meeting, but I am sure it will be on the agenda of the foreign ministers' meeting.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question-which 
I always like doing-to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports that the Prime Minister's efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Viet Nam have failed, and in view of the news with respect to the stepping up of the situation there, the use of gas and so on, would the minister mind telling the house what the government proposes to do to meet this situation from this point on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question seems to be predicated on the belief that the only country with responsibilities in this matter is Canada. My hon. friend will of course recognize that Canada is not one of the combating countries, that we are one of the 14 power group, and that we are doing everything we can to bring about a cease fire. But the fact is, as both the British prime minister and his foreign secretary yesterday in Washington have said, that at this moment, notwithstanding the appeal made by Britain, one of the co-chairmen, to the Soviet union, the latter refuses to move toward a cease fire, presumably on the ground that there is no evidence that Hanoi is disposed to a cease fire or that Hanoi has had any encouragement toward this objective by communist China.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a former military adviser on the international control commission in Viet Nam, Colonel Bradley Webb, stated- and he is now, by the way, the secretary of the Canadian institute of international affairs -in Toronto at a public meeting that there has been no significant infiltration of North Vietnamese communist troops or equipment into South Viet Nam. He said this was certainly true until a few months ago, and there is no reason to believe differently now. It seems to me that this statement by one who has been on the actual scene of operations and who was formerly a member of the truce commission staff is completely at variance with the statements which the minister has constantly reiterated in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has raised an important matter. I know he would not want to give the impression that the colonel in question was a commissioner, because he was not; he was a military officer serving the commission, and he was there only for a limited period. I can

only say to him that the incontrovertible evidence is as stated by the majority of the commission in 1962, made up of Canada and India. We have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the facts assessed and presented by the representatives of Canada through the recent minority report. The views in question are those of one man who was in Indochina for a limited period. I am satisfied from the evidence I have seen that both the 1962 and the 1965 reports present a balanced picture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is it not equally true that Canada in 1962, in signing the report along with India, declared that South Viet Nam and the United States were violating the agreement, and that the situation which obtained at that time has not changed; if anything, it has grown worse. The minister keeps reiterating one side of the report. It seems to me that he ought at the same time to remind the house and the country that Canada also recognized the violations of the Geneva accord by both South Viet Nam and the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend put this question in another form last week. Canada did not dispute the facts in the majority report; but this does not alter the fact that the conclusions of the minority report are substantiated and are not in any way thwarted by the conclusions of the majority report. North Viet Nam is engaged in fighting and infiltrating in the south. Whether or not my hon. friend fully concurs in the conclusions as to how this happened, this is the case. The commission points out that the first act of aggression by the north occurred shortly after the Geneva conference of 1954.
We join with other countries in hoping there will be a cease fire. But the evidence now available clearly imposes an unanswerable responsibility on North Viet Nam and on any country that may be supporting her. I am sure that the position of most countries in the Geneva accord group, including the Soviet union, is that there should be a cessation of hostilities. Any indication that there is a willingness on the part of Hanoi to bring this about will, I think, meet with response.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has on other occasions told the house that this crucial matter might be the subject of a debate in this house, and that he was discussing this with his colleagues. May I ask him now, if this is not possible in the near future
Inquiries of the Ministry would he consider making a statement to the standing committee on external affairs where he could deal with the matter more fully, and where other members of the house interested in this could ask questions and put their views forward; because after all this is a matter which affects the peace and security of the whole world.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would certainly be happy to do so if that could be arranged.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of National Defence when it is the intention of the government to carry out the rotation of the Canadian troops on Cyprus, and also what regiment and reconnaissance squadron will replace those presently there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the rotation is starting almost at once and will be carried out over a period of approximately two weeks. The first battalion of the Queens Own Rifles of Canada will be the infantry battalion and the Royal Canadian Dragoons will be the reconnaissance squadron.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, following up a question that was asked yesterday concerning Tanzania. I bring up the question at this time in the absence of the hon. member for Oxford, who showed an interest in it last July and August. In view of the long time that elapsed last fall before the Tanzanian government received a satisfactory answer from the Canadian government for the help it requested, can the minister give us some assurance now that some decision will be made on this in the very near future so the action taken will not be too little and too late?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I must deny there was any undue delay in arriving at a decision in regard to the level of military aid being accorded by Canada to Tanzania. The further request which involves assistance to the air force of that country is a matter of

Inquiries of the Ministry great importance. The government is giving it immediate and full attention.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: May
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how soon, if at all, we may expect a decision on further government assistance to Canadian university services overseas?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope to be able to say something specific about that matter next week. I have already indicated that the government proposes to increase substantially its assistance to this voluntary program, which has done so much to establish the foundation of a unique peace corps in Canada.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
On Friday, October 2, 1964, as reported on page 8671 of Hansard, I directed a question to his predecessor. It had to do with the construction of a harbour station for the city of Montreal.
When I was elected at a by-election in February 1964, and in answer to my question in October, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Deschatelets) stated that this was a definite project.
Now that the estimates of the Department of Transport contains an item of $1 million dollars, I should like to know where the negotiations with the authorities of the city of Montreal stand, when will work start on this station and in what district of Montreal will it be located?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not much difficulty in deciding that this question should be on the order paper.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with this matter at ten o'clock tonight.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State, and perhaps also to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that the estimates of the C.B.C. for this year show an increase of $12 million, could the Secretary of State tell us whether the French network of the C.B.C. will be extended to British Columbia in order to provide service to the French Canadian people of Victoria, Vancouver, Maillardville, etc.?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already pointed out, we have to await the Fowler commission's report before announcing government decisions.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State.
Can he tell us whether he approves or disapproves the suggestion made by the president of the C.B.C. to the effect that a thorough inquiry be made into the operations of that corporation at least every ten years? Can he tell us what he thinks about this suggestion?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have no comments on this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I also had a supplementary question. Perhaps I will get the same answer, but I will pose it in any event. Would the Secretary of State consider it might not be more appropriate and worth while to extend the English language television network to the more remote areas of the province before embarking on this other course?


Maurice Lamontagne: The answer is the same, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question.
Would the minister tell us if the C.B.C.'s budgetary increase takes into account the

extension of the French television network to areas which do not get that service yet, such as in Alberta and British Columbia in particular?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I just
answered that question.



SUGGESTED PROVISION OF FUNDS ON TEN YEAR BASIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware that in a speech yesterday at Montreal the president of the C.B.C. advocated that the C.B.C. be granted funds on a ten year basis. Further, if we are not going to wait for the Fowler commission report, is it already government policy to put this suggestion into effect?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we will have to wait until we receive the report of the Fowler committee before the position of the government will be defined.



CANCELLATION OF REPORT ON CANADIAN CHINESE HELD IN FORMOSA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, of which I have given him notice. Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cancel at the last minute a report on the human rights case of Professor Peng Ming-Min, a distinguished McGill alumnus arrested and held in Formosa, who was to have appeared on the program "This Hour has Seven Days"? As this program was advertised as late as Sunday afternoon, was outside pressure applied from the nationalist Chinese lobby or any other group to have this program cancelled?


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



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. August Choquelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I would like to ask a question of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for
Inquiries of the Ministry Rosedale. I apologize for not having given him notice of my question, but I believe that he will be able to reply tomorrow.
I would like to ask the hon. member if any action for damages was instituted against the R.C.M.P. following the charges of manhandling and the breaking of his watch prof-ferred by the ex-prisoner from Lapointe.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I am availing myself of the first opportunity to do so.
On several occasions already the hon. member for Lotbiniere has called me the exprisoner from Lapointe. Well, on my question of privilege I can say that I am proud of having gone to jail to stand up for my mother tongue and that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will always be a prisoner of his narrow concepts and petty policies.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table my "laugh".



INVESTIGATION INTO DOCUMENT TAMPERING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. My question is based on a reply given by him to a written question on March 15 which, to say the least, was somewhat misleading. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would be agreeable to joining me at ten o'clock in order to debate this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon North and Vicloria):: Mr. Speaker, I had planned on asking a question of the Minister of Labour, who has been called out and has returned to his office, undoubtedly to plan measures to assist in the relief of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. Then I had planned on directing it to the Minister of Industry, but he has also departed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that my two colleagues have left with the Prime Minister on important matters.


Robert Muir: The Prime Minister has also let me down, so may I direct the question to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I could see that coming.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact that the Department of Industry has placed a $10,000 item in the estimates for the new fiscal year to carry out a special study into the chronic unemployment on Cape Breton that has resulted in the exodus of 1,000 individuals annually from the island, how does the minister justify his own and the Minister of Labour's extravagant statements about economic conditions on the islands?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I doubt whether this is a matter which comes within my administrative responsibility.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister advise the house whether he has received a telegram from the Canadian society for the prevention of cruelty to animals protesting against the indiscriminate and inhumane shooting of adult seals and advising the minister that the society, in the light of this alleged cruelty, had ordered its manager to return to the sealing grounds? Can the minister allay the anxiety of many Canadian citizens regarding seal hunting practices?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, I received a telegram yesterday from the president of the C.S.P.C.A. and one from the executive secretary, to which I replied as follows:
Appreciate your telegram 21 advising that at least in one area gulf of St. Lawrence shooting of adult harp seals appears inefficient and perhaps cruel. Assume your informant will be forwarding specific data concerning area involved and individuals concerned for inclusion with total information being collected on this subject by our officers throughout whole sealing area. If this practice is general action will be taken to impose more restrictions on at least Canadian sealers in future hunts. Meantime am advising Canadian sealers through our officers expect them carry out rigidly their commitment to control indiscriminate IMr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).]

and inefficient shooting or be faced with complete restriction this activity.
Just after I entered this chamber I received the following telegram from the president of the C.S.P.C.A., Mr. MacLaren:
On behalf of the C.S.P.C.A. I wish to thank you for your prompt attention to our telegram of 22nd. Your continued co-operation in this matter greatly appreciated. Your telegram released to press as proof of good co-operation by yourself and your department. Many thanks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Does the minister have officials of his department on the sealing grounds, and can he give us an assurance that steps are being taken to combat this practice?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In order to complete my reply perhaps I may quote a telegram which I had sent to the area directors at Halifax and St. John's. This was sent by the director of conservation and development service.
Our minister in receipt of strong protest against shooting adult seals in gulf and in view of fact they contend only one seal in four recovered and others wounded. Please have our officers continue check this activity carefully to provide general information on complete hunt. Please advise sealers your area through our officers or any other way that minister expects them to carry out their commitment of controlling indiscriminate and inefficient shooting by limiting such to competent hunters and efficient equipment. If this not done undoubtedly they will be faced with complete restriction this activity future hunts.



WHEAT-SUGGESTED VISIT TO MAINLAND CHINA BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is related to my question to the Secretary of State yesterday respecting the recent C.B.C. program on which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle appeared. My question has to do with the minister's comment on that program: "Wheat remains one of the most important items in our trade balance". And further:
The very stability of our currency has been dependant to a very large degree on our success in selling wheat.
In view of these acknowledged facts, is the minister now prepared to go personally to China to try to renew and even expand the extremely important Chinese wheat agreement which ends in 1966?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I doubt whether this question is in accordance with the rules, but I may say

to the hon. member that over the years the wheat board has done an excellent job both under the previous administration and under the present administration in selling Canadian wheat, as it is required to do by act of parliament.
I should like very much to visit mainland China, but like my predecessor in charge of the Canadian wheat board I find it difficult as a minister of the crown to visit a country which Canada does not recognize.



SUGGESTED EXPANSION OF CREDIT FOR EXPORT SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The question arises out of reports that some of Canada's competitors abroad are offering more attractive credit terms than those provided by Canada, which may place our export sales at a disadvantage.
Can the minister assure the house that the government is prepared to expand its credit facilities to meet such new competitive terms, and in particular to provide export financing to sales under $2 million?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my view that the present facilities do allow Canadian exporters to compete on commercial terms, and are comparable to those provided by any other country. But this is a situation which requires constant examination, and I can assure the hon. member that if we find we are placed in any way at a disadvantage in selling our goods because of the inadequacy of credit facilities, we will remedy the situation. This applies to the particular question raised about the financing of sales of less than $2 million.


Reid Scott: With regard to the financing of sales of less than $2 million, would not the minister consider representations from Canadian exporters seeking this type of credit as sufficient indication of need to warrant the granting of such credit?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are receiving representations from exporters constantly. These are given the most careful attention, and if we find that the export financing facilities are genuinely inadequate and that the requirements are interfering with the sale of Canadian goods, we rectify the situation. I cannot go into detail in reply to the question about sales involving less than $2 million, but I will look into the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: A supplementary question. I should like to ask whether the minister has received representations from the export association regarding the 11 per cent tax on production machinery.


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been a number of representations from various sources, including some members of this house.


Fred Frise Stenson: Does the hon. gentleman not feel this has hurt our export trade?


Mitchell William Sharp: When exports rise 19 per cent in a single year it is difficult to think that very much is interfering with the success of our efforts.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have
a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the international joint commission given authority to anyone to dump fill into lake Ontario between the mouth of the Humber river and the mouth of Etobicoke creek, thus affecting the water levels of this international body of water?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will see that this important matter is looked into.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do the owners of so-called water lots lying south of Mimico and Long Branch, on lake Ontario, enjoy an immunity from the regulations of the international joint commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that
because of the technical aspects involved in the question I would not be expected to give an immediate response, but I will look into it.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. Is he in a position to announce today an extension of the winter works program in Canada's national parks, or can he advise the house whether the government is giving

Canada Pension Plan
consideration to the matter, particularly with reference to the parks in the Atlantic provinces where, as the minister knows, we have very high unemployment?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an answer to a question directed to me recently by the hon. member for Lapointe, concerning government translations.
After inquiries made from my officials I can assure the hon. member that civil servants other than those working as fulltime translators are not entrusted with doing translation.
With respect to translations done outside the service in certain circumstances, the rate is not five cents a word, but one and a half cents to two cents.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. Chatferton:: Mr. Chairman, while we were on second reading last November I made a few general remarks with regard to the Canada pension plan. During the clause by clause discussion in the committee of the whole I also made reference to specific provisions in the bill. We are now on clause 1 and I should like to make a few general remarks about the ambit of the Canada pension plan.
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).!
This is indeed important legislation. To give an idea of the scope of the legislation, with regard to cost it has been estimated that the collections by way of contributions would represent an increase of about 23 per cent in income tax. It is truly said that this is probably one of the most important pieces of social legislation which has been introduced in this house. Unfortunately, I find in many parts of Canada that people have been misled about what the Canada pension plan would do for them.
First of all, I should like to go back to the last election campaign where the deception started. I have before me a half page advertisement from the Vancouver Sun dated April 4, 1963 which refers to pensions. This is an advertisement of the Liberal party which says, among other things:
-at age 70 the pension will be $296 for a couple or $231 for a single person.
A far cry, Mr. Chairman, from the provisions in this bill. Furthermore, this advertisement gives the impression that this is the pension which will apply to all people. While on the subject of this advertisement, a little lower down it says:
To help people already retired, who have not had a chance to contribute under the new Liberal plan, a minimum supplementary pension of $10 per month will be paid, from the start, out of the pension fund established by contributions.
We all know what happened in July, 1963 when the first Canada pension plan was introduced in the house. We moved that $10 be paid immediately. At that time every member on the other side voted against it; but in due course of time they were compelled by public opinion to finally grant the $10 which we had asked them to do at that time.
Another point I want to make is that our group both in committee and in this house tried to move an amendment whereby a flat minimum benefit of $25 would be paid under the Canada pension plan fund even to those people who did not contribute. One of the replies which were given by members on the other side was that this is a contributory pension plan, and that therefore those who did not contribute should not receive anything. Yet in their own advisement they said that $10 would be paid to everyone over 70 even if they had not contributed anything. So time has changed their minds in that respect, as it has changed their minds in many others.
I think a word might be in order about the usual fumbling and bumbling of this govern-

