1965-02-25

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have deposited with the Clerk of the house for tabling today copies in English and French of the preliminary report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he explain how it is that the Lau-rendeau-Dunton commission's interim report which was tabled in the house this afternoon appeared in Montreal Matin this morning?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question; besides, that matter does not come under my jurisdiction.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us who is responsible for the Laurendeau-Dunton commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have said that already this week, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a question to direct to the Prime Minister related to one I asked two days ago with regard to copies of the interim report of the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism. Has the right hon. gentleman now been able to ascertain from the commission just what happened to all the commission's copies?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
I answered this question yesterday in terms submitted to me by the commission when I stated that all the copies of the report in their hands were accounted for. I would be glad to follow up the hon. member's question. 20220-741


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I used the term "unauthorized person". Could the Prime Minister ascertain whether any copies were placed in the hands of members of the press gallery prior to the report being tabled and, if so, which persons and for what purpose?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am informed that no copies were placed in unauthorized hands of any kind, but I would be glad to make further inquiries.



PENSIONS


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon when the house was in committee of the whole on the Canada pension plan bill the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare which properly should have been directed to me. His question, as recorded at page 11,705 of yesterday's Hansard, was:
Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the minister. May I ask the minister whether she can assure us that the last report of the minutes, No. 24, will be available tomorrow?
I should like to refer to the minutes of the proceedings and evidence, report No. 24, which is now in the hands of all hon. members, and in particular to page 2051, where the following is noted about the middle of the page:
The chairman opened the meeting.
The committee instructed the clerk of the committee to delay the printing of this committee's minutes of proceedings of the sitting held on Thursday, February 4, 1965; Friday, February 5, 1965 and Monday, February 8, 1965 until the final report of the committee is presented in the House of Commons.
As hon. members know, this took place a week ago last Tuesday and now the minutes have been printed.
I would also refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation No. 320, and particularly paragraph 5 thereof, which deals with the secrecy of such proceedings.

Inquiries of the Ministry BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DURATION OF HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-148, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964 (duration of House of Commons).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Without dealing in any way with the charge made against the former minister without portfolio, would the right hon. gentleman tell the house, having full regard to the discussions which have taken place in the legislature of Quebec, when this matter was first brought to his attention; the alleged acceptance of a bribe in connection with a matter requiring consideration by the government of Quebec? When did the Prime Minister first become aware of this, and how soon thereafter did he consult with the former minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This question is now sub judice, and I should like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, the question is sub judice, and the hon. member in question has been asked to appear before the court. I should like to consider whether it would be proper for me to deal with this matter in the terms put forward by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a strange definition of sub judice. My question has nothing to do with the charge. I am only asking the Prime Minister to tell the house this. When did you find out, and how soon after that did you act. I should like to ask him also- and this is certainly not sub judice-whether the hon. member in question still has a diplomatic passport or whether he has turned it in. The Prime Minister might be able to give us some information in that connection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not aware of the passport the hon. gentleman has, if any, but I will be glad to look into that matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that press reports indicate that the government of North Viet Nam has urged the government of France to intensify its efforts to bring about a conference of those interested in the situation in southeast Asia with a view to a negotiated settlement, has the Canadian government as a member of the truce commission made any representations at all to the government of either the United Kingdom or the Soviet union, who are cochairmen of the Geneva agreement signatories, to call a conference of the signatories to the 1954 accord?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member for New Westminster had given me notice of his intention to ask part of this question. Whatever action Canada has taken by way of representations would not be as a member of the commission. The commission has its prescribed functions. But the government has been in consultation with most of the governments participating in the Geneva conference, and in particular we have noted press reports of the proposed joint action to be taken by the governments of the Soviet union and France. The precise proposal, however, has not been put before us. When that is done we will give it the consideration which this critical and important situation requires. We have already made it clear that once there is an easing of tension, and a cessation of hostilities, consideration can be given to the steps which could be taken to try to provide for some stability in that area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister must have failed to gather the import of my question. I asked him specifically whether the Canadian government had made any representations to the governments of Great Britain and the Soviet union asking for a reconvening of a conference of the Geneva powers.
While the minister is on his feet, I wonder if he would also tell the house whether the fact that the Americans have now abandoned the role of military advisers and have openly declared that they are participating in the war in southeast Asia, changes the situation with reference to Canada adding its voice to that

of other governments in asking for a conference immediately.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have made clear, Mr. Speaker, the conditions which we believe are essential to the holding of such a conference. We have made these conditions known to the co-chairmen, as we have to the United States. With regard to the last portion of the question, I can only say there are full consultations going on now with regard to developments in Viet Nam. Beyond that I cannot go.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or the government protested the present action of the United States, which in fact means they are now at war with North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has a more simplified view of this delicate situation than I have. I can only say to him that Canada, as a member of the commission, is now awaiting the decision of the co-chairmen with respect to issuing its minority report covering certain operations over the past years, which I think will be quite revealing.


An hon. Member:: Revealing of what?


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a supplementary question that I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker. In the light of his reply to previous questions, could the minister say what is his opinion, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, with regard to the reported landing of 2,000 Korean troops in South Viet Nam, apparently taking part in that fight on behalf of South Viet Nam.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that some time ago the South Korean government announced its willingness to help the South Vietnamese by providing a number of military personnel. This matter was drawn to the attention of the international commission by the government of North Viet Nam, on the basis of the announced intentions of the South Korean government. I cannot anticipate what position the commission may take or what conclusion it will reach on this question.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's remarks of last Monday, I believe, when he said he felt that before negotiations could take place there must be 20220-741J
Inquiries of the Ministry a sufficient relaxing of tensions, does the minister think that at the present time tensions in the area have relaxed sufficiently to commence any negotiations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I might take the opportunity in replying to this question to note the presence in the gallery of the foreign minister of nationalist China, Mr. Shen, who is in Ottawa today to take part in some talks with the government. I am sure we are all very pleased to see him with us today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a related one. In view of the fact that yesterday U Thant, the secretary general of the United Nations, made a formal public statement saying that he would be seeking an exchange of views with various nations, could the minister for external affairs tell us whether the secretary general has been in contact with either himself or the Canadian government?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, he has not been in contact with the Canadian authorities since he made that statement yesterday, but he has been in contact with us regarding this subject.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the presence in Ottawa, to which the minister has called our attention, of the distinguished representative of nationalist China, can the minister tell the house whether the government is now prepared to make a more definite policy statement with regard to the recognition of mainland China, more definite than has been contained in the vague references that have emanated from the government and the minister at different periods?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my hon. friend thinks my references to that subject are vague, but I have nothing to add to what I said the day before yesterday in answer to a question from the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is not usual to make disclosure of subjects discussed with representatives of other governments when they come to Canada, but my hon. friend may assume that all important questions are on the agenda.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How long is Canada going to maintain her contingent in Cyprus at her own expense and pretend to be the richest country in the world? Second, is there any hope of an early settlement of the Cyprus problem?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, consideration of the renewal of the mandate of the force will be before the security council some time in the middle of March. I do not see any connection between our affluence and the responsibility we have assumed by providing part of the force. If Canada is paying its own way it is only because there is not enough money in the treasury of the United Nations to make the situation otherwise. I have a strong conviction that most people in Canada believe Canada took the right course in giving that kind of support to the concept of peace keeping under the auspices of the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: As a supplementary question, though I agree with the minister that this house and the Canadian people have given their consent, I would point out that a lot of voices are being raised at present. People want to know whether we are going to carry on indefinitely with this force as we are doing with our force in the Gaza strip. Are we going to keep paying indefinitely for this contingent in Cyprus?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easf: I would hope we would not have to carry on this responsibility indefinitely. I would hope it will be possible for other members of the United Nations to recognize, as Canada does and as do many other countries, that the way to maintain the