ment. We have become used to this with regard to almost everything that has been introduced, but I want to refer specifically to their fumbling and bumbling with regard to the Canada pension plan. The first plan was introduced in this house on July 18, 1963. At that time the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that it was entirely up to the house how expeditiously they treated this matter, but that this great creation will become law for the benefit of all Canadians. Well, Mr. Chairman, that plan died a quiet death.
Then in a second try, on March 17, 1964 the minister introduced another Canada pension plan, Bill No. C-75. This was her second offspring. Even at that time, Mr. Chairman, a white paper was being prepared, and the third Canada pension plan was born on August 10, 1964. There were a lot of difficulties and poor handling regarding the release of the actuarial reports, the appendices thereto, the economic report, and so on.
Then again, last week the members of the Creditistes raised the question of lack of translation of the minutes into French. Ministers and members on the other side said that it would take six months to have these translations completed. Then the following day the Prime Minister said that it would be done in six days. This is typical of the way the Canada pension plan and other legislation has been handled by this government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to go into some of the shortcomings of the Canada pension plan, as I see it. I am indeed sorry that the member from Victoria (B.C.) is, as usual, not in his seat, because although I very much enjoyed addressing several organizations in his riding on the Canada pension plan I now have so many other requests that I may not be able to accommodate further requests from the riding of Victoria (B.C.) and I had hoped that he might be here to learn something about it so that he could fulfil his duty to his constituents.
The main shortcoming, Mr. Chairman, of the Canada pension plan, as I see it, is the inequity between various groups of Canadians. The first group I want to refer to are all those people who are now retired who will not get one penny benefit out of the Canada pension plan. The question immediately arises: By what valid reason, by what reason at all, does a government have a greater responsibility to those people who will be 20220-8031
Canada Pension Plan
retiring in the next few years than it has to those who are now retired?
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that those individuals who are now retired will not receive one penny in benefits from the Canada pension plan. It may be that members on the other side will say that in due course these people will benefit, but let us consider what will happen in 1976 to this group who are now retired, after the plan has been in operation for ten years. In 1976, 66 per cent, of those people will not receive one penny in benefits from the Canada pension plan. Some 32 per cent of these people will receive average benefits in the amount of $45 per month, and the fortunate 1.5 per cent of the group will receive an average of $119 per month.
This group of people is one that is probably in greatest need because they spent the greatest part of their earning lives during the depression and pre-war periods when wages were very low; yet they will not receive one penny in benefits from the plan. Even in 1980 when the plan will have been in operation for almost 15 years more than half of the people in this group, and there will be something like 1,800,000 of them, will not receive one penny from the Canada pension plan. In spite of the fact that there will be this group receiving nothing, there will be another fortunate group of Canadians who will receive very large windfalls. For example, an individual who has contributed for only ten years and then retires at age 65 will receive a bonus and the windfall portion of that bonus, or the unearned part, will amount to over $18,000.
Another group of Canadians will not receive benefits, or very low benefits, from the plan, and I refer to that group who consistently earn less than the minimum required under the provisions of the bill, being $600 per year for an employed individual and $800 a year for a self-employed individual. I have taken extracts from the dominion bureau of statistics reports in this regard. According to the 1961 census there were
369.000	Canadian wage earners who earned less than $500 per year. There were over
700.000	Canadian wage earners who earned less than $1,000 a year. These are the groups of Canadian wage earners whose records of earnings are the most erratic of any in Canada, and these are the ones who will receive practically nothing, or nothing, from the Canada pension plan. These are the people who, because of their low earnings,

Canada Pension Plan
will not be able to set anything aside for their retirement, and when the time arrives for them to retire they will quite properly look to their communities to help them. The Canada pension plan will not help them to any great extent.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


George Louis Chatterton: The hon. member will permit questions after he has completed his speech, if there is enough time.
Perhaps this is an opportune time to refer to what the minister of national health said when she introduced the first plan in this house in July 1963. She said that the purpose of this government proposed legislation was to ensure that as soon as it is possible to make the plan effective, in a practical way, all Canadians will be able to retire in security and with dignity. That is the principle for which we voted on the motion for second reading. But does the Canada pension plan accomplish that principle?
The group consistently earning less than $600 per year and the group of self-employed individuals earning less than $800 per year consists, in the main, of farmers and fishermen. I have some figures in relation to the earnings of fishermen in certain provinces and I hope that all hon. members representing constituencies in Newfoundland, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will listen carefully to these figures, which refer to the average annual value of landed fish, per fisherman, in the years 1960 to 1962.
In Newfoundland, which has some 18,800 commercial fishermen, the average landed value of fish per fisherman was $850. From that figure they will have to deduct their expenses, so it is certain that the average fisherman in Newfoundland will not qualify for benefits under this plan.
The average landed value of fish per fisherman in Quebec in the period 1960 to 1962 was $875. In Prince Edward Island the average per fisherman was $1,345. Again from my general knowledge of fishing I would state that half of that value would go to expenses, so these fishermen will not qualify. In New Brunswick the average landed value of fish per fisherman was $1,400. It is certain that the majority of fishermen in that province will not benefit under this plan. Surely the majority of small farmers in Quebec and in the eastern provinces will not benefit in any way, or in a very small way, from the Canada pension plan.

Another shortcoming of the Canada pension plan is that for many years those people who earn the most money will receive the greatest bonus, while those who earn the least will receive the smallest bonus. For example, a self-employed person who retires in 1981, after the plan has been in operation for 15 years, and who contributes on the basis of average earnings of $5,000 a year, would receive a windfall to the extent of $20,000. That individual may well have earned $10,000 to $20,000 per year. Provided he earned at least $5,000 per year he would receive a windfall of $20,000. On the other hand, a person whose income was only half that, or $2,500, would be less able to provide for his retirement but would receive a bonus of only $10,000. Under the provisions of this plan the relationship of benefits to earnings progresses downward until it reaches the minimum, at which time the bonus becomes almost negligible.
Furthermore the discrepancy between what a person with a high income level will receive and what a person with a low income will receive is aggravated in the future by the provision for acceleration. For example an individual who receives the maximum, or $100 per month, if the consumer price index went up over a ten year period at 2 per cent per year, would receive $2 per month more. On the other hand, an individual whose pension was $20 per month would receive an increase of only 60 cents per month. After ten years the difference in increases between the pension of $104 per month and that of $20 per month would become not $82, but $100, so it can readily be seen that the escalation provisions of the bill will aggravate the discrepancy.
I should like to quote now from a recent issue of the Canadian Tax Journal to give an example of how an individual with a high income actually pays less to the government by way of contribution than a man with a small income. For example, a man with an income of $20,000 a year will pay only $43.45 per year toward the plan. This is because he is in the 45 per cent tax bracket and he is therefore able to deduct 45 per cent of the cost of his contribution. On the other hand, a person who has an income or gross salary of only $5,000 a year will pay the full contribution of $79 toward the plan.


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


George Louis Chatterton: If you do not mind, no, because I have not got too much time. I will

be glad to take them afterwards. Write them down if you cannot remember them. I want to refer for a moment to the small businessmen, many of whom will be very hard hit by the Canada pension plan. I will describe one inequity brought to my attention by a small businessman. He is a trucker who operates two trucks and employs one man. This trucker's net income is $5,000 a year. He also pays his truck driver $5,000 a year. This small businessman will pay $240 a year toward the Canada pension plan while his employee will pay roughly $80 a year. In other words, the employer will pay three times what the employee pays but they will both get the same pension.
I want to refer to the position of married women. I had hoped that the Minister of National Health and Welfare might be a little more sympathetic toward them, but since she has not been I am afraid I will have to take up their cause for them. I contend that the Canada pension plan treats the married woman who stays home and minds the family very badly compared with others in other positions. For example, a young woman begins to work at age 20 and she works for 10 years with average earnings of $3,000 per year. After working for 10 years she gets married and looks after her children. When she finally reaches the age of 65 she is entitled to a pension and her pension will be about $15 per month. In other words, she has paid for 10 years on the basis of earnings of $3,000 per year.
Take the case of another woman who happens to be a little older. She is 55 and she pays exactly the same amount. She pays for 10 years based on an average annual salary of $3,000 per year but she gets a pension of $62 a month. In other words, although they both pay the same the woman who is 55 gets four times the pension of the other woman.
Here is another example of how the woman who minds her family is penalized, so to speak. Take the example of a married couple, both of whom are working. When they retire at age 65 they will have a combined pension, including old age security, of $350 a month. Take the case of the other woman who stayed home and minded her family. In due course the other married couple will retire with a pension of $100 a month less.
I have a few incidental points I want to make, the first having to do with students. Although in committee members voted unanimously for an increase in the drop-out provision, that is, the number of work years of their earning life they will be allowed to
Canada Pension Plan
eliminate, in the house the minister would not agree to anything more than 15 per cent. In our opinion this penalizes students. There is no doubt that Canada must do all in its power-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member at this stage because I recognize that he is probably the leadoff speaker on behalf of his party on clause 1. However, I think I should caution the hon. member who is speaking now, as well as other hon. members who intend to take part in the debate, that although our practice of recent years, which is contrary to the written rule of the committee, has been to allow discussion of a general nature on clause 1, there are still limitations to what hon. members can consider. One of them, of course, is that we cannot go outside the contents of the bill itself, and another is that whenever a decision has been arrived at in the committee with regard to a particular clause it is very doubtful if it is possible for hon. members to revive the subject matter of that clause, because obviously that would reflect on the vote of the committee. We have an upsidedown procedure when we are studying clause 1 following consideration of the other clauses of the bill, and I know it will cause difficulties in the course of the discussion. This is perhaps the first time that the new rule approved and recommended by the committee on procedure and organization is being tried out. I know it may cause difficulties, but certainly the point should be kept in mind that whenever a decision has been reached by the committee on a particular clause discussion of that clause should not be reopened. I am sure my hon. friend will keep that in mind.


George Louis Chatterton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not mean to reflect on the decision of the committee with regard to the 15 per cent. I merely wanted to point out that in my opinion this does adversely affect students who may spend six, seven or more years of their lives at a university and will have used up their total dropout entitlement. If they retire earlier than 65 they will have no more years they can use for dropout purposes since they have used them all up.
Another difficulty in regard to the Canada pension plan is the tremendously complicated nature of the plan. Not only is it complicated to understand in the first place but I think the real difficulty with regard to the complications of the plan will arise in due course when people try to understand it. I do not

Canada Pension Plan
see how the average, ordinary employee or self-employed person, unless he has expert advice, will have any idea what his pension is going to be. It will be almost impossible to find out, and certainly I think it is elementary that any person, particularly when he gets to the point where he is approaching retirement, wants to know what his pension is going to be when he retires. In his earlier years he also wants to know what other provision he might make for his retirement, but the fact is that he will have very little idea of what his pension will be when he reaches 65.
I want to make a brief reference to the opting out provision of the bill. I think the real difficulty of the government arises by virtue of the fact that they went into the Canada pension plan and promised the people a national pension plan without due consideration of section 94A of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
The parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors' and disability benefits irrespective of age, but no such law shall effect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter.
Therefore the government had no option in its approach to this whole matter of allowing a province to opt out. Of course, once a province has opted out it can, by virtue of the British North America Act, change the plan in any way it wants. In this regard I should like to quote one or two statements from an address made by Hon. John Robarts, prime minister of Ontario, in the legislature on January 21, 1965. With reference to the question of whether the government of Ontario should opt out he said:
On the other hand, the province of Ontario and this government have traditionally worked for national unity and national standards of social services. We have participated in national social security programs and in many other instances have provided support in the interests of national standards and national stability.
Here is the pertinent sentence:
In the present circumstances, if we were to propose a plan in which there were any marked differences, even though "comparable", we might seriously impair the principle of national portability of pensions, which has been one of our goals for many years.
The premier distinctly recognizes the fact that any province which opts out has the right to change the plan in any way it wishes, and I think it is obvious that once such a plan is changed, then portability across Canada or between that province and
[Mr. Chatterton.l
the other provinces that have not opted out could well be destroyed. I quote another sentence from the remarks of the premier of Ontario. Referring to his decision to stay with the Canada pension plan he said:
In coming to this decision, I am well aware that the government of Quebec has indicated that it intends to administer its own pension plan, which will be comparable to the Canada pension plan and, it is hoped, will not seriously impair interprovincial portability.
He went on to say:
While I can sympathize with this decision I nevertheless do not despair that in the future the government of Quebec may see fit to enter into the national plan, which will be so similar to its own. If this could come to pass, we would achieve our ultimate goal of a truly national pension plan that would go far toward setting the pattern for future, nation-wide, social welfare legislation.
I think it is trying to mislead the people of Canada to say that this is necessarily a national Canada pension plan, as it is quite possible that because of the whole approach of this government it may not be portable in every part of Canada. I wish to say just a word about the integration of private pension plans with the Canada pension plan. As the minister said and as the bill indicates, the Canada pension plan does not in any way affect any pension plan that is in existence now, and if there is to be any change it is up to the private pension plan to integrate or adjust.
I submit that the evidence given before the joint committee indicates that, primarily because the Canada pension plan is not funded on an actuarially sound basis, it will be extremely difficult for private pension plans to properly integrate. Just to give an example, the government itself has of now, I presume, found out this difficulty and they are now working on amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act so that it will be integrated with the Canada pension plan. The government has announced in general terms its formula for amending or integrating the P.S.S.A. into the Canada pension plan. I would just quote one example of an anomaly that occurs in this integration. This is with regard to widows' pension. I have looked up two examples here where a widow receives a pension actually greater than the salary of her husband before he died. I quote one of these cases, where the average salary of the husband in the civil service was $3,000 per year-that is, the average of his best six years. He would receive a pension after 35 years service of $2,100. His widow's pension under the P.S.S.A. would be $1,050 a year, and for four children the pension would be $840 a

a year. Under the Canada pension plan that widow would receive $580, and for four children she would receive $1,200. In other words, the widow's pension in that case would be $3,670, which is 122 per cent of her husband's salary at the date of his demise. This shows the difficulties in integrating any private pension plan with the Canada pension plan.
I predict, Mr. Chairman, that in future the Canada pension plan will be a political football. A huge fund will be built up of up to $8.5 billion by 1985, and yet large groups of Canadians, particularly those with the greatest need, will receive no benefit or very little benefit from the Canada pension plan. Therefore it is the most natural thing in the world for these people to put pressure on politicians in order to receive some benefit from this fund, particularly when it is said that it will not cause any immediate increase in taxation. Now, Mr. Chairman, a word with regard to part IV of Bill No. C-136.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time expired a few minutes ago. Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing in order that he may terminate his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Louis Chatterton: I will only be three or four minutes, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the questions the hon. member was going to answer?


George Louis Chatterton: They can be asked within that time, too. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a word about the old age security provisions under part IV of the bill. As I have said on a previous occasion, I believe that if the government intends to make the old age security pension available at age 65, it should be done at the same time. It is going to be very difficult for people who are now 65 years of age to understand why they do not get the old age security pension, whereas in 1970 those who are 65 years of age will receive the old age security pension.
I now wish to say a word or two about our proposals in the committee. We recommended that all those now 70 years of age and over who are in receipt of old age security pension should receive $25 a month out of the Canada pension plan. We suggested that those between 65 and 70 years of age who are retired should also receive $25 a month from the Canada pension plan. Furthermore we felt that all those who regularly earn less than
Canada Pension Plan
the minima described in the bill and who would normally get no pension, or a very small pension under the Canada pension plan, should receive $25 a month minimum pension for a single person and $40 a month for a married couple. Our group was the only one that voted for this recommendation in the committee.
I believe that the government should have approached this whole question of pensions in the way it was approached in 1952 when there was a joint committee on this subject. That committee was not told, "Here is the plan; please rubber stamp it". They were told to determine what was the best type of plan that should be introduced, and they came up with the old age security without the means test. I believe that if a similar approach had been taken and the government had sent this plan to the committee before second reading, that would have helped. I believe that if this approach had been taken, the plan with which we are dealing at the present time might have been materially different.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for York East.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. member a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Does the hon. member for York East yield the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Steven Otto: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I merely wish to put one question to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, though his speech does prompt me to ask several. However, Mr. Chairman, I will confine myself to one. When the hon. member was referring to the fact that the income tax would make a difference in the amount that a wealthy person has to pay by way of contribution to the Canada pension plan, did he not also appreciate that a wealthy person drawing the benefit under the Canada pension plan would, by the same token, have to pay back much more of it in income tax than anyone else, and therefore would at the end draw less, on a net basis, than those in the lower income brackets?