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: This question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The hon. gentleman probably remembers that last summer on August 4, September 2 and September 4 I directed to him a series of questions about help to India, which is in particular need of wheat at this moment. In view of the fact that last week India asked Australia for one million tons and Australia was only able to respond with 150,000 tons, would the minister consider approaching the high commissioner for India and asking whether Canada could be of any help at this time?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: The high commissioner for Canada in Delhi and the high commissioner for India in Ottawa have been in touch with members of the government, and this matter is currently under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that over the last 22 months the official opposition has tried to get from the government a declaration of policy concerning guarantees on wheat, and in view of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night in Winnipeg about rejecting guarantees and subsidies, is this now the official policy of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government will be announced in the appropriate way on this important matter. Meanwhile I suggest my hon. friend take a look at the text of what the minister said last night. The minister would have been here to comment on that text-which I would be glad to send to my hon. friend-but he is weatherbound in Winnipeg.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I hope he stays there; he might learn something.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have the text here. In the text the minister says "We have decided", and so on. I am now asking the Prime Minister, is the minister speaking for the government or is he speaking for himself? If he is speaking for himself then I think cabinet solidarity should be maintained. Therefore my question is, is this statement in which he said "We have decided" a statement of government policy or not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister was, of course, speaking for the government in this matter. It would be interesting if the hon. member would tell me where he found the words "We have decided" in the text.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, has the Prime Minister not read it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me where it appears in the speech. At the bottom of page 15 of the speech appear these words:
We, therefore, do not intend to adopt any policies that will interfere with the efficient operation of this producers' marketing agency-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very glad that I asked the hon. gentleman that question, Mr. Speaker. He had asked me whether I agreed that the words "We have decided" referred to government policy. The words now turn out to be not "We have decided" but:
We, therefore, do not intend to adopt any policies that will interfere with the efficient operation of this producers' marketing agency or reduce the board's incentive to go after markets on behalf of producers.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has put his whole case on the words "We have decided". If he will look further up on page 15 this is what he will find:
Since taking office some 22 months ago, the government has been giving careful thought and study to grain marketing policy in the light of current developments.
Our first decision ... was to concentrate on selling wheat.
Then he went on to say, dealing with the whole system of marketing:
We, therefore, do not intend-
-and so on. Again on page 16, in the first full paragraph, appear the words:
We do intend-
-and so on. In view of those statements, which were taken by the press and those
Inquiries of the Ministry people present as statements of government policy, I should now like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to back up his minister or to ask him to resign.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to back up my minister in respect of those words which my hon. friend has used, and I should like to emphasize the first words of the sentence, which are "Our first decision-". The word "decision" was used in the sentence, which states:
Our first decision, put into action immediately, was to concentrate on selling wheat.
The hon. gentleman did not read the next sentence.


An hon. Member:: Naturally not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The next two or three
sentences read as follows:
The results as you know were gratifying and continue to be gratifying. That decision has indeed paid rich dividends, as the forthcoming final payment on the 1963 crop will show. It will be the largest by far in total amount in the history of the wheat board. It will probably also be the largest per bushel final payment.
The hon. gentleman will note that the word "decision" has been used again in that portion of this speech. If he would like me to comment on any other parts of the speech perhaps he will draw the specific portions to my attention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my next comment will be of the same nature as my last. I should like to refer the Prime Minister to page 17, where the following is stated at the bottom of the page:
We have a choice. One alternative involves the subsidization of wheat exports, direct or indirect, bringing with it inevitably restrictions on production and sales.


Lester Bowles Pearson: From what page are you reading?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am reading from the bottom of page 17 and the top of page 18. The speech then continues as follows:
The other alternative involves an outward looking, positive and progressive policy-
The last sentence of the paragraph is:
We plan to follow this outward looking, positive and progressive policy.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister again whether the last statement is a statement of government policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to read the next sentence. My hon. friend read this sentence:
We plan to follow this outward looking, positive and progressive policy.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Indeed, this is government policy. The speech then continues as follows:
Let me emphasize in conclusion that this is only one aspect of our policy for the benefit of western agriculture and wheat producers. Other measures are under consideration and will be brought forward as they are developed.
That also is government policy.
Some hen. Members: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one final supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has stated that he supports that which he has just read, does that mean the government has turned down the idea of subsidies and guarantees?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, indeed I do believe what I have just read. I suggest with all kindness to my hon. friend that he leave these verbal gymnastics to his leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Miss LaMarsh:: Which one?


An hon. Member:: That's a joke.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady said something about a joke. I thought the Prime Minister had appointed most of them to the cabinet.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to support that which he advocated throughout the last election campaign, namely the two dollar wheat policy and export allowances in respect of the farmers' wheat; or is he going to run away from that as he has run away from other problems? I now leave it to the Prime Minister to do some gymnastics in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is a very old and experienced parliamentarian.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: How about yourself?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not so old or experienced.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You are old but inexperienced.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope I am learning. The right hon. gentleman knows that questions of policy of this kind are not answered on orders of the day. However, I will repeat
IMr. Pearson.]

what I have just said. Other measures are under consideration and will be brought forward as they are developed, and that will not be very long.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. How long is he going to nurse that promise? Is he going to keep it for the next election, so he can use it again? I am referring to the two dollar wheat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I related it to the next election, I might not have to nurse it very long.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am sorry I did not have time to give him notice. In a recent statement in western Canada the minister indicated that acreage payments were no longer necessary. Does the minister not feel, since his government failed to bring in the two price system they promised in 1963, that acreage payments are a greater need today than they were under the regime of the former Conservative government? Will he not reconsider his decision and make acreage payments immediately to the large number of western farmers who find themselves in a very difficult situation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the question of
acreage payments is a matter of government policy. In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, I remind the hon. member that wheat sales last year were higher in amount and in the number of dollars received than in any year since confederation. This year will be the second best.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: What does this do for farmers who were in the drought stricken area and have no wheat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a
supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his statement on acreage payments is government policy or his own.