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, Mr. Chairman; but the reason I mentioned this matter was because members on the other side have consistently tried to make the point that those in the lower income brackets, because of the $600

Canada Pension Plan
exemption, pay less than those in the higher income brackets; that is, as a percentage. This is true. I merely point out that in cases of very high income their contribution is less. But what the hon. member has said is quite right.


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of reviewing or repeating arguments expressed on both sides of the house as to the benefits or lack of benefits of this plan. The minister will be pleased to know that I have no intention of speaking on the opting out provision, because I am completely satisfied that everyone in Canada will have equal benefits from the pension plan. But I would like to emphasize one aspect of the plan which has not been touched on in this committee, namely the economic advantage to be gained from it.
There are still many people, insurance companies and the like, adamantly opposed to the plan even though it has almost become law, and they have expressed many fears. I would like to say a word or two in order to belittle their apprehensions. It will be noted that life insurance sales increased last year even though this plan had been under consideration during that time. However, that did not stop people from buying life insurance, which has an element of pension in it. This furthers the argument that rather than being of no benefit to the private companies the plan will be an advantage to them. No doubt we shall have the same experience as in the United States, and sales of private pension plans will increase.
Another point I would like to mention is one which was well publicized in a chamber of commerce speech by Mr. Weldon, in which he said that the portability provision alone would more than pay for any cost of the plan. Most hon. members know that many employees are tied to their jobs or positions because of a pension plan, but if their pension plan becomes portable, the same as the Canada pension plan, they may change jobs and thus increase productivity. From experience I know of many men and women working in jobs they do not like, and thus do not give more than 10 per cent of their ability to them.
There are two other elements to be considered. We are all concerned about the fact that Canadians do not own shares in Canadian industry, and the cause is the apprehension they are subject to, of not knowing that will happen to them in their old age. Thus, when it comes to a question of taking

a risk and buying shares they are naturally apprehensive. A plan such as this, which envisions a fairly decent standard of living for people in their old age, will remove some of this apprehension, and thus people will invest more money during their productive years in buying shares.
Even if the people who now own shares in our industries made those shares available to Canadians at half price there would not be sufficient Canadians to buy them, due mainly the fact that they are apprehensive about their declining years. Eventually, due to this plan people will be able to buy more shares, and the money which will remain in Canada accruing from the profits and dividends will more than offset any costs of the Canada pension plan.
I emphasize these points because much has been made of the socialistic side of the plan, the social conscience involved, and the idea that this is a gift. It is not a gift. Anyone who looks at it from a business point of view will acknowledge it is an investment for the future, and by and large it will not be as expensive as might be imagined. Even if it is so expensive we can more than make up for that from the side effects of such a plan.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make a few general remarks on the legislation before us. Considerable attention has been given to it during clause by clause study. Members have had the opportunity to raise objections to certain clauses and to suggest amendments. But now we have reached this stage and we find very few consequential amendments were made to the measure, and in all probability it will be adopted pretty much in the form in which it was introduced.
Mention was made this afternoon about the portability provision. This is one of the most important proposals in the measure. We have reached a period in our history when it is absolutely necessary that provision be made so individuals can change from one job to another without in any way losing or jeopardizing their pension benefits. If portability were the only provision in this measure I think there would be wide acceptance of it, and wide appreciation for it.
A considerable investment fund is to be set up and placed at the disposal of the various provincial administrations. A question has been raised as to whether the plan should be used for such a purpose, whether it is right and proper that the money paid into the fund should be used in that fashion. I believe it will make a worth-while contribution to our economy because if the capital

needs of provincial and municipal governments can be satisfied from this fund, additional private capital will be left for investment in industry and business. I do not think we have anything to fear along that line. Further, use of the fund in this way will create additional job opportunities and the country's economy will benefit in the long run.
However, there is considerable apprehension about many aspects of the plan, and I would like to deal with some of those aspects. I am not so naive as to believe that any fundamental changes or amendments will be made to it, but I do want to voice some of the objections that have been brought to my attention.
First, there is the compulsory aspect of the plan, and this principle of compulsion is repugnant to all those who support the concept of individual initiative and responsibility. This seems to be another indication of the thinking of the government, that it does not believe people have the ability or intelligence to invest their money in order to provide for their retirement years. Therefore the government is making it compulsory that people pay into the Canada pension plan in order that they may receive some benefits from it during their declining years. I can appreciate the views of those who take strong exception to this compulsory aspect of it.
Therefore I believe we should consider whether there is not some other way to make this work effectively and adequately, without using force and compulsion to make people contribute to the plan.
Another objection is that it does not provide benefits for all Canadians, as was originally suggested. As has been pointed out, many of those in the greatest need of its provisions will not be eligible to participate in it. Therefore some have stated, possibly with justification, that this plan would be of greatest benefit to those who need it less than others who will be unable to take full advantage of its provisions. I believe that in future, in the light of experience, provision will have to be made to extend its scope to a greater number of people who are desirous of participating in this plan.
I believe it has been pointed out on a number of occasions that this is actually a form of increased taxation which will result in reduced take home pay. I do not believe that many people nowadays have too much money left in their hands; I think most people have little left over after providing for 20220-804
Canada Pension Plan
their basic needs. This plan will drain off an additional amount from the take home pay of Canadians across this country and is likely to place many of them in a difficult position, bearing in mind the continued increase in the cost of living and its effect on providing for the families of those who would be affected. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to what he called the economic advantages of this plan. I suggest that from a personal point of view there are bound to be definite economic disadvantages as a result of reduced take home pay-the smaller amount left with which to purchase the necessities of life.
There is another objection, and it is this: a person who has already provided for his own retirement and for the security of his survivors to the limit of his financial ability will now have to reorganize his arrangements in order to take care of these new requirements. I think this constitutes an imposition upon those who have shown initiative-and perhaps enjoyed advantages-which enables them to make provision for themselves. As a result of this bill they will have to disturb the whole set up, re-appraise their position and make the necessary changes in the arrangements they have made for retirement in order that this new plan which has been imposed on them may receive the necessary contributions. I do not think this is fair. I think it constitutes a penalty upon those who have had the foresight and the ability to make retirement provisions for themselves. As I mentioned a few moments ago, substantial amendments will no doubt have to be made in the light of experience in the operation of this plan. I do not think anyone will deny that, taking account of the fact that the plan is operating in an area which is relatively new. I suggest these amendments will need to be substantial and drastic; they will have to recognize some of the basic weaknesses and fundamental flaws in this whole scheme. I trust the government will make sure that these amendments are introduced the moment they are recognized as being necessary in order that the plan may work to the advantage of Canadians as a whole.
These are just a few observations. As I pointed out, I am not so naive as to expect that any fundamental changes will be made at this stage. However, we trust the minister will take note of the points which have been drawn to her attention by various members of this house and make sure that when the opportunity presents itself amendments will
126S8

Canada Pension Plan
be made which will really bring important benefits to the people of Canada as a whole.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. C-136 establishing a Canada pension plan is made up of four parts; the first one deals with contributions, the second one with pensions and supplementary benefits, the third one with the administration of the plan and the fourth one with the amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that plan is a devious method used by the government to secure new funds to enable it to make ends meet each year.
The government's aim is not to pay a pension to people aged 65 or 70, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare admitted it herself, as well as other ministers, but to find between $5 and $7 billion within the next ten years.
It is clear that the pension paid at age 65 or 70 will not come from the money paid at the present time to the government by young people. When we reach age 65 or 70 this pension will be paid to us with the money collected from our children by the government. This is the purpose of the pension plan.
Instead of calling it a new tax a new name has been found for it; it is called a pension plan with a compulsory contribution, so that any Canadian will receive a pension in his old age. That, Mr. Chairman, amounts in fact to a national barbotte. It is nothing else but that.
And at the provincial level they want to set up a similar, identical and parallel pension plan.
That is why we advise the people of the province of Quebec who will be called upon to subscribe to a similar plan, independent to a certain extent of the national plan, but which must take into consideration the data or standards of the federal plan, to object firmly and positively to this pension plan which is but a confiscation of savings and salaries.
At a time when the national revenue is not high enough to purchase the national production of Canadians, the government brings forth this plan in order to draw' more from the pay envelopes of the workers and the people of Canada in general.
Within a few years, this pension plan will take away from wage earners a revenue of approximately $8 to $9 billion of the national revenue. That is what the pension

plan will take out of the national revenue within a few years.
The purpose of this plan is to find from $5 to $7 billion. Why always insist upon the fact that we will be helping Canadians who have attained the age of 65, whereas we will be fleecing them as long as they are working.
A youth who starts working at the age of 18 or 19 will contribute until he has reached the age of 65, and then, instead of reimbursing him the money he has paid, as I said a moment ago, the government will pay him a pension out of the contributions which his children will then be paying. Most likely, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) will not be here by then. Even the present government will not exist, it will have been replaced by another. The coming generations will be paying for those who will be drawing a pension at the age of 65.
For the information of the house I may say that the other day when I went to western Canada, more specifically to Winnipeg, I read this article in the Winnipeg Tribune of February 25, 1965:

Anyone who was naive enough to hope that the Canada pension plan would end political bidding in old age security must feel sadly disappointed. Political parties and individual M.P.'s have responded to the scheme by initiating an auction for votes worse than anything in the last quarter of a century.

At this point I would say that when claims are made they do not always come from members of parliament, as shown by this letter received from the senior women's committee for pension increases, 172 Madison avenue, Toronto 5, Ontario. I shall read that letter in a few moments. I think that all the members must have received a similar letter. The article continues:

There are calls for blanket increases in amounts of pensions and for introduction of new categories of beneficiaries from all sides of the house. The result is that the plan is now a hopeless mixture of political insurance and political welfare.
The bidding can have very serious effects in the future because of the vast sums of money involved.
A recent issue of the Mercer actuarial bulletin gives an idea of the meaning of some of the figures being bandied about. Here is what it says:
The Canada pension plan is expected to create a fund which will reach $5 billion by 1975.
How much is $5 billion? Putting it in terms of time and in terms of amounts we can better visualize, here are several ways of defining $5 billion.

If a 21 year old set out to spend $25,000 per hour-
That is per hour, not per week or per
month.
-eight hours a day, every week of the year, he would have to live to age 117 to achieve his objective.
If you laid $5 billion in $1 bills end to end, they would encircle the earth at its equator 20
times.
That is quite a distance. Then third:
If a business had commenced operations in the year 1 A.D. with $5 billion capital and did so poorly that it lost $200,000 per month-
That would be almost as bad as the government; not too tar from it.
-every month, it could still operate for over another 100 years before it had lost its original $5 billion.
If piled up, $5 billion in $1,000 bills would reach a height of about 1,650 feet, or approximately one and one third times the height of the Empire State
building.
If you had a staff of 100 people, working a 40 hour week-
Not 44 hours, or 48, or 54, but a 40 hour
week.
-and each able to count at the rate of 250 bills per minute-
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that 250 bills per minute is quite a fast rate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope you will give them statutory holidays off.


David Réal Caouette: I am just coming to that.
-it would take almost two years to count $5 billion in $1 bills (with due allowance for coffee breaks, absenteeism, vacations with pay and statutory holidays).
Even by current day standards these figures are impressive.

This is what it means: $5 billion in round figures. The government says it will need $5, $7 or perhaps $10 billion within the next ten years. Well, we shall definitely not accept Bill No. C-136.
It is obvious that the government proposes to withhold even more from the pay cheques or the income of Canadian citizens, when we are not even able to dispose of our national production. Why does the government not use funds available at the Bank of Canada, according to the actual production in Canada, and instead of calling this a pension plan, while it is really a form of taxation, it could replace it by a national dividend based on Canadian production, on the actual resources of the country, and not on debts, on the poverty of the Canadian people, but rather 20220-804}
Canada Pension Plan
on the existing abundance and on our potential production.
That is what the government does not want to consider. Instead of cutting into the financial system, a new tax is invented, in short national or provincial "barbottes"; whatever you call it, it is still confiscating small salaries and national revenue.
Mr. Chairman, in 1964 the national production amounted to $46 billion. In 1965, it will probably reach $48, $49 or $50 billion. In 1964, the total national revenue was about $33 billion. Therefore, there exists a discrepancy of $13 billion between production and purchasing power in the hands of consumers. And we do not have to call this social credit in order to understand and to realize that everybody knows about it. Stores abound in products of all kinds. Everybody knows that industrial warehouses are filled to capacity. We do not know what to do with Canadian production.
One can also realize that salaries are not sufficient to buy the goods produced. Look at the situation of wage earners throughout Canada.
They have mortgaged their income for three, four and five years in order to buy this year's production. They have bought a refrigerator, a car on finance, they have borrowed from Household Finance or any other finance company. Why? Because salaries are insufficient, the total national revenue is insufficient to purchase the production.
There are still economists who contend that salaries will eventually be able to buy the production in this country. Mr. Chairman, I see two economists before me, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) and the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne), people who do not yet believe in the theories of social credit but who do not suggest any remedy to the government. It was expected that as members of the federal cabinet they would work miracles, but the only solution they put forward amounts to a tax increase; this will bring about a decrease instead of an increase in the distribution of production since the purchasing power will have been confiscated. Such is their logic and that is what we are fighting, not only in this house but outside as well.
When we preached the theory of Major C. H. Douglas, the theorem of A + B, the economists used to say that it was basically wrong. What does this theorem say? That salaries must be at a level allowing the production to be purchased. That is true; it is an

Canada Pension Plan
established fact. Today, we have the evidence before us; it is clear that the production will be bought, but it will be renewed year after year at a quicker pace than the increase in salaries, because at the rate we are going, there will always be a surplus of production over purchasing power, which is the income in the hands of consumers.
Economists contend that salaries will be adequate to buy the production. It is like saying that any person who is born will die some day; why worry, for in the end the death total will equal the birth total and consequently, there will be no increase in population at any time, because in the end, the total of deaths will be equivalent to the total of births. A very intelligent statement, indeed. Only it must be remembered that some people die at 70, 55, 40, 35, 12, and even infants die. Thus, the time element must be taken into account, because at a certain time every year, there is an increase in the population of Canada as in all the countries of the world. It is absurd to claim that there will be no more problems because in the end, everybody dies.
With regard to national production, it is exactly the same thing, because we produce more than we earn, and the government, instead of making up for the lack of money and credit, presents bills which reduce the consumers' purchasing power.
We noticed yesterday in the blue book of estimates for 1965-that the interest on the public debt-and this is only one item- amounts to $1,103 million. That is sacred.
Why not cut into that? Do you know that $1,103 million represents $55 per capita in Canada, if you assume that the population totals 20 million people; $55 per capita, $550 for a family of 10 people, $275 for a family of five people. That is what it means. Why does the government not cut into those interests, instead of taking from the pockets and wallets of the people who build Canada?
I am not indulging in partisan politics either Grit, Tory or what have you, I do not care. Let us deal with the problems and look for the solution where it might be available.
The pension plan is no solution because with such standards it means additional taxation, and the Canadian people are fed up with taxes.
Did the Canadian people ask for such a plan? I have just visited the universities all across Canada, from British Columbia to the maritime provinces, and everywhere in those universities I have met people, young and
[Mr. Caouette.l
old, and they do not want that pension plan because they do not want to pay more taxes.
The government, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Health and Welfare claim that it is a good thing for the economic development in Canada, as was said a while ago by a government member. We have private organizations, private enterprises, that can provide pension plans for those who want them without any obligation, without coercion, without any strait-jacket. This pension plan is a strait-jacket that is forced on everybody.
We read in the clause concerning contributions that the employer will pay his share, that he shall collect from the employee and hand the contributions over to the government under penalty of mortal sin; he shall hand them over under penalty of a fine of retaliation from the government.
What does the government pay the employer for that work? Employers are forced to do the same thing as regards income tax. The Minister of National Revenue does that, but what does he do to have the employer do the work for the government? Absolutely nothing; but the employer is severely penalized if he does not act according to the government's requirement. Is that not dictatorship? Is it not a direct violation of the freedom of enterprise?


An hon. Member:: It is the Russian system.