Harry William Hays: There is no policy at the moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: -so far as acreage payments are concerned, but I would remind the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that last year the

gross income of farmers was $3J billion, an all-time high, and their net income was also at an all-time high.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the economic council report of December, 1964, suggesting that a more acceptable unemployment rate of 3 per cent should be the goal for Canada, will the minister inform the house what effective measures he and his government have in mind in order to bring about that desired end?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The economic council is talking about an average annual rate of 3 per cent. The seasonally adjusted rate at the moment is 4 per cent, which is considerably lower than the 7 per cent which prevailed three years ago. It will be the objective of the government to develop further measures to reduce the rate even further.


Stanley James Korchinski: On page 38 of the report there is this statement:
In the light of careful studies we have conducted of more than 97 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question that should be placed on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is he able to inform this house whether he has been in touch with the premier of British Columbia relative to the tabling of the correspondence or what is known as the so-called "Dear Hal" letter relating to the Stonehill case? If so, is he now in a position to table the correspondence, or can he advise us when it will be tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have been in touch with the premier of British Columbia, but I have been unable to secure from him permission to table the letters signed by himself or the attorney general. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in order to clear up at least some aspects of this matter a statement should be made, even
Inquiries of the Ministry if it is not possible to table all the correspondence. I think we can do that tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the reports in the press that in this case Senator Gelinas was consulted by the department of immigration, may I ask if the senator was connected in any way with that department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: These reports, of course, as they appear in the press do not bear out in any way what my hon. friend has said. Senator Gelinas was not concerned with this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: He was not just asking questions?


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Would the Prime Minister at the same time table the correspondence to the government written by Mr. John Taylor, a former Conservative member of parliament for Vancouver-Burrard, in connection with the Stonehill case?



RULING OF FOOTBALL LEAGUE RESPECTING NATURALIZED AMERICANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which in my view is of national importance and of interest to people right across this country, affecting the rights of all Canadian citizens no matter what their country of origin. In view of the discriminatory and base ruling of the Canadian football league against naturalized Canadian citizens of United States origin and its obvious conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the provisions in the Canadian Citizenship Act, can the minister tell us if his department contemplates any action against the Canadian football league or the commissioner of Canadian football?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that as a member for a Vancouver riding, where we have some of these real football players and are the holders of the Grey cup, this question is of special interest to me. I do not believe I can answer the question however. The government is on record that it intends to introduce legislation to remove any inequities that may exist as between Canadian citizens of different classes. We certainly intend to remove these, and

Inquiries of the Ministry admittedly some do exist at the present time because we have a resolution coming before the house the purpose of which is to remove them. Until that has been done it is rather difficult to censure the football league, no matter where my sympathy or the government's sympathy may lie.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I wonder if the minister could let the views of the government and every member of this house be known to the commissioner of football by letter?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The minister has attempted to answer a question put by one of his own backbenchers, but he refused to make any such effort when I put forward the same question.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I shall be glad to answer that. The other day the Chair ruled that it was not a proper question.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. Does he not consider his answer to me now is a reflection on the Chair?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, because I happen to have before me now a newspaper clipping of an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday which indicates that the Canadian football league is seeking a legal ruling. No doubt this article prompted the question by the hon. member.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I respectfully suggest that the Chair was featured sufficiently yesterday afternoon without starting all over again.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister has told me that my question was ruled out of order, but he took the opportunity of answering the one asked by his own member. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, he has cast a reflection upon you because he said my question was out of order and the hon. member's was not. This is definitely a reflection on the ruling of the Chair, if my question was similar and was ruled out of order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When I replied to the question put to me a few moments ago by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, relying on my memory I said that the reason I had not answered the question was that it had been disallowed by the Chair. I was speaking from memory. I have since had occasion to


refresh my memory, and I find that the effect of the ruling of the Chair on that occasion, was that no question had been asked.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell the house whether the government of the province of Alberta approached this government, either directly or indirectly, in connection with assistance or co-operation in the building of a railway line from the main line of the C.N.R. west of Edmonton to Grande Prairie, Alberta?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I said the other day in answer to the hon. member for Peace River that the president of the C.N.R. had advised me, and through me the government, that there were conversations between the government of Alberta and the C.N.R. with respect to this matter. To the best of my knowledge there has been no approach to the government for any kind of assistance, if by that the hon. gentleman was referring to financial assistance.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met in Ottawa yesterday with the various political parties to set forth their claims and explain the briefs they were submitting, can the minister assure the house and those Canadian farmers, especially those from eastern Canada, that he will grant them before April 1 a subsidy guaranteeing them $3.50 per hundredweight for fluid milk, whatever its destination? [Text]


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member means 100 pounds of milk, not a bushel of milk.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how my question was translated, but I am

perfectly aware that a hundred pounds does not represent a bushel.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is under consideration by the government at the present time, and when the policy has been resolved it will be announced in the usual way.


Raymond Langlois: As a supplementary question, can we expect this announcement of policy before April 1, since that was the deadline placed on it by the federation of agriculture in their memorandum?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO PROJECTS UNDER ARDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. What action will the Minister of Forestry initiate, under the ARDA program, in Nova Scotia that will assist in overcoming the chronic problems facing the industry in that province?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, problems of industry do not fall under my jurisdiction.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: If he cannot understand English I would ask him to put on his hearing aid and listen to the translation. What action will the Minister of Forestry initiate under the ARDA program in Nova Scotia that will assist in overcoming the chronic problems facing the industry in that province at the present time?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I told my hon. friend yesterday that ARDA projects are initiated by the provincial government, and inasmuch as no specific projects have been presented to us I do not see what I can do in this regard, because I have no jurisdiction.


Robert Carman Coates: Is the minister now stating government policy which varies materially from that outlined by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) when minister of agriculture, namely that the government will at all times accept the obligation of initiative when it considers this is necessary and of benefit to the area concerned?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Sauvé: It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that under the ARDA legislation, which was passed unanimously by this house, the initiative with regard to instituting projects rests with the provinces, and I can do nothing about it.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Carman Coates: This is very important, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure it is important, but no doubt every question asked in this chamber is important. However, some are more pressing than others, and this is the time for pressing questions. Perhaps the hon. member would put his question on the order paper or discuss it later on.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this matter is too important for the order paper. It deals with a problem that must rest on the shoulders of the federal government, whether they like it or not, and must rest with the Minister of Forestry. If we are opting out of our responsibility with regard to agriculture, then the Prime Minister should be making a statement to this house in this regard.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this is contrary to the law and contrary to the facts. We cannot, as a federal department, take any initiative in the ARDA field when it comes to specific projects in the provinces. The responsibility and initiative rests with the provinces; and I am obligated to obey the law as passed by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: I would like to refer the minister to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Carman Coates: -page 5197 of Hansard for May 22, 1961-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinily-Conceplion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the recent announcement by the minister regarding the killing of seals, would he advise the house whether steps have been or will be taken to see that helicopters and other aircraft will

Inquiries of the Ministry not be permitted to fly over seal herds during the whelping period, thereby giving protection to the mother seals while their young are being born?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, while I am not in a position to state positively that action such as that outlined by the hon. member is covered by the amended sealing regulations, I can assure hon. members I would be prepared to ask for the co-operation of operators of airplanes and helicopters, and to suggest that they do not fly at low altitudes over ice patches during the period referred to by the hon. member, so as not to disturb mother seals when such important events are taking place.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Is he in a position to tell us when he is going to table the maritime trustees report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope to table the report in both languages just as soon as the French translation is completed. I shall check into it and see whether the French translation is completed and, if it is, I shall table both texts tomorrow. I give the assurance that when the translation is completed the report will be tabled.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a supplementary question, can the minister also tell us whether Mr. Millard is going to give his minority views to the house committee, and whether his minority report will be tabled along with the annual report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Millard will of course appear before the committee and will be free to discuss with it any views he may have in connection with the report itself. He has submitted a supplementary report to me which I have at present. I have not yet considered tabling it, but surely it will be available to the committee when Mr. Millard appears before it.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question, did the minister or any of his officials have discussions with the chairman of the board of trustees, or any of the trustees'

appointees, over the week end; and if so, to what purpose?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had no discussions with the chairman of the board over the week end. I shall check to see whether any of the officials of the department held such discussions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, if I understood the minister correctly he said he thought he would make this dissenting report available. Will he make it available to the members of the committee or will he file it in the house along with the annual report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Millard will appear before the committee-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and naturally his views will be available to the committee. If he wishes to present his views in the form of a report he is free to do so. Under the law the minister is obliged to table the report of the chairman, and that I will do. I have not given consideration as yet to whether I should also table the report prepared by Mr. Millard.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask the minister whether the former chairman of the board of maritime trustees will be appearing before the House of Commons committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regret that I did not hear the first part of my hon. friend's question.


Malcolm MacInnis: My question was as to whether the former chairman of the board of trustees will be appearing before the House of Commons committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That will be up to the
committee, Mr. Speaker, but it is my understanding that at the meeting held before Christmas the outgoing chairman expressed a willingness to return and appear before the committee, even though in the meantime he had ceased to be chairman.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Some time ago the minister announced to the house that he was setting

up a special committee to investigate the distribution of hate literature. I would ask him whether this committee has been set up and, if so, when he expects it to report to the house.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: I am pleased to inform the house that a committee has been formed headed by Dean Maxwell Cohen of the McGill University law school and composed of many well known students of civil liberties and matters connected therewith throughout Canada. The committee began to function in January. It is presently working; indeed, it held a meeting as early as January 29. In view of the character and the type of people manning the committee I am sure it will report at the earliest possible date consistent with a thorough examination of the question before it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Speaking on the same subject, may I address this question to the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General report to the house the outcome of the inquiry under the Post Office Act concerning the mailing of hate literature through the Post Office Department?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With the permission of the Postmaster General perhaps I can deal with that question. While I was still postmaster general the chairman of the board of review, Mr. Justice Wells, reported to me that the board had completed its review of the evidence and that a written report had been prepared. It was delivered to me around February 12 or 13. It is being translated now into the French language, and either the Postmaster General or myself will be tabling it in the course of the coming week.



DORION COMMISSION-LEAKAGE OF INFORMATION IN SECRET POLICE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the final findings of Mr. Justice Dorion on that issue, does the minister contemplate an inquiry to determine how information from a stolen or otherwise illegally obtained top secret report of the R.C.M.P. came into the hands of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can allow the words of the hon. member to go unchallenged.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: I raise this matter on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Renfrew South has used the word "stolen". My interpretation of the legal sense of the word "stolen" is that it implies intent. I am sure the hon. member did not mean to imply that I or any other member of the house had stolen or obtained any such classified document illegally. That was the purport of his remarks, and if he did mean that I would ask you, sir, to require the hon. member to withdraw that word.


John James Greene: On the hon. member's question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was very careful to state, having the highest regard for the hon. member, that he had information which was obtained from a report which was stolen or otherwise illegally obtained, it being a top secret report. As to how he obtained that information, I have no knowledge; but I feel sure that a court of inquiry could elicit that information under oath, which no doubt would be of great public concern. I made no implication that the hon. member stole the report or illegally obtained the information. I requested information as to how he got information from a report which was apparently stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his clarification, which is perfectly satisfactory to me. As to the rest of it, he, like all other members and others, is entitled to his own assumptions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in this connection I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister has received a communication from the commissioner and that the matter is under consideration at the present time.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF TRUSTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Justice whether he is yet prepared to answer the question I have put to him several times with respect to the tabling of the report from the trustee in bankruptcy to the superintendent of bankruptcy, a federal official.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I told the house that I would have to consider the question as to whether

Inquiries of the Ministry these reports, which of course by their nature are routine reports and under the statute must be submitted to the superintendent, may be tabled in the house. If they may be tabled, I will certainly make it my duty to table them.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the white paper on the Canadian constitution. Three questions have already been asked on the subject this session. It was promised to us in December, but the Prime Minister has told the house it has been delayed because one province has not made its comments. Could we not have this white paper tabled now in the House of Commons, or are we to be dependant on whether all the provinces have expressed their views? Our interest is surely equal to theirs with regard to constitutional matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. I agree it should be tabled and, as I have indicated, I hope this can be done on Tuesday. I will be glad to make that definite.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be much more convenient if that could be done tomorrow in order that we might have the week end to peruse the document.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will see whether that can be done. If it can be done tomorrow I will be glad to do it.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of objections raised by the naval officers association of Canada and others to the abolition of the use of the white ensign on naval ships, is the government giving any reconsideration to its original decision on this subject, and will it restore the white ensign to the Royal Canadian Navy?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The decision to which the hon. member refers was taken on the basis of the resolution passed by parliament; it was necessary to take action with regard to the [Mr. Favreau.l

service ensigns. The position of the government is that the three services will fly the flag of Canada. It is also proposed that at some future date an ensign will be authorized for the three armed services, an ensign which would be derived from the Canadian flag. This, however, is still in the formative stage.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister state
whether this ensign would contain the maple leaf in the corner in place of the jack? Is that the government's intention?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think I am in a position to comment on the design at this stage. I am sure it will be one which will make an attractive ensign and of which the hon. member would approve.