David Réal Caouette: Precisely, it is the Russian system. In Russia, they do not do better than that, nor worse either.
Mr. Chairman, we have considered this bill clause by clause and we are now dealing with clause 1, which allows us to debate the scope and the general aspects of the bill. With respect to the pension plan I said a moment ago: Do you think that the country wants it, that the people want it? I have here a letter signed by Mr. F. M. Thompson-not the member for Red Deer, but another Mr. Thompson-fellow of the society of actuaries of Toronto, a sort of Mr. Kroeker senior of the department of insurance. All hon. members have probably received that letter; it reads as follows:
[Text]	-
At its best, it is well-intentioned bungling and at its worst, it is a colossal fraud of all Canadians.

Because he said these things he was
suspended on the pretence that he had no right to discuss a government bill, even one which is contrary to the interests of the

nation. That particular Mr. Thompson is definitely against the Canada pension plan.
I also have a letter from Miss Ethel Nielsen, secretary treasurer of the commission of pension increases, claiming that a $100 monthly pension could be paid to the aged, merely with the interest paid on the national debt.
The public debt charges amount to $1,103 million. If you add this to the old age pension fund, you will find that you could easily pay $100 a month to people aged 65 years and over. In fact, you could even pay such pension to persons 60 years old because, as the Minister of National Revenue fully knows, it is almost impossible today, for a person 60 years old to find a job anywhere in Canada. There is no more need for those people. They are too old. And the pension plan will come into force only in 1970, that is five years hence, for those having reached the age of 65.
Why not grant a pension which would allow the older people to live decently, why not give them more than they get at the present time, and without further increasing taxes?
Mr. Chairman, there is not enough credit in circulation; the point is not so much to
increase taxes as to distribute dividends. The result would be different. Some find this funny. It may be, but do you not think it funny to have a system like this where you have to resort to devious means in order to find money? They call it economic growth, whereas it is really economic depression, since some purchasing power is taken away from the consumers.
Mr. Chairman, we object to this pension plan. We shall vote against it, and we wish to advise the citizens of the province of Quebec not to be trapped by their provincial government, which intends to establish a pension scheme complying in all respects with the standards of the federal scheme we have been studying.
We want the government to start dealing with the real problem. That problem is due not to a lack of goodwill on the part of the Canadian people, but to a lack of will on the part of the government. It is a fact that the government does not want to touch the present financial system. You can go after the Canadian people or anybody else, but keep away from the financial system. That is something sacred. Leave that system alone, but go after all Canadian citizens. Let us go and tax the employer, the employee, all classes of society, let us take away from them
Canada Pension Plan
all we can of what they own, while doing our utmost to respect and keep adoring the golden calf as we have been doing so well since confederation.
Mr. Chairman, we do not expect to perform miracles and we are not asking for any. However, we do ask the government to take its responsibilities and start putting the financial system in step with realities in Canada, instead of putting Canadians in step with poverty.
The government should put Canadians in step with this land of plenty, help them to benefit from the wealth of goods Canada can produce at present. In order to do this, the government must absolutely have the will and determination to cut into the present financial system to free the private individual in Canada, in short, to liberate the whole Canadian people.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to make my speech at the very beginning of this debate on the bill before us in order to point out the various dangers of this famous pension plan. But contrary to common sense, we are now considering clause 1 after having passed the other 123 clauses.
Mr. Chairman, if that is not putting the cart before the horse, I do not know what it is.
Translation of the proceedings of the committee has finally been obtained and while we did not have time to read them all, we did distribute copies to members of our group so that we could point out to the government evidence showing that all Canadians are not in favour of this pension plan.
I thank the government for getting those proceedings translated with all possible dispatch, for we needed them badly. As a matter of fact, this shows once again that if, since confederation, the house had had members to uphold the constitution, bilingualism would not have fallen to such a low level.
In this connection, I would like to read an article published in he Devoir concerning the weakness of the government-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I suggest the hon. member confine his remarks to the matter before us, that is clause 1 of Bill No. C-136.
I am sure the hon. member will recognize that even though a general debate is allowed on clause 1, in spite of standing orders, some restraint should be exercised, and he should not go beyond the bill or the clause before us.
I think the hon. member goes beyond the scope of the bill before us when he deals with bilingualism and translation of the proceedings of that committee.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You will no doubt agree that to consider clause 1 after having passed 123 clauses is not normal either.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this reminder, but I should like to point out that several members have spoken about this translation before I did, and the Chair did not intervene. It seems that when a member of the Ralliement Creditiste has the floor, he is not afforded any leeway. Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling because we are used to being muzzled.
Mr. Chairman, I have taken part in all the discussions relating to the much debated clauses of this bill, particularly since a similar measure is going to be put before the Quebec legislature.
Mr. Chairman, what has struck me during this debate, is first of all, the unconcealed arrogance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), and then the intransigence of her associates. There is also the unexplainable haste with which the committee chairman has rushed the passing of some clauses of fundamental interest.
We have attended meetings of that committee which sat through most of the recess. In this regard, I want to point out that some members have been blamed-perhaps wrongly and without asking for explanations-for having missed some of the committee meetings.
Reference was made to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) who had to return to his constituency because of death in his family. He was bitterly criticized because he missed some sittings, but I am of the opinion that it is the members of the committee who should be blamed for having taken advantage of the recess to try to play a trick-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the bill now before us.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I believe when I speak about the study in committee of Bill No. C-136-


Lucien Lamoureux: I remind the hon. member that committee proceedings are not the subject matter of this debate and that it is Bill No. C-136 that is under consideration at present.


Jean Robert Beaulé: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it not a fact that the study in committee dealt with the general provisions of the bill?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Roberval has the floor.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I have the report of the committee proceedings in hand and it is going to be difficult for me to read a few sentences from it, if you do not want the name of the committee to be pronounced.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not want to get into a discussion with the hon. member. I did not say that he could not refer to the proceedings of the committee, and I remind him that we cannot at this time get into a discussion about what happened during the study in committee. I draw his attention more particularly to what he was saying, when he referred to the fact that the hon. member for Beauce did or did not attend certain meetings of the committee. It seems to me that such comment was not relevant to the present debate.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the committee report not directly related to the bill itself?


Lucien Lamoureux: If the hon. member is asking a hypothetical question, the Chair does not have to answer it.
I ruled strictly on the point raised by the hon. member, when he was reviving a discussion held a few days ago about the attendance or the absence of certain members at those committee meetings. I suggest that this point should not be discussed on clause 1 of the bill.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I thought that since this matter had been raised-the minister brought it up herself-we are entitled to give explanations on clause 1 of the bill. It seems to me that the restricted circle of committee members is not the only one which has the right to know and to disguise; we are also entitled to explanations concerning the various steps taken. In my opinion, it is a personal prerogative, Mr. Chairman.
We are now considering socialist and communist-inspired legislation of the worst kind, one that only the Liberal party, with the assistance of the N.D.P., could have introduced.
It is hypocritical legislation because under the pretence of providing protection for Canadian citizens, the government is levying a new tax that 90 per cent of the people cannot afford to pay. What will a person get at the age of 65? One hundred and four dollars, $52, $40 or $35 depending on his earning power. Average workers will be taxed throughout their lives to get back only 10 per cent of the money they contributed.
Hypocritical legislation because the government fails to tell the people that in 10 years time, it will have collected $6,000 to $7,000
[The Chairman.]

million from them without giving them back a single cent.
Hypocritical legislation because employers will always have to pay 50 per cent of their employees' contributions without ever getting a return on their money.
Hypocritical legislation because the poor labourer will again have to pay a tax on his gross income without having a word to say about it and because he may have to submit report after report to get a refund 12 to 18 months late.
Hypocritical legislation indeed, because neither employers nor contributors are being told that they will have to submit to three examinations, those of the federal and provincial income tax officers and that of the officials who will look after the insurance premiums of this socialist federal scheme.
Mr. Chairman, I say it is a socialist measure because it does, in fact, nationalize the savings of the average worker; it is the conscription of savings in Canada. The citizen is no longer a human being; he becomes a mere number.
It is with such a system that the communists succeeded in taking over a third of the world. The best proof that we have gone a long way in that direction is that, if someone tries to fight that dictatorship, he is shown the door.
Mr. Chairman, I have here evidence that will show to the house that this pension plan is insuring people who are already insured. Nobody took the trouble to wonder if the people who could not contribute to a private pension plan should not be the first considered by the government. Of course not, Mr. Chairman. What happens? The workers already insured by private insurance plans are covered by that plan.
Senator Croll asked a question about the people who are insured in Canada. The answer is found on page 14:
Trust funds	1,261,382
Group life Insurance annuities in Canada	560,539
Federal government group annuities 155,586
As we can see, Mr. Chairman, about 50 per cent of the labour force today contribute to private insurance plans. But it is precisely on that group of people that the federal government wants to impose a pension plan which will prevent them in the future from contributing to a private plan, since the working man cannot afford to pay two insurance premiums.
Mr. Chairman, I have here further evidence from a company which appeared before the committee. I mention it to show that there
Canada Pension Plan
was some opposition shown in the committee, but that it was not taken very seriously.
This company states that, since 1938, it has operated a contributory pension plan for its employees, which was amended from time to time and, at present, the company expects to pay to the employees and their widows, pensions of a higher level than those generally prevailing in our Canadian industry. The company in question would prefer to maintain its plan without changing it, but it admits the impossibility to do so because of the establishment of a public contributory pension plan such as proposed by Bill No. C-136.
That is why I was telling you a moment ago that the pension plan we are considering at this time is nothing more than the taking over of private plans and the end of such plans.
I will read the evidence of a company's representative who presented his views before the committee.
We believe that the financing of the benefits provided for in Bill No. C-136 will deceive the public and probably be misinterpretated by the legislators.
Another witness stated the following concerning taxation:
Herewith is a clipping of the Globe and Mail issue of February 2, 1965. Therein is stated what I believe will be the opinion of the ordinary Canadian citizen when he realizes the nature of the Canada pension plan. The purpose of the "conversation" is to point out how illogical it is to collect a tax on salaries throughout the country and then to give part of it to some senior citizens but not to others, while reserving a large portion of it.
I wanted to mention this to the Minister of National Revenue who argued in the discussion of the previous clauses, that the government was not imposing a tax.
But the best testimony I can submit is that of Mr. Douglas R. Butt, as reported on page 2030 of the proceedings outlining the needs of a pension plan.
Normally, in the presentation of any program, whether to the public, or to others affected by the program, one of the first things dealt with is its need. In the case of the Canada pension plan, there has been no such demonstration.
And further on, he goes on to say:
The proposed Canada pension plan falls in the second category. To assume that a large portion of future retired employees will need help simply because the present generation needs help would be policy.
Then, Mr. Douglas R. Butt put several very interesting questions. First, he asks:
Has it been determined, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that our retirement problem is not a temporary one, caused partly by the depression.

Canada Pension Plan
partly by inflation, partly by the absence of pension plans in the past?
Has it been determined that the needs for government assistance in pensions for many future generations will be sufficiently widespread to make an overall irreversible compulsory plan desirable?
Have studies been made projecting various employees savings capacities of the future years, to determine how much pension they can provide on their own?
And here is another question put by Mr. Douglas R. Butt:
Why has it been considered necessary to combine the death and disability benefits, which are in the nature of catastrophe insurance, with retirement benefits, the amounts of which are interrelated?
I think such questions should have prompted the committee to study the matter thoroughly. If the committee had done so, I am sure it would not have reached such a unanimous decision.
Here is a fourth question put by Mr. Douglas R. Butt:
Why have employees direct and indirect taxes for O.A.S. benefits been so zealously ignored when discussing the cost of the proposed Canada pension plan?
And the administration cost of this famous plan, again according to the minister's estimates, will be between $17 and $18 million, when the existing old age security plan is only costing $2 million in that respect.
Speaking about the economic results he puts this question:
Has any consideration been given to analysis of the effects of the plan upon the average man's capacity to save, rather than upon the average amount of savings?
I think the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) dealt fully with the effect it will have on the economic expansion which Liberal members boasted about, while all it will do will be to take away from the consumers what purchasing power they had.
And now, a sixth question from Mr. D. R. Butt:
If, in fact, future incomes are to grow and capacity to save is to increase, why do we need a compulsory government sponsored pension plan?
And the seventh question:
Has serious consideration been given to the possible harmful effect of allowing the provincial governments unrestricted use of the plan funds?
All this goes to show, Mr. Chairman, that some submissions were surely against the Canada pension plan.
I did not have time to peruse all the proceedings and I would have needed to read every page of it in order to convince the committee of the whole, which has certainly not been convinced by the minister, that this

pension plan is not what should have been provided by this government.
When I see how some actuaries have been treated, I am dumbfounded. To think that an actuary who dared utter a word of reason was immediately dismissed, that he lost his job because he accused the government of using this scheme to build up a substantial fund. And he even charged the government with false representations.
In this pension plan why not resort to a referendum? On the contrary everything was rushed through while the house was not in session. The thing has been disguised and those who could best inform the people are not allowed to express their views.
I say that Mr. John Kroeker is absolutely right, and that the government used the most unseeming and dictatorial means, not to say the most communistic, in order to impose the second veiled report, in other words, the second income tax upon the Canadian people.
We are compelled to participate in the most sinister national operation, while telling the people that it is being conducted for its security. The people are being exploited and told that it is for their own good. No member from the two old line parties protested against such an encroachment upon human liberty. They are conniving to further fetter the people with new taxes.
When will this end? Where will those hypocritical methods lead us but to communism, because communism means the absolute control of the state. And you, gentlemen of the government, are on the very path leading to it; keep on giving numbers to the people, sending them to work where it pleases you, in order to better control their salaries and restrain their freedom of speech as you did recently.
Tomorrow their will be a single party, you will present to people only one candidate in your so-called popular elections, and you will call it the social democrat party, as if to besmirch for the last time the word democracy.
We are in favour of a pension plan, of the one we now have. Let us increase the benefits to $100 per month, if need be, at age 65.
We are in favour of a second plan, yes, but provided contributions are paid on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Chairman, we have already accepted a compulsory pension plan for which we are now paying out of our taxes. We believed, and we still believe, that it was necessary for the protection of our old people and

that, not only for some of them, but especially for the poorest throughout the country. We paid our contributions because we had no alternative, but when it comes to a second plan, also compulsory, and I would even say a third plan, since we now contribute for social assistance and sickness assistance, well we protest.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would have been much more sensible for the committee to present such a plan on a voluntary basis because it would then have been accepted by the house. Moreover, it could have competed with the hundreds of private insurance plans now being offered on the market. It could probably have favourably compared with those private plans and have been an incentive and even have set a standard. When one plans to purchase insurance, one always wonders how much it will cost. Now, as regards this pension plan, I wonder what it will cost. We wonder what it will cost the Canadian citizens. To find out, I did some figuring last night. I took the case of an 18 year old man, a farmer, since my region is 95 per cent rural, and I noted that he will have to pay $158.40 annually.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent from the committee to carry on his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I shall take only one or two minutes.
He will have to pay $158.40 per year, and he will have no choice, as it will be deducted like a tax. If we took this amount and lent it at 6 per cent, he would receive after the first year $158. If you add to this $158 the interest paid into the retirement pension fund, after two years, you would have $326; after six years, you would have $1,322.60, after ten years, $2,362.46-and to save time, I shall skip some-after 20 years, $6,323.58, after 30 years, since he would be contributing 47 years before he reached 65 years, $13,440.18, and after 47 years, he would have paid in, including interests, all his contributions to the fund, a sum of $40,727.02. How much will he get out of that when he reaches 65 years? He will get $104 a month, about $1,200 a year, when only the interest on his deposits for that year will represent $2,400. But he will only receive $1,200.
When I first criticized the pension plan, I stated that I would like to have the same privilege as that afforded to the government:
Canada Pension Plan
to introduce a pension plan similar to this one, for I was convinced that it would be a paying proposition.
I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not particularly interested in protecting the aged but rather in capitalizing; she is already seeing the federal treasury growing richer by the billions of dollars she will get from the citizens through the pension plan. She does not say so, but she expects a contribution of at least $10 billion in ten years without having to pay anything whatsoever. That is the sole purpose for which the government established this plan and, I will say it again, we are not supporting it. As a matter of fact, we already have one, even two yokes, and this will mean a third one. We will not vote for Bill No. C-136.


Mr. Bechard:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Since the hon. member and his colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste insist on calling a tax the small contribution which every citizen will be only too glad to pay in order to spend his declining years in happiness and security, how much does he think Quebec citizens will be paying into the federal treasury, since the province of Quebec will opt out of the plan?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad the hon. member put this question to me. He said "a small contribution". I figure that over the next ten years a direct tax of 3.6 per cent can hardly be called a small contribution, to get nothing in return. I am convinced that in ten years from now-you can tell me then-this tax will go up to 6, 7 and 8 per cent.
I sincerely hope that the province of Quebec will not set up such a plan. On the other hand, if it does, let the plan be on a voluntary basis, so as not to destroy private enterprise which is very successful, not only in our province, but throughout Canada. I maintain that if Quebec sets up the same plan on a voluntary basis, I shall support it, but if it is compulsory, never, because we have enough of two times without having a third forced on us.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member did not answer my question. I asked him how much Quebec citizens would have to contribute under that pension plan.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member could refer to the French version-


Mr. Boulanger:: Can you answer?

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Nugeni:: May I call it six o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A I have to inform the committee that the following questions will be raised at ten o'clock this evening: The hon. member for Kootenay West-agriculture-possible establishment of federal dairy authority.

The hon. member for Laurier-public buildings-Montreal-with regard to the construction of a harbour station.

The hon. member for Danforth-trade-suggested expansion of credit for export sales.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, just before supper we were listening to a member of the Creditiste party. Most of what he had to say had that old familar ring which one who has lived under Social Credit in Alberta in the last 30 years finds all to familiar- the terror of the big businessman, the ogre of taxes, and the wonder at what they can relieve us from. However, no matter how much of what he said deserves to be overlooked as kindly as we can, now and then, being a true disciple of the Social Crediters, he tied in a little bit of common sense, a little bit of criticism here and there of certain matters before applying the magic ointment. Certainly he cannot be criticized for reminding us that this pension plan is going to have a tremendous impact on the country, and I think that this is the time to take a sober second look and ask ourselves whether we really need it. This is the time to ask ourselves how much we need it, before embarking upon the implementation of the plan in its present form.
For one thing, this plan is compulsory. There must on all sides of the house, I think, be the feeling that if a plan is to be compulsory it must be shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the amount of good it is going to do outweighs not just any possible disadvantages or harm it may do, or overshadows any weakness in the plan itself, but that it is so necessary, so essential, that it is going to do so much good for so many people

in the country, that it justifies this democratic nation of ours in taking the step, which many of us find so dreadful, of saying to the people that they must comply in this regard with the will of the government.
There are many people, Mr. Chairman, who have given the country the impression that this debate has dragged on for too long. I for one can hardly understand the attitude of some members of the press, who feel that we should have flitted from paragraph to paragraph of this bill with hardly another look at it. I do not think we could justify ourselves as members of this House of Commons, in view of the tremendous effect that this bill will have upon the country in general, if we hesitated in taking a little while to pause and reflect, to search and search again, and if necessary to retrace our steps in order to see how far we must go to achieve our objective, how well we can achieve it in this particular fashion, and whether there is some other way to achieve it.
I for one have grave misgivings about the plan generally. Certainly I have always advocated, as have most members in this house, that we should have a Canada pension plan. We know there are many working people in this country who, because of the nature of their employment, the transitory jobs they hold, or perhaps because of the particular pay scale they are on, have not found it possible, or in their opinion desirable, to participate in a private plan. For these people we have all wanted to provide something. We have wanted to provide a framework as a result of which those who want a little more security for their old age may find something to cling to. I think the desire for this is Canada wide. It is found and reflected not just in those who need the legislation we are trying to implement, but in the vast majority of citizens who feel so compassionately the needs of their fellow citizens who are not so fortunate. I want to emphasize that this feeling is Canada wide.
I am not sure whether my reticence in connection with this plan is based mainly on this one point, but certainly it does have a tremendous influence upon the way I look at this bill. To me a plan for Canadians should be for all Canadians. If a plan is good enough for a man in Newfoundland or Alberta or British Columbia or Ontario, it should be good enough for the rest of the provinces. The first objection I have, then, to the present plan is the fact that it does not apply to the province of Quebec.

1 can understand very well much of the reasoning of those in that province who say they prefer their own plan. I can understand that they believe their plan is better, and it may be that in certain aspects it is better. But none of this convinces me that in this country it is not possible to enact legislation of such a far reaching character that it will not be substantially acceptable to all people in the country, that it will not substantially meet the same needs, and satisfy the same desires and visions of people in all parts of the land. If I am correct in this, then I suggest it is simply a matter of making sure that the federal government gets together with the provinces and irons out the differences with a little give and take here and there, to the end that we have just one plan.
I am sure all of us in this house who had something to say on portability, or who read about it, must be disturbed by the thought that this pension plan cannot be called truly portable. It is possible to have minor changes by variations in the plan. Certainly the plan in respect of the province of Quebec will vary somewhat from the Canada pension plan. However, I must remind hon. members that each province has the same rights as the province of Quebec and may decide to withdraw or opt out and set up different plans at some future date. Perhaps the province of Alberta will decide to do so, two or three years after the adoption of this plan, and four or five years later perhaps the province of Manitoba will opt out. We do not really know what will happen, but the fact is that we are leaving this important possibility open.
There is a degree of portability to this plan, although not the degree we had hoped would exist. I suggest that a great deal of the agitation created by the proposal of this Canada pension plan relates to the fact that a great number of people are already participants in pension plans which for obvious reasons will not be portable. A great many workmen in this country are chained to their jobs because they have paid toward pension plans over a long period of time and must stay another ten or 15 years in order to reap the full benefit. In many cases perhaps they would not reap any benefit at all from their past contributions if they were to leave now and become participants in the plan now before us for consideration.
This aspect of portability is a very important one to a very large number of people. We have not as yet implemented this plan, but we have already realized that one province feels its own plan is a better plan. I
Canada Pension Plan
am sure that after we have gained some experience in the pension field, and after the province of Quebec has gained some experience, we will all know which aspects of which plans are the most advantageous, at which time perhaps other provinces will opt out, establishing their own pension plans based on these most advantageous aspects. If that should happen, I suggest we will no longer have the portability in respect of pension plans administered by the federal government and the various opted out provinces.


John Carr Munro: Come, oome.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I hear the parliamentary secretary say "come, come". I wish I had the optimism he has. I am sure he was as confident in the first plan which his minister introduced in this house as he is in this one. I can see him yet applauding his minister when she said: This is the Canada pension plan and we will adopt it or I will not be here. I remember that hon. gentleman thumping his desk enthusiastically, in the same way as he now says "come, come".
Perhaps wisdom will accompany experience, but perhaps it will not. In any event I think we are now considering what is formally called the third pension plan, and informally referred to as the umpteenth plan. I should think the parliamentary secretary might have learned a little discretion.
My remarks to this point have been directed toward the one all-Canadian aspect of the Canada pension plan that has given me difficulty. I feel that what is good enough for one Canadian is good enough for all Canadians. Having mentioned that one point which has bothered me in respect of this pension plan, relating to portability, and which I am afraid we can no longer hope for, I should deal with another unsatisfactory facet.
While there is a certain compulsory requirement embodied in this plan, we must relate it to the people who will be mainly affected, namely those Canadians who are not in the high income brackets. In this regard, what we are doing is suggesting that it is our considered judgment these people should pay a certain percentage of their incomes toward investment in retirement benefits. Many of these people already contribute to private pension plans. Many of them have indicated to me that with the rising cost of living, in conjunction with other factors, they are interested in how much

Canada Pension Plan
cash they have in their pockets, because this determines how they live. They may well be getting wiser in respect of savings investments, and we hope that the workingman is becoming wiser and more educated as to the advantages attending income separate from wages, but we must realize that these same people are finding it much more difficult to put aside a portion of their incomes for the future. One has only to look at the amount of consumer credit now being used in this country to realize that most people in this income bracket are living beyond their incomes. They are using their credit to live today with the hope that they will be able to pay tomorrow. The last thing they want is for someone to come along and take cash out of their pockets in order to look after their retirement 20 years from now. This cash in their pockets is now paying the bills they incurred two years ago.
We all agree, I am sure, that the attitude adopted by these people at this time is a shortsighted one, and one which the wise, prudent and careful family man would not follow. These individuals should be putting aside something to look after their retirement years; but that is only a theoretical approach to the problem. What is happening in this country today in respect of the workingman is that he is living from day to day on his income. This is the habit he has adopted; and he is looking, perhaps, to the government to look after his retirement years.
I think we must face this situation realistically when we suggest that this pension plan will place all individuals at retirement in security and comfort. We must seriously consider the suggestion that this pension plan will do those things, and therefore is the thing which should be provided for the people because they are not wise enough to provide for themselves. It may well be that this is a proper action to take in the best interests of the people, but unless we convince these people of that fact, we are going to incur great difficulty.
Most of the individuals I have had the opportunity of speaking with in respect of this pension plan have been most vocal in their opposition to it. I have certain misgivings about the plan because it is not a truly Canadian pension plan and not truly portable, but perhaps I have less misgivings than those people with whom I have spoken. On the other hand, perhaps I have given them too sympathetic an ear. However, I belong to the old school which believes that we should be very careful in telling people what is best

for them. I feel we should be very careful when we attempt to force people to come into a scheme of any kind because we believe it is the best scheme for them. Surely now is the time, before we have gone any further, to take another look at this proposition.
I am afraid in reply the minister will say that many people resent this plan because they do not understand it and do not appreciate its advantages. Perhaps she will suggest that these people do not realize its importance. If that is the case, then we have failed in another duty: We have failed to inform the people as to exactly what this plan will do.
I am well aware that the Conservative party is not in a position to point a finger at the Liberals and suggest that their propaganda is not as effective as it should be, because we have learned to our sorrow that Liberal propaganda is ten times more effective than ours. They are much better salesmen than we are, and are able to sell their lies ten times as fast as we can sell the truth. However, in respect of this plan, which is supposedly designed to benefit the public rather than the Liberal party, I am afraid the Liberal party has not displayed any great selling potentiality.


Miss LaMarsh:: Give us time.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister says "give us time". I suppose at the next election she will still offer that version of the Liberal story that she thinks the people should have. This paternal instinct-or maternal instinct, I should say-is very well developed on that side of the house. However I am suggesting that we as parliamentarians must be a little cautious about forcing people into a program, even if we were 100 per cent satisfied it was correct, when these people, even if it is because of their ignorance, fear it, resent it or just do not understand it or do not care. Certainly if the hon. lady would put into providing information to the public for their good one tenth of the talent she puts into selling them misinformation for the Liberal good, the public would not be so ignorant about this plan as they are.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I promise I will do it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am happy to hear the hon. lady promise to do it. I am so relieved, and if I were to take that promise for gold I could sit down now feeling that the rest of my speech was unnecessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: It is.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Having been acquainted with Liberals for some time, however, I think I will take her statement as worth what the usual Liberal promises are worth, and hope the hon. lady will think I did not notice she said it. I do not want to be unkind, but I do think that if the hon. lady, who has made so many mistakes in her few years in the way she has presented this plan to the house, who has so often risen in the house and sort of apologized for losing her temper, who must realize-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Once.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It is true she only apologized once, but I was thinking of the times she should have. As I was saying, the hon. lady, who has made such a political issue out of this matter in the house-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who, me?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -might well consider that she has done very badly with this matter in the house and, that being the case, what about the rest of the nation? What must be the feeling of people throughout the nation? How confused they must be. After all, we are supposed to study these plans a little more intently. We work at them a little harder and we certainly are more suspicious of the hon. lady than people in the country might be. I have talked to the garage owner, the mechanic, the farmer, the postman and so on and the predominant feeling about the Canada pension today is, "I don't know". This is the answer I get from nine out of ten. They are not that afraid of it that they want to fight it. At the same time nine out of ten do not want to see the extra money come out of their pockets. Three out of four resent the fact that the plan is compulsory and I suggest that any indecent haste with this legislation-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Two years.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. lady says "two years". There is no more typical example of Liberals not giving the public the facts than that statement by the hon. lady. I would ask the hon. lady if the pension plan so far approved by the house was introduced two years ago, and how much resemblance it has to the first one.


Edgar John Benson: You tell us the differences.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. lady had a general idea two years ago. The Minister of National Revenue says, "Tell us the difference". I will tell you the difference. The government with-
Canada Pension Plan
drew that first plan and presented a second one and the second one was so faulty they withdrew that and presented the third one.


Edgar John Benson: Can you tell us the differences between this plan and the first one?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: All I can say is that if it took that amount of change to satisfy the government I am not going to play the government's game now and further confuse the issue by saying what is similar and what is not.


John Carr Munro: Will you campaign against it in Edmonton-Strathcona?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The parliamentary secretary asks if I will campaign against it. I will campaign on this speech, and I will send out the speech I am making tonight. I hope my hon. friend will make it available to all my constituents.


John Carr Munro: That is a very careful answer.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I hope my hon. friend will make it available to all my constituents. This is what I like, such a remark coming from a typical trained seal on the Liberal benches. We had the same attitude in regard to the first pension plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He is not typical at all.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I thought the hon. member would have known better than to make such a remark again, because he thumped his desk like a good trained seal at the time of the first pension plan when the minister said it was perfect. However, I presume he will now say this one is perfect.


John Carr Munro: I am just asking if you will campaign against it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I wish the parliamentary secretary would run against me in my constituency but I am afraid a rather sensible fellow has just been chosen to do so. It would be such a relief to have the parliamentary secretary there instead. I have only a few minutes left and I do not want to be diverted further. There are a few points I should like to make. I have mentioned the matter of information to the public. The minister is guilty or perhaps we are all guilty of not informing the public. It is my considered opinion from talking to people that nine out of ten have only a very vague idea about the plan. Most of the people we are forcing to enter into the pension plan have no idea they have to come into it.

Canada Pension Plan


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Providing an opportunity for.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: They do not know what it is going to cost them, and as soon as you start to talk to them you find that they have great misgivings, many of which could be set at rest. Much of the uneasiness has been caused simply by the fact that the government has not made available enough information with regard to the plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I know my hon. friend does not want to talk too long, because of a sore throat, and he has already said it would not be necessary to do so. But may I assure my hon. friend that within the next three months every Canadian will know all there is to know about the Canada pension plan. I pledge to him that I shall do everything I can to make sure they do.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: As I said, Mr. Chairman, the promises of a Liberal cabinet minister mean so much that I could go home and sleep very contentedly. I wish I had some reason to believe that what the government will pour out will be information instead of Liberal propaganda. In fact, I wish the pension plan were so good that public information would correspond with Liberal propaganda, because then we might have some belief that the public would find out something.


John Carr Munro: I am going to order your speech myself.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am afraid that what the public will get is what the minister wants the public to think the Liberal government has done for them, not to them. There are a couple more points about the plan which in a general way make me a little hesitant. There is the question of investment, of course, and what the plan is going to do to the ordinary investor. Frankly, I should like to see a scheme whereby the workingman in Canada would be induced by tax concessions or some other means to put his money into the working capital of Canadian companies.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Rich men.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister says "rich men". This, of course, is a popular Liberal policy. To a Liberal, business means big business. I am talking about the democratic idea that anybody can own a few shares in a company, that anybody can invest a few dollars year by year in shares that appreciate in value from year to year and pay dividends so that after 10, 20 or 30 years the workingman can

have not only his investment but the appreciation of his capital to such an extent that it makes his investment in an ordinary pension fund seem a little picayune.
This sort of thing is what disturbs me. I believe that with a proper course of education, with a little more assistance from the government in safeguarding private investors, with a little incentive by way of tax concessions, etc., and with the co-operation of industry in this country that wants to sell its shares to its own workers, people could be persuaded to pay larger sums of money into the working capital of Canadian companies, so that we would not have the necessity to borrow quite so much from abroad and pay so much in dividends out of the country every year.
I admit this is a rather general idea; that it would not cure our balance of payments problems; it would not cure completely our needs for investment capital. But it would help; it would give the workingman a feeling that he has a real interest in the business for which he is working. It would give him a much better return on his investment than a pension fund. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the ordinary workingman now feels, when he is asked to take this money out of his pocket, that it is hurting him quite a bit. You have to give him a bigger return than just a pension in order to persuade him to invest. I believe we must come out with some scheme if Canada is to get its working capital, and I suggest we should go very slowly-


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Certainly.