AVAILABILITY OF RED ENSIGNS FOR DISPLAY IN MUSEUMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister give the house the assurance that red ensigns in the custody of his department in local communities across the country will be made available upon request from local museums for historic displays, in much the same fashion as these have been made available by the Department of National Defence?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is government policy, and my department will certainly be happy to comply with it.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, after 25 or 50 exercises.
I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Have the United States brought pressure to bear on the Canadian government with respect to the sale of uranium to France or Euratom as planned by Denison Mines Ltd.? Have the Americans tried to block that sale? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I can answer that question and say definitely that there is no such pressure.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS JURISDICTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: My question is for the Prime Minister following the answer he gave the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg concerning offshore mineral rights, on Monday, I believe. In view of objections on the part of Quebec and, I believe, other provinces, to a reference to the supreme court in this case, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would reconsider his decision to make such a reference and whether he would enter into further negotiations on this important matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is important in the interests both of the provinces and of the federal government that the legal position in this matter be made quite clear so that any arrangement between the two levels of government would not be challenged in the courts. I think therefore it is wise to proceed with a legal reference.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Will this reference be made regardless of whether the premiers agree on the terms of reference which the Prime Minister will be setting out in due course?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope we could have agreed terms of reference, but if that is not possible we should go ahead, I think, and make our own terms of reference and have this matter cleared up before we can negotiate satisfactorily with the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister table the letters to the provinces in connection with this matter, and the replies thereto?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a brief question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the house whether Mr. L. Ras-minsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, was
Inquiries of the Ministry consulted prior to the minister's announcement with respect to investment by the provincial governments in chartered banks?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government takes full responsibility for the decision in that matter. I can assure my hon. friend that consultation between the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada is continuous, and that the relationships are close, cordial and co-operative.



BENEFIT TO U.S. UNDER PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
I should like to ask him, as far as taxation and other related matters are concerned, whether the press reports concerning the agreement entered into with the United States in respect of motor car production are correct, whereby the American companies operating in Canada would get an additional income of the order of $50 million a year?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am afraid that to answer that question properly would mean a very long reply. I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. friend would either put it on the order paper or wait until the Minister of Industry has a chance to debate the resolution dealing with this matter when it comes before the house.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader; I believe he is the appropriate minister. Yesterday the house referred to the acting chief electoral officer the alleged fraudulent action of six trade unions on behalf of the New Democratic party in British Columbia. My question relates to the nature of the inquiry to be conducted. I should like to know whether the inquiry urged by the N.D.P. will be a secret inquiry?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



GLADMAR, SASK.-CHANGE OF POSTMISTRESS AND LOCATION OF OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General and ask whether he has received a petition signed by approximately 90 per cent of the residents of Glad-mar, Saskatchewan, protesting the changing of the postmistress at this point.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I received this telegram this morning and I referred it to my department. I am still awaiting a report from my department, and I will be very glad to inform the hon. member of any developments.


Lawrence E. Watson: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that it is planned to move this post office into an old poolroom which one of the post office officials has said was unsuitable, and that this is to take place on March 3? This is contrary to the terms of the letter which I had from the minister. I wonder whether he would take immediate steps to have this move stopped until the matter can be further investigated.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will study the whole subject and report to the hon. member.



CONTINUATION OF PROGRAM OF SMALL POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Last September, in co-operation with the Post Office Department, the Minister of Public Works launched a program for the building of post offices in Canada in order to alleviate winter unemployment.
Could the Minister of Public Works tell us whether his program is being carried out in accordance with the expectations of the Department of Public Works as far as the number of post offices to be built and the number now under construction is concerned?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think that construction has started on about 187 out of the 217 post offices that were to be built.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Public Works aware that out of four post office building projects in one county alone, that is Beauce, only one post office will be built, and its construction has not even began yet?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, that may be so, but I imagine that in each of those cases some circumstances prevented the government from going ahead with the proposed construction.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises from some remarks made in the house yesterday. Unfortunately I was not in my seat at the time these remarks were made; consequently this is the first opportunity I have had to comment upon them.
I wish to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena yesterday, as reported at page 11678 of Hansard. The words; are as follows:
Mr. Speaker, could I say at once, in view of what happened yesterday in connection with the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), who speaks one way and votes another, that we should discount entirely the remarks he has just made and pay no attention whatever to them.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday, the day referred to by the hon. member for Skeena, I did not speak in this chamber; and if he had been paying attention to the matters on hand in this House of Commons he could not have made a statement as absurd as this. As all hon. members well know, I certainly would not make any remarks at any time along one line and then vote another way; but as it happens, in this particular case I did not even participate in the debate in this house. This is another example of the absurdity of my hon. friends opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I had been trying to get Your Honour's attention for some time. I wished to address a question to the Minister of Transport, but 1 gather he has other duties so I will reserve the question for tomorrow.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 24, 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 again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-136. When the committee rose last evening the committee was discussing clause 2 and an amendment thereto by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee terminated at six o'clock last night I was in the course of making a few remarks on this bill, and in particular on the amendment offered by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I have subsequently had the opportunity to review in Hansard the remarks made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, and I wish to congratulate him on stating quite forthrightly the amendments which are to be proposed by the party to which he belongs in this house. Therefore I will not take too much time of the committee in concluding my remarks.
On the face of it, we have an amendment which adds a definition of "resident" to clause 2 of the bill. It appears an innocent amendment, but as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka indicated it is the purpose of his group to move subsequent amendments which, if adopted, could really have the effect of changing the character of the bill so fundamentally as, in my opinion, to destroy it.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka quite frankly told us, as reported at page 11702 of Hansard:
However, we intend to propose later on certain substantive amendments to various clauses which would add as beneficiairies persons who will have made a smaller contribution than the one envisaged or, in some cases, no contribution at all to the fund.
It was pointed out to the hon. member in the course of the proceedings of the special joint committee of this house and the other place which was appointed to consider this bill that this type of amendment could open the door to a number of abuses if control was not exercised. The kind of abuse which was suggested would be, for example, for a
Canada Pension Plan
resident of the city of Detroit who lives across the border from Windsor to come to Canada and qualify for a Canada pension plan minimum pension with very little difficulty.
Quite frankly, it is with the purpose of trying to rule out that type of claim that this amendment is offered. In fact the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said this was why they were moving to bring into this particular clause a residential requirement, because he did not feel that a person should be entitled to come to Canada from another country and take advantage of our minimum pension legislation. This is indicative of the way in which the hon. member seeks to open up the entire legislation and the fund itself.
The submission from the province of Ontario pointed out that no fewer than six federal-provincial conferences had considered this legislation. In addition there were a number of exchanges of correspondence between the premier of the province of Ontario and the Prime Minister of Canada on the subject. This amendment and the others which were outlined by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka would have the effect of referring the whole bill back to a federal-provincial conference and would call for another series of wide ranging discussions. In one breath hon. members on the other side say that so far we have had two or even three versions of the Canada pension plan, and ask how many more there will be. Then, Mr. Chairman, they offer an amendment which would call for many more versions if the legislation were to survive.
Mr. Chairman, one aspect of this amendment gives me a great deal of concern. I touched upon that aspect briefly yesterday. We asked the hon. members who were making this suggestion whether they would advocate paying this extra $25 per month to the recipients of old age security right across the country. Of course the answer was that the benefit would be paid only in those provinces where the funds were being raised. That would mean that Canada would be divided into nine provinces in which the $25 supplement would be paid, and the tenth province where the federal government would not pay that supplement to the recipients of old age security. In that event, discussions with the tenth province would have to take place in order to determine just exactly what would happen. I cannot think of any manoeuvre that could be more cynically designed to split and divide Canada.
The effect of these amendments, suggested by the hon. member would be essentially the