Lucien Lamoureux: Before the minister poses his question I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that his time has expired, and he cannot continue, even to the extent of answering questions, unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee. Does the hon. member have consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I will be glad to answer a question.


Edgar John Benson: This is a very simple question. The hon. member, I am sure, did not want to leave the feeling that there were not great tax incentives in Canada for the ordinary person to invest in common stocks. I think that without a capital gains tax in this country, and with the 20 per cent dividend tax credit, we probably have as great incentives as any other country in the world for the

ordinary working person to invest in common stocks.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am aware that there are these tax incentives; but, like the pension plan, the good points have not been advertised to the public. The ordinary working man is not aware of the tax benefits available to him. The ordinary factory owner, shall I say, has not assisted the government in passing along to his workers information of the investment that is available. There has not been a program instituted of public information or education in this country, and it has not been tied in with slogans, "Buy Canadian", etc., all of which would not only make it more attractive but would make it obviously more attractive and would educate the working man in this respect.
The minister is right; perhaps I have oversimplified things. However, people have not taken advantage of what is there to the extent that they should. I suggest that if the Liberals turned their viewpoint to selling the government's program to one tenth the degree they do in regard to the selling of their own party's politics, the country would be much more aware of these opportunities and our people would get much more benefit out of them.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Wait a bit I have not said anything yet.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, our discussions on the Canada pension plan, Bill No C-136, have now reached a fairly advanced stage. I have heard several proposals and amendments concerning the pension plan, but I must say right now that the scheme does not provide assistance for the most needy; it does not fill the needs of the Canadian people.
It will mostly enable the government to accumulate capital; it will also be a compulsory levy against the income of the small wage earners and yet, it will exempt those who earn over $5,000. It will discriminate against the poor and those in the low income bracket.
Mr. Chairman, the scale of contributions- if I may express myself that way-provides
Canada Pension Plan
for a levy of 1.8 per cent on earnings of $600 to $5,000, 0.9 per cent for incomes up to $10,000, 0.4 per cent up to $20,000 and 0.2 per cent up to $40,000. Therefore the contribution is not national in scope, but discriminatory. The benefits are also very different. They range from $3 for a 45 year old widow to $104 for a 70 year old widower. Regional, nowhere. National, nowhere, except on the capitalization for the nation of about $8 billion for the next 10 years.
All this is not yet voted and should not be voted as drafted and submitted. What we should have is a flat rate, pay as you go. Equal taxation for all, identical rates at all levels, and for all incomes. This preamble is not pure phraseology, because I would want very much to point out that in present circumstances, it is not the future of Canada or of Canadians that is at stake; it is rather the future of great institutions which is at stake in a prosperous Canada. The fate that is at issue today is that of the human being in the family, in the home, in the residence, in the abode where all of the 19,400,000 Canadian citizens live physically and spiritually, each of them as a total and unique person.
Canada must be prosperous at the level of the human being and the family. That is the point to which you must give your complete adhesion. If I could secure such adhesion from each one of you today, the conditions of misery, insecurity and poverty would be solved, and each human being, each Canadian family would find joy in living with economic freedom and personal, temporal, intellectual and spiritual security.
Canada exists at the level of the human being and the family. That is where Canada has real and concrete life. At the level of provinces, municipalities, large institutions, universities, big companies, stock exchanges, banks and co-operatives, at the level of intermediate bodies, pressure groups and associations of all kinds, Canada is not at the level of life, but at the level of administration.
The administration takes care of itself first. "Charity begins at home". And I accept that. It is in order. But if charity begins at home, it does not end there. It must go further, go to the end of its work and reach the human person, the family, its ultimate reason for existing.
And here I invite not only the 265 members of this house, the 26 ministers of the government, not only honourable senators, but also all the managers and presidents of our big institutions, all those in charge of big private

Canada Pension Plan
and public bodies, all the university graduates in all fields, all those whom it is customary to call the elite of society, I invite them all to complete and to improve the proposal under consideration, Bill No. C-136, the Canada pension plan.
This is the last chance. What will be done with the plan will determine once and for all whether Canada will continue to be run as it was in the past or whether it has decided to keep pace with modern administration, as it has kept abreast of modern production and automation. Are we going to keep on impoverishing the people to enrich the wealthy through our administrative monetary, economic and political measures? Or are we finally going to realize that we must definitely restore the balance between individuals, families and institutions, between income expenditures and surpluses, between taxes and profits? The restoration of balance or the continuation of chaos, that is the choice we have.
We must seek to solve existing problems instead of creating new ones. We refuse to raise our children in a world of hate, corruption and injustice, like the one in which we live and which is being set up by Bill No. C-136.
Mr. Chairman, the "income-expense-profit" formula acknowledged by all prominent economists, accountants, engineers, actuaries and administrators at the head of all great institutions should be made possible at all levels of administration in Canada and, first of all, at the level of the human being and the family, its natural environment.
If every human being, in every Canadian family, can manage his affairs properly according to the "income-expense-profit" formula, there is no need to worry about institutions which can administer themselves as administration and production agents above individuals and families.
Individuals, families and institutions, this sums up the five speeches I delivered in this house and which appear in the official report.
I delivered one on August 20, 1964, another on September 10, another on October 28 and 29, another on November 17, another on December 17, and on February 25, 1965.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member

for Kootenay East has just raised a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-and there are two points of order involved here. The hon. member is out of order on two scores. He has just said that he made this speech on five different occasions. That, of course, is contrary to the rules against repetition. The second point is that the hon. member is reading his speech word for word.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is what you do all the time. This is the Byrne speech.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Maybe the hon. member for Pictou wants to make a speech himself.


Howard Russell MacEwan: This is 100 times you have made it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac should be commended for his frankness in announcing he has made his speech before. I believe there were other instances during this debate when speeches were repeated and members were not candid enough to make this admission. So, I think he should be allowed to continue his speech.
In any event the Chair was unable to recognize, from what the hon. member said now, that he had made a similar speech on previous occasions. It is difficult for the Chair to determine from here whether the hon. member is actually reading his speech, but under the rules he is entitled to use copious notes. Perhaps this is what he is doing.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Compton-Frontenac
never said that he had made this speech on five different occasions. I think that the hon. member for Kootenay East misunderstood him. But, in any case he has never made a speech in this house, although he has been sitting on the government side for a year. I think that he should be blamed even more-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I was saying-


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I believe that as a matter of decency and respect for their colleague from Comp-

ton-Frontenac, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) should not stand behind the curtains to make fun of the speech the hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac is making with spirit, sincerity and conviction.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this remark from the hon. member for Bona-venture is absolutely superfluous. In fact, the hon. member for Bonaventure is the one making fun; he pays no attention to what is being said, and as usual, he is absent-minded.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the hon. members continue on points of order, I will have to conclude that I am the only one who is listening to the speech being delivered by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac; but this is not actually true. Therefore, I would ask the hon. members who raised points of order to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac as attentively as I am doing myself.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
Was the point of order of the hon. member for Bonaventure well taken or-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


David Réal Caouette: No, the point of order was not well taken, since, according to standing orders a member is not authorized to impute motives to any member.
Moreover, the hon. member for Bonaventure lied shamelessly when he said that we were enjoying ourselves behind the curtains.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Members who act this way are rather irresponsible members like him.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.
It seems to me that the comments of the hon. member for Bonaventure were warranted as were, I think, the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve.
I would call on hon. members once again to co-operate with the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac who has the floor, so that he may finish his remarks.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that I made five or six speeches in the house; I made three on the pension plan, but the one I am making now is not at all the same one. I am dealing with an entirely different aspect, a different angle, a different viewpoint.
Canada Pension Plan
I was saying, for instance, that very few listened to the speeches I have made here. In any case, I did my duty as a citizen in making those speeches in the house.
Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to table papers which have been refused by the joint committee set up to consider Bill No. C-136. That was their business, but I have explained my viewpoint and I have done my duty as a member according to my conscience and my conviction.
Mr. Chairman, we have no right to let people rot in poverty, in insecurity, in want, while we have here salaries of $18,000, $25,000 and $40,000. We have no right to let families go without the necessities of life in Canada, a prosperous country, so prosperous that just in the year 1963-64, the shares of the 800 biggest companies on the Montreal stock exchange increased from $44 billion to $77 billion, that is an increase of 75 per cent or $33 billion in two years. And that is what we call austerity years for the people of Canada.
Concerning Bill No. C-136, I am bringing official evidence where you are requested to improve, complete and perfect your Canada pension plan. I am not the only one to express this opinion, but I am also offering an alternative. You refuse to hear me. Could you listen to any others?
You were accused before the joint committee, by the Canadian chamber of commerce, of allocating the greatest part of the benefits to the Canadians who do not need them and neglecting those who have no means of support whatsoever. Did I not say so in the speech I made in this house on November 17, 1964?
When the	association	of	life	insurerscharges you with extending your system of contributions and capitalization over the years to come, with imposing rates ranging from 3.6 per cent to 5 per cent in a few years, and accumulating a huge capital instead of seeing to welfare under the pay as you go system, from year to year, did I not tell you the	same thing	in	the	speech Idelivered on	October 28-29,	1964,	when Iexplained the philosophy	of	the	"personal
vital right" as a right which our government owes to every human being in Canada, and which is payable out of our annual resources which are quite sufficient for that purpose?
When competent actuaries, such as R. C. Dowsett, for instance, accuse you of accumulating billions of dollars under a false pretext-old age pensions and contributions

Canada Pension Plan
from young people-the philosophy of the personal vital right shows clearly that every human being in Canada should receive, out of the annual production and without personal costs, the minimum which he is already guaranteed under our Canadian laws, namely chapter 44 of 1960 statutes of Canada. You will see this in the speech I made on September 10, 1964.
When another actuary and notary, Mr. J. W. Joyce, president of the committee on social security of the Canadian association of actuaries, warns you that the Canada pension plan contains within itself all the possible sources of dissatisfaction and will give rise to many difficulties in coming years; when the powerful Canadian manufacturers association suggests that the pension plan should be revised and managed on a pay as you go basis annually, that the whole plan should be rejected and replaced by a flat-rate plan, as an extension of the existing old age pension plan, do you not think that I am pleased, since I expressed exactly the same points of view in the explanation of the right of all and every one?
When the brief of the province of Ontario suggests recommendations that the Minister of National Health and Welfare herself, the sponsor of Bill No. C-136, appreciates so much that she says: "Ontario would have acted wisely in making its suggestions known earlier". Why not do it? But why such a hurry? There is still time. Advantage can still be taken of those important changes suggested by Ontario.
When the social workers association blames the Canada pension plan for not taking into account those who have marginal or very low salaries or revenues, and those who do not have a regular job, while the vital right plan of all and everyone avoids all those disadvantages, what is done of a single plan?
When the joint board of directors of the chambers of commerce of Ontario and Quebec say that the plans proposed by the province of Quebec and the whole of Canada would not help needy people, would pay bonuses where there is no need and completely ignore 1J million Canadians 65 years and over, li million of them having a submarginal standard of living, what is thought?
When the premier of Ontario himself, Hon. Mr. Robarts, states that the Canada pension plan is but relatively universal and obviously incomplete and that the plan favours the contributors who are better off, what does he mean? When you criticize those two aspects of the pension plan you are
[Mr. Latulippe.l
criticizing the very essence of the scheme, its basic principles. Here again the technique of the vital right of one and all compensates for all those drawbacks. Is it not so, Mr. Chairman?
When the president of a large company, Mr. W. D. Moffat, the president of the E. B. Eddy Co. in Hull across the Ottawa river behind the parliament buildings, clearly indicates that this pension plan of the government, if it is ever implemented, will increase production costs and weaken even more our competitive position on the export markets, why not do something about it?
When editorials of the leading newspapers stated, each in their own way, the doubtful, difficult or delicate points of the government's pension plan, when the editor of the financial page of the Gazette, Mr. John Meyer, states in a headline that the "plan is false in its concept and weak in its application," when Mr. Pierre O'Neil, in La Presse of January 20, 1965 titles his article: "The federal pension plan is a topsy-turvy plan, it will benefit only the rich" according to the chamber of commerce. When the 84 page actuarial report distributed to hon. members on March 6 and in November 1964 had no signature and was not read completely by any hon. member or any minister as far as I know, because it is too learnedly incomprehensible and for a very good reason because it can be seen on the second page of that unsigned report: "A definition is given later on of four expressions concerning the earnings of contributors which will be frequently used in the report". Where? And what should we think?
It must be pointed out that those expressions are only applicable for the purpose of the report. They were chosen so that they would need as little explanation as possible. Let us get the pith and marrow of that preliminary precaution.
When all happens in this way, when the Canadian labour council, itself in favour of the project, recommends very important reforms and amendments to the whole thing, we see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in the house and outside, attempt by every possible means to press for the adoption of the project, against every opinion, to have it passed as fast as possible, bending over backwards to undertake the necessary corrections as fast as possible in due time and according to government policy.
We are against any collective plan which incorporates people against their will as the Pearson-Lesage plan.

Third, we are against such methods of financing decent pensions to old people, that is financing pensions through taxes or compulsory contributions deducted at the source.
In the fourth place, we object to that method because it enables the state to gain control of individuals' savings and dispose of them as it wishes, and finally leads to a state control over the whole economy.
Our movement believes that private savings should not be invested in uneconomic public projects.
The construction of bridges, roads, schools, sidewalks and all uneconomic services should not be financed through "freezing" private savings, but rather through new credits, created by the central bank according to the needs and made available to the persons concerned; those new credits should be loaned without interest and refundable over long periods: such is the theory which the Creditistes have always upheld. They establish a difference between private capital intended to develop economic concerns, and uneconomic works, the latter to be financed through social capital.
The Creditistes believe that pensions should be considerably increased and exceed $100 a month at age 60 or 65.
None of the pensioners receive enough at the present time. I have in my riding old people who ask for higher pensions, they say they do not have enough. What is required by their health condition? A healthy housing, diversified leisure adapted to their age. That is the only thing which is claimed to give them satisfaction. Old people complain that they do not have enough. According to their household budget, it costs them $200, $300 or $400 a month to live, and yet they receive only $75. In a country such as this, we cannot reach the goal we set ourselves and help the people by the injection of compulsory pensions plans.
What does prevent our senior citizens from enjoying full security in their old age? It is the present financial system which nobody wants to disturb. Whereas things, physical realities would permit older people to end their life peacefully, the financial system is opposed to that because it is not adjusted and does not allow distribution of goods at the same rate as their production.
Should the pension plan be contributory? Social Credit says no. Failing rational methods, or financing such as the one suggested by the Social Credit, we in this corner of the house prefer that government pensions be paid by way of income taxes-
Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired. Unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee, he cannot go on with his remarks.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to bring out technical points concerning the pension plan, but prove with figures that from a business point of view it is ridiculous and illogical, and I cannot understand why businessmen-as are supposed to be all members of this house-would wish to see this pension plan passed as soon as possible.
In order to prove that this pension plan is wrong from a business point of view, I have here many pension plans offered by various insurance companies. Furthermore, in order to prove that this pension program not only is a national "barbotte", as it was said in this house, but that it is a national "barbotte" financed by a real national hold-up -and I insist upon the words "national holdup", I suggest that my colleagues examine the rates of the Sun Life Insurance Company, which is a recognized insurance company, and whose figures and solvency are not questioned by anyone.
On page 28 of the Sun Life's insurance rate table, you can see that a person of 18 who would invest in a pension scheme similar to the government sponsored plan, would have to contribute all his life or rather until the age of 65, exactly as under the Canada pension plan. The rate would be the same as under the plan that the government seeks to impose upon us, that is $201.60 per year. Such a contribution would entitle any person who has reached the age of 65 and participated since he was 18-the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) says that is impossible. If he thinks so, let him come and sign a policy; any insurance company will be glad to have him. As I was saying, in return for a yearly premium of $201.60, any insurance company would pay a pension of $159.75 a month, compared to the meager benefit of $104 a month offered under the Canada pension plan, to any person who has reached the age of 65.
In other words, the government intends to steal exactly $55 a month from its pensioners, from their 65th birthday for the rest of their lives. That is the first holdup: $55 a month from the age of 65 till death.
If a man dies at the age of 70, that is one year after he has started getting benefits, his widow would, under a freely accepted plan, get a pension of $155.75 a month for

Canada Pension Plan
ten years, that is from the age of 65 to 70 or nine years after the death of her husband. Another advantage of pension plans sponsored by private insurance companies is that they are prepared by businessmen and not by pickpockets.
If the contributor dies at age 65 or earlier, that is before receiving the first cheque from this pension plan offered by private industry, his survivors get the sizeable amount of $27,780 in cash. This amount of $27,780 comes from pension plans offered by private enterprise. These schemes compare very profitably to that imposed on us by the federal government.
Here is another example. If a contributor dies after 20 years of contributions started at age 18, that is if he dies at 38, his survivors receive the sum of $17,235 in cash after 20 years of contributions, while at age 65, this amount would be $27,780.
Mr. Chairman, if we consider ourselves as business people, serious people, we must not be amazed at that federal government actuary, Mr. John Kroeker, being forced to resign for stating at a press conference that this plan was nothing but a pipe-dream and for accusing the government of using the scheme to create a huge fund. He said that was misrepresentation. It is true that the Liberals are used to that.


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: He also said that if the government wanted to create such a fund, it would be better to say so in no uncertain terms in order to see the public's reaction. If the government wanted to see the people's reaction about this plan, all it had to do was to hold a referendum. Various organizations came before the special joint committee established to consider the pension plan, but the ministers concerned did not take their representation into consideration and did not care about it. This government actuary went on to say that the government project was an undue invasion of a private sector.
If private enterprise failed in the field of pensions, I would like to be told how it failed, where, and in what way. If no protest is made against this plan, why would the government not encroach upon other fields and launch into the publishing industry, building of houses and automobile manufacturing? It is not easy to restrain empire building in the civil service. This young official speaks of this plan as a violation of the individual freedom and considers it contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights. In his opinion, the benefits scale has been exaggerated. According to him, some

will receive pensions of $104.17 and others only $2.50; a widow might receive a pension as low as $3 a month.
The promoters of this plan-including the Minister of National Health and Welfare- have disguised its origin, hidden its true nature, concealed its effects, exaggerated the support which some have given it and thrown discredit on its critics.
A moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I gave a few figures to several members of the house. If this plan were not compulsory, if people were free to reject it, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare were ready to release me of my responsibilities toward the future plan, if she were ready to exempt me from paying for the rest of my life, for myself and my family, I would readily agree to surrender all the benefits this future plan would likely provide me.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I should be glad to give that assurance to my hon. friend. He will not have to contribute for the rest of his life, but only until he has reached age 65.


Gilles Grégoire: How do you know? [Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: If the minister has so much confidence in this pension plan, if she is so confident about the benefits it will bring me, at my age, when I reach the age of 65, let her free me from the obligation of contributing and, in return, I shall let her have the benefits coming to me.
It is a national barbotte, financed by a real national hold-up. I gave you the figures a moment ago. You can draw $27,780-an amount officially offered by a solvent insurance company-or the sum of $17,235 after contributing for 20 years at the same rate as the one imposed by the federal government. And yet, they say they are businessmen. The truth is that we are small businessmen. When I look at this plan, I find it costs more than any plan offered by private enterprise and the benefits are smaller. It costs more and the benefits are smaller. So, where do the profits go? The truth is that they go to the government.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend really does not wish to participate in the Canada pension plan perhaps he will refrain from running in the next election, and therefore will be eligible for the Quebec pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Translation}


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of National Revenue and his friends from Quebec could promise me to exempt my family, my constituents and myself from this pension plan, I would gladly give up in advance the future benefits from this plan.
As I was saying, the benefits of this pension plan are less and its costs are higher than any other plan. In addition, all profits go to the state. It is a tax in disguise. It is stealing, and we call that state capitalism.
Some government members denounce with enthusiasm the abuse of certain capitalists in private enterprise, but they are now trying to establish a state capitalism worse than any racket or theft in private enterprise.
Apart from allowing the government to establish state capitalism, this plan will enable the federal government before long to kill private enterprise which has, nevertheless, provided us in the past with the best and most valuable services a government has ever known. This pension plan is inconsistent and is not established on a sound financial basis. It cannot be considered as a social legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare would have us believe that this pension plan is a social security program. It is not, because a social security program is designed to help the individual, whereas such is not the purpose of the plan under consideration. It is a plan designed to deprive the individual, it is a pickpocket plan. The Canadian taxpayers will have their pockets ransacked. That pension plan has no other aim except to help the finances of the federal government and the Minister of Finance who now needs higher or new revenue to guarantee the future loans that the federal or provincial governments are obliged to secure under the present system because every day under the present circumstances we get deeper and deeper into debt.


David Réal Caouette: The naughty government.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The pension plan is another stupid move on the part of the government. We are asked today to pay for a production from which we will benefit at 65. We are asked to pay today for a production which will exist 45 years from now, if one is 18 today. We are asked to pay today for goods that will be plentiful at that time. The system now in force consists in buying today yesterday's production with tomorrow's money. The proposed pension plan is the reverse of the
Canada Pension Plan
present system, that is we would pay today for a production that will exist in 45 years.
The pension plan to be established does not rest on any business principle. It has not been approved by serious people, except those who are interested in going through the taxpayers' pockets. It has not been approved by anyone in private enterprise. It has not been approved by serious businessmen, except the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to dispossess the Canadian people and fill the till of the Liberal government to pay future debts. Let us rob the Canadian people. Let us make them even poorer. And we call that a social legislation.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, I say once again that this pension plan is neither more nor less than a national barbotte financed by a real national hold-up.


David Réal Caouette: A plan for Lucien Rivard. [Text]


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, during earlier stages of this legislation I had the opportunity of making a few brief remarks on some of the more controversial clauses of the bill. I must say that from the very outset of the introduction of this legislation into the house I have been quite sceptical about it. On the few brief occasions that I have been able to return to my constituency recently on week ends I have found that any scepticism I had about the legislation has in many cases been justified.
The hon. lady has been very co-operative tonight in answering questions and making suggestions to the opposition during speeches that have been made. She said at one time that she could assure us that within the next three months everyone in Canada would be very much aware of and fully conversant with the Canada pension plan. However I am sure she realizes that it is not enough for us to hear this, because I take it she means that once the legislation is passed she is going to do her best to tell the people of Canada all about it. I think that is too late. She has assured us that the people will be satisfied with it and I take it from her remarks that she thinks that people generally have a fairly good idea what the Canada pension plan is all about.
But I would remind her that at one stage of the bill the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Bow River and myself and others spent quite a little time trying to get answers from the two ministers who were piloting the bill through the house in relation

Canada Pension Plan
to what effect this plan may have on contributory, industrial plans now in operation. The Minister of National Revenue appears surprised at my remarks. I simply say to him that on several occasions that evening we got assurances from both ministers that this plan would have no effect whatsoever on plans now in operation such as industrial plans, municipal pension plans and others.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I do not think the hon. member would want to misquote what I or the Minister of National Health and Welfare said earlier. I do not think either of us said that this plan would have no effect on existing plans. What we did say was that it would not affect accumulated benefits under existing plans.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to misquote the minister. I was trying to point out that they gave us answers to our questions after a great deal of questioning that evening. However, from what the minister has now said I am sure that members of the house, including myself, at least hope that we will have an opportunity to go all through this again, because I understood the minister to mean that this plan would not have any effect on contributions to the other plans. I will put the point I am trying to make this way. It was explained to us that there was nothing in the plan which provided for the integration into the Canada pension plan of industrial plans now in effect. That was more or less the understanding we had.
When I was able to visit my constituency last month many people asked me how the Canada pension plan was going to affect their own pension plans. I endeavoured to point out to them that the Canada pension plan will in no way affect the pension plan to which they now belong. If this is not right, we will certainly have to have another explanation from the minister. However, the point I am trying to make is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare feels that Canadians generally know all about the plan. The fact is that for one full evening we went over the whole question of what effect the Canada pension plan would have on contributory plans now in existence, and as I understood the answer that night it was that it would have no effect, that these other plans would not become integrated with the Canada pension plan. I am just trying to say before continuing with my remarks that the people of Canada do not know all about the plan. Regardless of

how much talk has gone on in the house, I find that there is a great misunderstanding of the plan throughout the country.
I have made a few notes. For instance, many people think that everyone is going to get $104 a month on retirement. After discussing the plan we know that this is not the case; but the fact is that many of the people I have talked to have said, "This must be a wonderful thing, because when I reach 65 years of age I am going to get $104 a month". We know that is the maximum pension and we also know that a person must have a certain yearly income over the years and must pay into the plan for at least 10 years before qualifying for the $104 a month.


Mr. Lloyd:: Plus old age security.


Mr. Monieiih:: Oh, nonsense; you get that
anyway.


Robert Simpson: The people of Canada do not know these things. I will come to old age security in a moment, because that is one of the things to which I want to refer. Many people are wondering what is going to happen to their present contributory plans and we feel that the discussion we have had in the house should have enlightened everyone in Canada. I am sorry to say it has not. I have found this to be so in the case of most of the people to whom I have talked who have asked these questions. Some of the people in the cities I have gone through have even come to me and said, "Is the Canada pension plan going to be compulsory? Do I have to belong to it?" The minister nods his head. I say to the minister that the people of Canada generally do not know too much about this plan. I believe, too, that the people of Canada have every reason to be very cautious of this legislation, because we must remember that there have been three other versions of the pension plan presented by this government and each and every one of them has been said by the government to be the acme of perfection. However, here we are on the fourth version.
I have talked to many of the young people in my area, people in their early twenties or approaching their twenty first year. I find that they feel in many respects this plan is going to be a yoke around their necks. The minister said before that in the next three months everyone will know about this plan. It is all very well to hear that, but the people of Canada do not know too much about the plan at the present time. It has been said on many occasions that after three and a half weeks of debate possibly we in the opposition

are taking too long on this legislation. I say again that, bearing in mind the young people of Canada, this is not the right attitude to take. Three, four or five weeks is not too long to debate legislation such as this; because after all, the young people before whom we are placing this plan are going to be paying for it for the next 45 years. Therefore I say that anyone who says three and a half, four or five weeks debating this plan is taking up too much time of the house should give a little further consideration to it.
This afternoon the hon. member for Fraser Valley, when speaking on the plan, mentioned several aspects of it. He spoke particularly about the portability of the plan; the benefits of portability which are involved in it. He spoke of the funds which would be available for the provinces. He also spoke of the job aspects in relation to this plan. He mentioned, too, one very important aspect of the plan, which was that it is another form of increased taxation. This is what I find to be the concern of the young people with whom I have talked-and not only the young people. I have found, upon making inquiries, that this aspect of increased taxation is of considerable concern not only to our young people but even to those people in their early and late forties. The young workers with whom I have spoken want no part of this plan; this applies to practically all of those with whom I have spoken. This may be understandable to many of us, because we know that in the early years, particularly the early years of married life, people who are living on fairly low wages feel that there are other far more important things to be putting their money into than a retirement pension.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I have found that most of the young people say, "We do not want this plan. We do not feel that the government should make it compulsory for us to join it". Then you talk to people in their early and mid-fifties. The wage earners in this group, I must admit, generally have a different outlook; they can see they are going to get a windfall. This applies to most of the people in the age group 53 to 58, and therefore this plan is quite acceptable to them. But let us take a look at how this plan affects a great many younger workers. I am speaking of people with whom I have talked and who have pointed these things out to me. There is the case of a young worker who already belongs to an industrial contributory pension plan. He pays 3 per cent of his wages to the company plan, and he told me that by the time he is 65 years of
Canada Pension Plan
age, if he continues with this plan he will build for himself a pension of $250 a month. He pays 4 per cent to old age security throughout his working years, and he says that is going to bring him in another $75 at age 65, under the present payments. He hopes that by the time he is 65 this allowance will have increased. Now he will have to pay another 1.8 per cent to the Canada pension plan, which if he makes $5,000 a year in his last ten working years will qualify him for another $104 a month. He says this will bring him in a pension of $429 a month, which is a lot more money than he is making at the present time. This is the way people look at it; they look at what they are making at the present time and what the plan is costing them.


John Carr Munro: Did you campaign against the plan in Churchill?


Robert Simpson: I will come to that in just a moment. On top of these contributions, the
3	per cent to his company plan and the 4 per cent to old age security, he will pay 1.8 per cent to the Canada pension plan. I have also spoken to many people who have already made commitments to contribute to a personal, permanent savings plan. This is all on top of any insurance commitments or plans they might now have in effect. Therefore you can see why the younger worker in many cases feels that it is difficult to understand this plan and he cannot understand why he should be compelled to pay into such a contributory pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would allow me to make a correction to what he has said? He talked of 3 per cent and 1.8 per cent, which are of wages. The 4 per cent is of taxable income. I would just point out that these are not all added together.


Robert Simpson: No, Mr. Chairman, but when you are talking of a wage earner who is having difficulty making both ends meet because he has three, four or five children, and he looks at all these deductions, you or I may be able to point out to him that the
4	per cent is on taxable income and the other is on wages, but he still adds up what it costs on the deduction side of the ledger and it certainly makes his take-home pay quite a bit smaller. I also know of cases, such as the one I have just mentioned, where the wife is also working. In many of these cases the wife is also paying into a small contributory pension plan. If she is relatively the

Canada Pension Plan
same age as the husband they have figured it out this way, that by the time both reach 65 and the husband has continued in his present employment he will be entitled to $250 a month company pension, $75 a month old age security and $104 a month Canada pension plan, whereas his wile will be entitled to $75 a month old age security, and possibly $104 a month Canada pension plan, and approximately $75 to $85 a month from her contributory pension plan. This works out at a total pension of approximately $685 a month for the two of them.
Some people might say this is all well and good, but the trouble with the young worker is that he is paying for all this throughout the years when his expenses are the greatest. It has been pointed out to me that in many cases people will have a bigger income when they retire than they made throughout their working years.
These are just some of the reasons why I say there are many aspects of this plan about which we should be cautious. Despite the fact that in general I am in favour of contributory pension plans, I feel the government could have produced a much more desirable plan, a plan that would be much more acceptable to the Canadian people.
I do not know whether it has been brought to the minister's attention that a person making $20,000 a year actually gets off much easier under the Canada pension plan than a person making $5,000 a year. When this was first brought to my attention it did not seem correct, but when you look at the figures it is quite apparent that the richer you are the less this plan costs you.
If you have $5,000 a year, a wife and two children, the cost of the plan is $79. That is the gross cost; but you get an income tax credit which leaves the net cost at $62.41. If you earn $20,000 a year the gross cost is still $79, but your tax rebate is much greater, so that instead of paying $62, as does the man with $5,000 a year, you only pay $43. The man with $5,000 a year actually pays 50 per cent more in his contributions than the man making $20,000 a year.
Though I believe it is too late now for further amendments to this bill I am quite sure that when the plan goes into effect amendments to it will quickly be necessary. I am only sorry the government did not see fit to accept some of the amendments which were proposed during discussion of the bill. The things I have mentioned tonight are matters which were brought to my attention after we had begun debating the plan in this

chamber. In conclusion, I think all of us should take a good, hard look at the plan to see how we can improve it and make it more acceptable to the Canadian people.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, before Bill No. C-136, an act to establish in Canada a comprehensive program of old age pensions, is carried, I want to tell the house that I do not object to this pension being granted at age 65, on the contrary, because then I would like to see a pension of $100 a month granted as of January 1966.
But what I do object to is the fact that we are taxing again the small wage earners already confronted with all kinds of debts and forced to work wonders in order to make both ends meet.
Taxation affects all individuals who earn $1,000 and over, and this plan, which is simply a concealed tax, will allow the government to dig into the pockets of all the taxpayers with an income of over $600. It is really a disgrace.
It is the wrong time to raise taxes when a country has so many unemployed, 7 per cent of which reside in the province of Quebec.
All the employers and employees in Canada are discouraged, because they are working for the biggest industry in our country, the government.
In the difficult times we are going through
the government should decrease taxes thus allowing the economy to pick up, but it does exactly the opposite.
This new pension plan will start a rise in the cost of living. Some say one half or 2.5, but I will state without exaggeration that it might reach 4 per cent a year. This will bring about a salary increase and a rise in the cost of production; it all follows naturally.
A gradual increase in commercial prices has some advantages compared to the many disadvantages resulting of that pension plan, but most of those advantages will be lost if inflation proves to be a reality. The rise in salaries and in the cost of consumer products will subject the cost of living to unusual pressure.
By letting the cost of living rise in this way, we will reach a point where the costs of labour and goods will be prohibitive, thereby destroying any hope of high productivity and dislocating the economy of the country.
There are some people who are already very concerned about the problem and they