Canada Pension Plan
transferring of a program which is financed by payroll taxes into a universal benefit type of program, substantially reducing the graduated scale of pension, and it would take a recipient 20 years to reach the maximum rather than ten years.
We now have an old age security program on our books which is financed through a combination of personal and corporation income tax and sales tax. This is the so-called 4-3-3 formula. It is very interesting to observe what the hon. members on the other side of this house had in mind. They accuse us of giving huge bonuses to the wealthy, but let us look at what their proposal would do. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said that after his amendment had been adopted there would be an estimated surplus of $75 million to $100 million per year, but only after $107 million had been raised through a new type of tax.
Let us look at the kind of taxing method he has in mind. Under his system an individual who earns $600 or less would not pay any contributions. I have some calculations which I should like to place on the record, Mr. Chairman. At the present time one who earned $600 would not pay a contribution under the proposal which the government has placed before this house. That individual would not pay anything on the $600 under the proposal suggested by the hon. member. However, as soon as that individual earned $1 more than the $600 he would pay $10.80 as his share, and the employer would pay an equal amount.
Let us consider an individual who earned $1,000 per year. Under the terms of the bill now before us he would pay $7.20, but under the proposal outlined by the hon. member yesterday that individual would pay $18, or an increase of 150 per cent in his contributions.
Let us consider an individual earning $2,000 per year. Under the proposal now before the house he would pay $25.20, but under the amendment proposed by the hon. member he would pay $36, or an increase of 43 per cent.
An individual earning $3,000 under the government proposal would pay 25 per cent less than under the hon. member's proposal. An individual earning $4,000 would pay contributions to the extent of 17.6 per cent more under the hon. member's proposal than under the proposal placed before the house by the government. The increase would be 13.6 per cent in respect of an income of $5,000 under the terms of the hon. member's proposal.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, an individual earning $1,000 per year would pay 150
IMr. Francis.]
per cent more in contributions under the hon. member's proposal than under the government's proposal, but an individual earning $5,000 per year would pay an increase of only 13.6 per cent. This proposal is suggested by an hon. member of that party which accuses us of giving too much to the wealthy groups and not enough to the poor. The tax structure suggested by the hon. member proposes the raising of another $107 million to keep the fund solvent.
I suggest to this house that the amendment proposed by the hon. member is only the first of a series of irresponsible amendments motivated purely by political considerations to support this great cry that we should give the most at the earliest possible age. It would be a tragedy not only for the elderly people of Canada but for all Canadians if that philosophy became the basis upon which successive parties or members of this house made decisions in respect of the levels of pensions. This would have the effect of destroying the funding principle. The hon. member's proposal would save the fund only through the imposition of regressive taxes, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment as proposed by the hon. member, as well as the subsequent amendments which the hon. member has indicated are to be proposed, are so fundamental in character that they would destroy the bill itself.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question. If the hon. member is not able to answer it perhaps the minister will do so. The hon. member has stated that he is concerned about the fact that there might be one plan for one part of Canada and another plan for another part as a result of our proposal. Can the hon. member tell me whether there have been any discussions between the federal government and any of the provincial governments, since the time of the proposal put forward by the government of Ontario, in respect of unity or desirable changes in the plan which would apply across Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to answer that question. Since the committee report was concluded there have indeed been further discussions. This committee will appreciate, however, that while those discussions have been held at the request of one province in particular, in order that matters might be clarified, no promises or arrangements of any kind have been made to any province, because it was