are asking questions about it. They want to know when the contributions will be increased. I tell them they need not worry about it; that it will not be long; that both our good old line parties know how to go about increasing taxes.
What would happen should the fund eventually show a deficit? Things like that were not provided for and that is why I suggest that we should provide for such a possibility. These funds should never be used for election purposes. We may grant loans to municipalities and provinces but never use such money as an election fund, since it would be playing with the money of the people.
Was such a plan conceived so as to help the individual? No. It was conceived solely for the purpose of refurnishing a fund, so as to give assistance to the provinces and the municipalities, and the greatest part of this fund will be used to cover the federal government's expenditures. This pension plan is intended to bring assistance to the provinces. I say that the foreseen results, as regards the provinces and municipalities, will be serious, not only as far as their debts are concerned but their revenues also.
If this keeps up, Canadians will have to stop smoking because all their savings will be used to pay for this famous pension plan. Is it the purpose of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to trap people by another compulsory means? We are sometimes inclined to think so, since her "plan" was not a success last year.
The small wage earner, having lived in poverty all his life, will be forced, at 65 years of age, to live again in poverty while the one who lived in wealth, thanks to a fat salary, will be able to end his years in wealth. Seen at this angle, this is surely an injustice which should preferably be foreseen and avoided.
The term compulsory so often used displeases me because it deprives individual citizens of their freedom. If people were free to accept or reject the pension plan, I would be satisfied, but as it now stands it is definitely compulsory.
And that is why I say it is a new tax which the Canadian people will have to pay and which will bring in $10 billion over a ten year period.
Instead of giving the people money, credit, purchasing power in these hard times, a compulsory contribution is extorted from them. This additional contribution will affect the small businessman, the industrialist and 20220-805
Canada Pension Plan
will keep them from expanding their business. This kills personal ambition because one feels that the more one works the less one receives and, consequently, one feels that one should not work more than one has to. Indeed, the government is sponsoring means which are discouraging people to work, even the selfemployed, and even after 65 years of age.
Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. I only wanted to say that I shall not support this plan since I consider it as another tax and that I am encouraging the people in my riding to protest against a provincial plan which will be but a reflection of the federal plan.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, since I had no opportunity to take part in the discussion on the various clauses of the bill, I intended to make up for it on clause 1. For that reason, and because of the complexity of Bill No. C-136, I should like to only touch upon the matter of the funds which this plan will provide for various government bodies.
Capital drained under the form of compulsory savings by way of this pension plan- and I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not bear a grudge with me if I happen to rise on a few occasions during the discussion of this clause; I understand her great impatience since this, her third offspring, constitutes a colossal fraud. I wonder whether she is entitled to have that thing called her third offspring because I think it is the creature of another government that is now before us.
If I remember correctly, in her statements of July 1963, she precisely denounced such an accumulation of capital which, as she put it, could become dangerous in the hands of certain governments and play against the people depending on the way they could be used.
I hope she will understand that if at times, during the debate on this bill, we did not seem to share the same views, it may be because she has considerably changed her stand since July 1963, if we compare her statements at that time with those she made in March 1964, when she brought down Bill No. C-136. That could even be called a slow and difficult period of gestation bringing forth a monster.
Since Bill No. C-136 will certainly have
economic and political implications all across the country, it is worth the trouble to take all the time needed, even if we need one extra week, in order to give proper consideration

Canada Pension Plan
to the complications to be expected in the future.
Tonight, I particularly intend to examine what kind of state capitalism or economic and political dictatorship we can expect from the implementation of Bill No. C-136. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am apprehensive and even the people are beginning to wonder about the economic repercussions of this plan and about the power-since the plan is mandatory-we are giving the state in the field of pension funds. And the members in this corner of the house are not the only ones to denounce and fear this increasing interference of the state.
At this stage, I should like to put on record a statement published in La Conjoncture, a publication of the Canadian chamber of commerce, in February 1965, which deals with the increasing interference of the state and refers to the words of a cabinet member, namely, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Here is what the publication said:
From time to time, we are cautioned against the increasing control of the state over our lives. Those warnings are usually made by private individuals and many people are inclined to disregard them. When a minister expresses his views about the power of the state, one is apt to take him more seriously.
The federal Minister of Justice said recently to a group of Toronto lawyers that the rights of Canadians are being "seriously threatened" by growing state interference and by the inability of the citizens to protect themselves. Following the wave of emancipation which swept over most of western Europe at the time of the industrial revolution, governments, stated the minister, gradually increased almost everywhere their control over the lives of citizens, to such an extent that there is some fear the dynamism of the people might be lessened.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that it is now ten o'clock?


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Gérard Perron: May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder whether hon. members might not agree to proceed with a view to trying to get the bill out of committee so that it could be ready for third reading tomorrow?


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to speak on it tomorrow.


Lucien Lamoureux: Apparently there is not unanimous agreement.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to speak very briefly on a subject of considerable concern to the dairymen of Canada-one which is of particular concern, I know, to the dairymen of British Columbia both in the coastal area and in the interior.
It is a subject with which I have some personal acquaintance, having milked my first cow back in 1902; I still wake up at 5.30 in the morning to milk cows that are not there. Hon. members may be interested to note that the parliamentary secretary and the member for Kootenay West are both graduates of the Ontario Agricultural College. I entered in 1909 and he was bom in 1910, but I love to see these young men climbing the hay loader to fame and influence.
I am speaking this evening on behalf of a group of people who are possibly the hardest working group of people in Canada-people who work harder and for longer hours than almost any other group in the country, that is, the dairymen.
It is for that reason that I asked the following question, as reported at page 12640 of Hansard:
. .. with respect to the proposal of the federal government to establish a national dairy authority. Can the minister assure the house that any government policy established in this respect will not conflict with the provisions of the B.C. milk industry act and its regulations?
That question is trying to get something by indirect action that it is very difficult to get by direct action under certain circumstances.
I have had letters from farm organizations, but I will just take the time to read a letter which I received from the Fraser Valley milk producers association, dated March 12. I might say that I knew some of the founders of this assocation, Mr. Berry and Mr. Hill-Tout, who were also former graduates of agriculture and were very interested in building up this institution, and the producers' sponsored legislation which protects the dairy industry in B.C. This is what he said:
Dear Sir:
On February 26th the Canadian Press Issued a release on what was reported to be the proposed policy of the federal government with respect

to the establishment of a national dairy authority, and some of the terms under which it would operate. Some of these proposals are completely impractical and would be unacceptable to the dairy industry.
With reference to the Canadian Press report, the Canadian federation of agriculture and the dairy farmers of Canada issued a joint release on March 8th, a copy of which we understand was sent to all members of the House of Commons, the Canadian Press, and weekly newspapers, etc.
I would like to urge your support for the policies contained in the joint release of March 8th.
In addition, British Columbia has a very special problems which would not be compatible with some of the principles in the alleged government policy proposals. Specifically, the proposal that producers must ship to the fluid market only or to manufacturing plants only, but not both, would be in direct conflict with the provisions of the B.C. milk industry act and regulations, which in the controlled areas of the province provides for participation in both markets for qualifying producers.
I would therefore again urge your support for the preservation of the B.C. milk industry act to the end that its provisions are not superseded by any federal government action.
Thanking you for your interest in this regard, I am,
Very truly yours,
Fraser Valley milk producers' association
That is signed by Mr. J. C. Brannick, president.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this B.C. legislation was the result of years of effort on the part of the producers in the dairy industry, who found it an effective protection for the producers particularly of fluid milk and dairy products. So I would appreciate it very much indeed if the parliamentary secretary could give us, in the short time available, some idea of government policy, letting us have a peek into the future, as it were. And in doing so, can he assure the house that there will be no conflict between the federal government policy with respect to the dairy industry, and the B.C. milk industry act and its regulations? I will be very interested, as I am sure will other hon. members in the house, knowing the problem of the dairy producers, in hearing the parliamentary secretary's reply.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his very noticeable interest in the new dairy policy which is going to be announced within a few days. He has suggested that I might give him a little glimpse into the future. I want to express my appreciation to him for having given me a glimpse into the past, because I did not know what it was to milk a cow in 1902. So I want to thank him for having drawn very appropriate attention to my 20220-805J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion youth, which I appreciate very much. I have always admired him for his tremendous length of experience and maturity, but I am tempted to remind him that even these tremendous, personal attributes are subject to the law of diminishing returns.
As was mentioned in the house on March 11, and as reported at page 12232 of Hansard, a question was directed to the Minister of Agriculture by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, who asked when the new dairy policy might be announced. The answer of the minister was: Before April 1.
Having some knowledge of the policy about to be announced, and knowing the anticipation and thrill the hon. member is going to get from it when it is announced, I hope it will not be too difficult for him to wait for just another day or two.
In this question the hon. member has asked whether or not matters which come under provincial jurisdiction will be considered in the new dairy policy. I think I am at liberty to say that I am confident the new dairy policy, which is about to be announced, will treat with great deference all matters which are presently under provincial jurisdiction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I say that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Laurier.



SHIPPING-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF MARINA

Fernand-E. Leblanc: On the
occasion of a by-election in the riding of Laurier, on February 10, 1964, when all my opponents lost their deposits, including the son of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), for which once more I am grateful to the people of my constituency, one of the invited speakers, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), who was then minister of public works, announced, with the authorization of the Department of Transport, that a harbour station would be built in Montreal.
This news was greeted with enthusiasm by those who attended that meeting, and the next day the press applauded that statement.
On October 2, 1964, I directed a question to the then minister of public works, pointing out to him that, since the announcement nothing of a realistic nature had been done, to my knowledge, in order to expedite the implementation of the necessary and urgent project, that is a harbour station for the city of Montreal.
12724	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
That same night, the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont gave out a press release expressing his satisfaction at the fact that the project had been supported by the national harbours board and in which he stated, among other things, as follows:
As I have already mentioned, I do not contemplate a building of gigantic proportions, but an establishment which would be practical and would have style.
The national harbour board adds that a thorough study of the matter had established that it was a useful and necessary project, from the standpoint of tourist trade as well as from the economic standpoint. This harbour station is supposed to have all the modern equipment which is necessary to make possible a very great flexibility of movements for tourists and ships, and it must take into account the present and future needs of navigation in the Montreal harbour. An article published in he Devoir of October 3, 1964, mentioned the press release issued by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, by the president of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, and by the national harbours board.
Since that press release silence has again become the keynote as far as this project is concerned, and the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont has been replaced by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) as Minister of Public Works.
I have noted with pleasure that the blue books containing the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, contains a vote of $1 million for the construction of that harbour station.
At this time the authorities of this country's metropolis should be ashamed to receive tourists coming in by sea in a ramshackle, pitiful, miserable, sorry and, I dare say, disgusting shed.
In this press release the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont added:
It is now up to Montreal to choose the site.
The president of the executive committee, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, stated that he was glad to see that the government had opened negotiations with the city of Montreal concerning the important choice of a site for a harbour station in Montreal. He added that the town planning service would have a word to say about the site of the terminal and its approaches.
According to the statements made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and

the president of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, it would seem that this project now comes under the city of Montreal. That is why, this afternoon, I asked about the outcome of the negotiations between the government and the municipal authorities.
Naturally, I want to know whether the town planning commission has finally reached a decision on the site of the harbour station and its approaches. As the municipal authorities are happy that the federal government has taken the course of consulting the local authorities each time there is a project to implement, the municipal authorities should now show their satisfaction in giving this policy the high priority and speedy consideration which the federal government has a right to expect, in view of this policy to co-operation and dialogue.
It would be urgent that this construction should start tomorrow, or as soon as possible, in order to prove to the whole Canadian people, to the population of Montreal, and the people of my riding that Liberal promises are not hollow promises. The Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Transport should take the necessary steps so that Montreal's town-planning service may come to a decision. I would even ask, in the event of any undue delay on the part of the city of Montreal, that the plans be drawn up immediately and that the tenders be called as soon as possible, so that this monstrous thing where travellers have to get off may be removed once for all.
The time for conferences is over. The hour for prompt and efficient action has come.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) raised this matter during the question period today and directed his question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). The hon. member's reason for directing the question to the Minister of Public Works was, I think, because of the action taken by the former minister of public works, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets). The interest of the former minister of public works' was a personal and local one in that he was member of parliament from the Montreal area, and it was taken on that personal basis and not taken on a departmental basis.
This matter comes within the scope of the national harbours board and consequently inquiries and future action rest with the

Minister of Transport. I can really add nothing more to my reply, and certainly I have no comment to make on the course of action taken by the city of Montreal, as this does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works.



TRADE-SUGGESTED EXPANSION OF CREDIT FOR EXPORT SALES

Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon on orders of the day I raised a question with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is very difficult on orders of the day to deal in any extended way with matters of this kind and it is for that reason I had it set down for discussion this evening. The question is not in any way critical of the minister who by and large, I think, is one of the more helpful of the frontbenchers in dealing with issues raised by members of the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is the only one on the front bench.


Reid Scott: But our export program, and any queries or criticisms which are raised in the public press with regard to it, are so important that it seems to me they should be dealt with and expanded upon at the earliest opportunity. In raising this question I am not suggesting that our present export program in itself is defective. Indeed it has been a considerable success, as the minister pointed out this morning.
But there have been several questions raised in the press lately with regard to the competitive nature of the credit terms extended by Canada and whether or not this is posing a potential danger to the continuing expansion of the export program. The March 20 issue of the Financial Post headlined an article this way: "Are Canada's Export Financing Arrangements Sufficient to Keep Canadian Manufacturers Competitive on World Markets?" The article points out certain examples of changes taking place. It mentions a British exporter who was able to quote 25 year financing terms, whereas our terms are usually 10 years or in some cases as high as 15.
It also points out the new $500 million fund being set up in the United States to undertake export credit financing that is too hazardous for normal commercial undertakings. Then it analyses our present export credit arrangements under section 21(a) and queries whether or not the government should be seriously considering amending or extending this provision so that our exporters will be in a corn-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion petitive position with regard to other exporters in other parts of the world.
So the first part of my question was a query as to what extent the government has received representations in this field and whether or not it is prepared at this time to make extensions in certainly the terms and length of credit, in order to maintain this competitive position. The other section of the question which I raised is one with regard to which we have been critical in other years with respect to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, namely its tendency to keep the financing to contracts that are fairly substantial in regard to dollar volume. We have received representations, and I presume the minister has also, that serious thought should be given to financing export credit contracts that are under $2 million, and that this would be beneficial to an expansion in export trade. These are the two points upon which I would like to hear some slight expansion by the minister, so that we may answer these queries which we are receiving.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to supply some supplementary information to the very brief answer I gave to the question raised by the hon. member on orders of the day. First of all may I correct one or two statements he quoted. It has generally been said in the press recently that Canada provides long term financing credits of up to ten years. I think the hon. gentleman said he understood that sometimes it went to 15 years. The fact is that we have extended credits up to 20 years. He also referred to the very long terms being extended by the British government. It is my understanding that terms for as long as 25 years, that have sometimes been quoted, are terms extended under aid programs rather than under commercial credit programs. In the case, for example, of Canada's expanded aid program of loans to less developed countries, these are provided on terms up to 50 years. However, this is not under the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, but is under the expanded aid program that was announced recently.
May I say a word about the $2 million minimum amount, to which the hon. member referred, under section 21(a) of the Export Credits Insurance Act. Section 21(a) was introduced to enable Canadian exporters to participate in large projects requiring financing over extended terms. The Export Credits Insurance Corporation had it as a sort of
12726	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion working rule that any project that required financing of less than $2 million was probably not of that character, but I wish to say to my hon. friend that this $2 million is not an irreducible minimum. There have been occasions when export financing has been extended in smaller amounts.
The representations that have been made by the Canadian Export Association in particular are receiving very careful study, and probably

some of the recommendations that have been made by that body and by others will receive not only careful but sympathetic consideration. May I, in conclusion, say to my hon. friend that in fact the export financing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Wednesday, March 24, 1965