19B5

[Stage Direction]
considered that to do so would be a contempt of parliament.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can she tell us when such discussions were held, and with which provinces?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The discussions were held between officials of the governments of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government, at the request of the government of Ontario.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Were any discussions held at a ministerial level, for example?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, there were no discussions held at that level.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was quite forthright in telling the committee that the amendment he proposed to clause 2, while it may seem to be a very simple one, is nevertheless part of a package his party wishes to propose as a general amendment to the bill now before us. Like the hon. member for Carleton, I therefore feel it is necessary to look at this amendment not only with an eye to its exact and limited wording, but with an eye to the total package which the Progressive Conservative party is going to propose.
Let me also say that in my view the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka presented his party's package in very clear terms. He has not tried to mislead us in any way. I believe, nevertheless, there are certain consequences which flow from the package offered by the Progressive Conservative party which make it terribly undesirable. I shall oppose the package as a whole; therefore I shall oppose the amendment to clause 2, which is that party's first step.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has made quite clear, both in this house and outside of it, what his party proposes, namely that there be a $25 supplementary payment to individuals now drawing old age security, but that this supplementary payment be paid to them out of the Canada pension fund. This is not an increase in old age security payments under the Old Age Security Act. Some of my Conservative friends may say that the result is the same for today's old age security recipients as would be the result of our proposal to increase the amount of the old age security pension to $100 per month. That is the point at which any similarity or parallel ends. The Progressive Conservatives, as I say, propose a $25 supplement out of the Canada pension fund to those now 70 and over.
Canada Pension Plan
The Progressive Conservatives propose also that people between 65 and 69, if they are retired-that is people who are now in that age bracket-will get a $25 supplement out of the Canada pension fund.
The next step in their proposal is this: Persons who are, let us say, 60, 62 or 63 now, when they reach 65 and start to draw something from the Canada pension plan, if that something is less than $25, shall be given a guaranteed floor of $25. I see the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is nodding his head, so I am stating their position correctly.
I believe the fourth element in their plan on the benefit side is that any persons in the 20 and 30 age group or on up, who spend their working lives below the $600 level and who have filed income returns, shall be guaranteed $25 per month out of the Canada pension fund when they reach 65. If by that time, as will be the case, the old age security pension is universal at age 65, this seems to be guaranteeing to everybody from 65 on a total pension benefit of $100 per month, that is, $75 old age security and $25 out of the Canada pension fund.
People already are a bit confused, Mr. Chairman. They believe that what the Conservatives are proposing is the same as what we are proposing. What we are advocating is not their proposal at all, but a straight amendment to the Old Age Security Act under which we say the amount should be increased to $100 per month available at 65. The differences are several. First, there are the kinds of differences the hon. member for Carleton has mentioned. For example the Progressive Conservative plan imposes, in our view, charges on the Canada pension fund which would throw it completely out of gear. There were complaints before our committee by some people that there is a lack of relationship between the pension paid under this plan and the contributions made to it. Well, that relationship would be completely destroyed if the fund, and I choose my words carefully, were raided in this way.
There are other complaints of that sort. I feel these amendments would call for another round of federal-provincial conferences which could well result in a loss of the Canada pension plan as we now have it. Somebody on television last night-yes, it was Don McGillivray-said the New Democratic party members are not satisfied with the plan, they do not think it is perfect, but it

Canada Pension Plan
goes a long way and therefore they do not want to lose it. Well, Don McGillivray is not far from the truth. This is our view. There are flaws in it, but we do not want to lose it. We are not going to support any package amendment that would result in that happening, and that is what the Conservative proposals would do to it.
My still greater concern about the package proposed by the Conservatives and my main complaint against it-I ask my friend the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to listen carefully and when I get to some figures I have I will send him a copy of them-is that it will have the effect of paying people in the future a lower pension than they would get under Bill No. C-136. I will tell the committee in a moment which people they are. Some people may say, how can this happen when the Conservatives are proposing a $25 supplement? I will put the tables on the record in just a moment, but first let me explain how this comes about.
The Conservatives propose this supplement for people now 70 and over as well as the other groups to which I have referred, and in order to facilitate it they propose that the 10 year maturity period that is in Bill No. C-136 be changed to a 20 year maturity period. Now, do you see what that does to a person who is now 55 years of age? For example a person now 55 years of age who is at the $5,000 income level can expect under Bill No. C-136, at age 65 to receive a pension of $104 per month plus the $75 old age security, for a total of $179. However, if the Conservative package is put into effect and the maturity period becomes 20 years instead of 10, then the person now age 55, 10 years from now would get a pension out of the Canada pension plan of only $52 a month. This figure is above the $25 floor so he gets no benefit from the Conservative guarantee. In addition, he would receive the $75 old age security pension, so his total pension would be $127 per month, which is $52 less than the bill now provides.
This is what the Conservative plan will do. Every Canadian, therefore, who is today 55 years of age and over is going to get less when he retires at age 65 than he would get under this bill as it is now. I want to put these tables on the record in a moment, but I should like first to make this general comment. The fact is that everybody in Canada at the time the plan comes into existence, between the ages of 45 and 60, would get a lower pension on his retirement at age 65 under the Conservative plan than under the 
bill as it stands. Everybody between those two age limits would receive a lower pension.
In addition to that, many people above 60 would find themselves in the same situation. For example, people at the $5,000 level up to 62i years, would get a lower pension under the Conservative plan than they would get under Bill No. C-136 as it stands. My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka is quite honest about it. Quite frankly, this is what he wants to do. He is asking that there be a lower pension for those who will go on it in the next 10 or 15 years in order that we can use some of this money to pay a supplement to the people who are now 65 or over and to the people who are 70 years and over. We, in this party want more to be paid to our people over 65, and that is why we advocate that the old age security pension should be increased to $100 per month, payable at age 65. We say that if we are going to give a pension of $100 to people 70 and over and to people 65 and over, it should be paid for by everyone and paid for either out of the old age security tax or out of the general income tax assessed on the basis of ability to pay.
My hon. friends to the right would pay for this supplement they would give to people now 70 and over and to people between 65 and 70, by taking it out of the pensions of those Canadians contributing to the fund who are now between the ages of 45 and 62J. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is unfair to Canadians between 45 and 62J on two counts. First it would give them a lower pension than they would get under the bill as it stands and, second, it makes a particular group of people in Canada pay the shot for this proposal to increase the pension for those now retired. I submit therefore that a much more honest and equitable, much more sensible plan, to achieve the goal of $100 for people now 65 and over, is to do it directly in the way we are proposing, namely by amending the Old Age Security Act to increase the pension itself.
My hon. friend is concerned, and 1 share his concern, about people earning below $600. He proposes that they be brought in in the way he has indicated and that they be given a guaranteed $25 out of the Canada pension fund, even if they have not paid anything into it. Would it not be much better to give these people this extra $25 by increasing the old age security pension on a permanent basis from $75 to $100 per month. I am sure the hon. member agrees that I am stating the matter correctly, but some of the things that

have been said in this house by the hon. member tor Grey-Bruce and the hon. member for the Northwest Territories indicate that there is confusion, even in the minds of some members of the Conservative party, about this. I ask them to reconsider their whole position and to realize that if there is acceptance of the amendments the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka says are going to be put forward, the result will be a lower pension for all Canadians now between 45 and 60, and for many up to 62i, than would be provided under Bill No. C-136 as it stands.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think hon. members should have a look at these figures. It had been my thought that we would not get to this until some days later, but perhaps it is just as well that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has raised the issue now because this means I can put on the record the tables I have prepared and hon. members can study these figures. In fact I hope in particular that members of the official opposition will study them and reconsider their position.
As I say, I have worked out some tables. I am not going to ask unanimous consent to have them taken as read because they are ones I myself prepared, but I am going to hand them to Hansard in the hope that they will be printed in tabular form.
A person aged 55 at the inception of the Canada pension plan with an average of $5,000 per year, or $416 a month, would on retiring at 65, receive the following monthly benefits: I have three headings-under the Liberal plan, under the Progressive Conservative plan, and under the New Democratic plan. At the left of the columns I have put C.P.P., which means the Canada pension plan, and O.A.S., which stands for old age security. The first table is as follows:
A person aged 55 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $5,000 a year or $416 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
		Under the	Under
Under the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P.	$104	$ 52	$104O.A.S.	75	75	100Total	$179	$127	$204
A person aged 55 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $3,600 a year or $300 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
Canada Pension Plan
		Under the	Under
Under the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P.	$ 75	$ 37.50	$ 75O.A.S.	75	75.00	100Total	$150	$112.50	$175
A person aged 55 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $2,400 a year or $200 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
Under the Liberal plan



C.P.P. $ 50 O.A.S. 75

[Stage Direction]
Under the Progressive Conservative plan $ 25 75
Under the New Democratic plan $ 50 100
Total $125
$100	$150
Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member the source of the figures he is quoting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I said earlier, the reason I am reading these figures rather than asking to have them inserted in Hansard by unanimous consent is because they are figures I have worked out myself.
For the Liberal column I have used the figures that have been given to us in the bill as it is, the benefit being 25 per cent of the average earnings on a 10 year maturity basis. For the Progressive Conservative plan I have cut the benefit in half in a 10 year period because the Progressive Conservatives propose a 20 year maturity period instead of a 10 year period. For the New Democratic plan I have put in the $100 old age security which we have advocated, and then used the figures contained in the bill for the Canada pension plan benefit.
What I have given thus far are the results in 10 years for three persons aged 55, one earning $5,000 a year, one earning $3,600 and the other $2,400, and I have given the various comparisons. I am ignoring in all cases a wife, escalation and changes in the statute, because any factors such as those would apply to all three plans.
When hon. members look at these tables in Hansard they will see that in all cases the present 55 year old is going to get less under the Progressive Conservative plan than under the Liberal plan, and that in all three cases he will get more under the New Democratic party plan than under the others.
Let me now give the figures for persons aged 60.

Canada Pension Plan
A person aged 60 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $5,000 a year or $416 a month, would on
retiring at age	65 receive	the following
monthly benefits:		
	Under the	Under
Under the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P. $ 52	$ 26	$ 52O.A.S. 75	75	100Total $127	$101	$152A person aged	60 at the inception of the	Canada pension ;	plan, with average earnings	of $3,600 a year	or $300 a month, would on	retiring at age	65 receive	the followingmonthly benefits:	Under the	UnderUnder the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P. $ 37.50	$ 25*	$ 37.50O.A.S. 75.00	75	100.00Total $112.50	$100	$137.50
*This is a case where the $25 floor comes into play.
A person aged 60 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $2,400 a year or $200 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
	Under the	Under
Under the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P. $ 25	$ 25*	$ 25O.A.S. 75	75	100Total $100	$100	$125An asterisk in	the above tables	indicates
operation of the Conservative proposal that a C.P.P. benefit which would otherwise be less than $25 be raised to that amount.
This is one instance when a person aged 60 under the Tory plan would receive the same benefits as under the Liberal plan.
I then went the other way and took the case of people aged 50. In still other cases I did some rough figuring. In fact I went right down to age 46 and I have calculated the situation at age 45 years and one month and, as I said earlier, for people aged 45 to 62i, for most people within that entire group and for all those earning anywhere near $5,000 the Conservative package amendments would reduce the pensions they would get.
A person aged 50 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings

of $5,000 a year or $416 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
		Under the	Under
Under the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P.	$104	$ 78	$104O.A.S.	75	75	100-	-	Total	$179	$153	$204
A person aged 50 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $3,600 a year or $300 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
		Under the	Under
Under the	Progressive	the NewLiberal	Conservative	Democraticplan	plan	planC.P.P.	$ 75	$ 56	$ 75O.A.S.	75	75	100-	Total	$150	$131	$175
A person aged 50 at the inception of the Canada pension plan, with average earnings of $2,400 a year or $200 a month, would on retiring at age 65 receive the following monthly benefits:
Under the Liberal plan



[Stage Direction]
Under the Progressive Conservative plan $ 37 75
Under the New Democratic plan $ 50 100
Total $125	$112
[Stage Direction]
As I say, Mr. Chairman, hon. members may find it a bit surprising to learn that a scheme which talks about adding something to the pension has the actual effect of making reductions. Oftentimes we are asked where is the money to come from for some of the things we propose. We are asked that by Conservatives, and now they have given their answer regarding their proposals.
The Conservatives are going to pay the extra $25 to people aged 70, and to people who are retired now between the ages of 65 and 69, and they are going to $25 to people earning less than $600. To do this they have to get the money from somewhere, and where they are getting it is out of the pension which, under the terms of the bill would be payable to people now aged 45 to 62 when they reach the age of 65.
For the people who are below 45 years of age there is, of course, no difference. A person today aged 45 or 44, by the time he is 65 will benefit under the Tory 20 year maturity

plan to the extent of the full pension, and of course he gets the full pension anyway under the Liberal 10 year plan. In other words, for people under 45 years of age there is no difference. People above 70 years of age do better under the Conservative plan than under the Liberal plan, but for the great mass of Canadians between 45 and 62 years of age this package deal does them a great disservice.
As I say, I welcome the fact that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has given the house the whole package at this early stage. He gave it to us in the special committee and, as he knows, we voted against it in the committee for the very reasons which I have just outlined. However, I am glad he has given it now so that the figures I have referred to can be put on the record for members to study and see that this is not the way to deal with the problem.
Our position is well known. We contend that the old age security pension should be increased to $100 a month. We would leave the Canada pension plan contribution and benefit structure more or less as it is. We would like to have got rid of the $5,000 ceiling on contributions. I am sorry the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had to make that correction in Hansard today; I thought he was going to get rid of the ceiling on contributions as well. There are certain other changes of that sort we would like, but in the main we believe the contribution and benefit structure in the plan is acceptable because it provides part of the old age pension package in relation to earnings and leaves the rest of the pension package on a flat rate basis. We think if we are going to try to improve the position of those who are now 70 or who will be 65 in the next three or four years, as well as of those who are now earning less than $600, the way to do it is not by providing a floor which later on you take away, which is what the Conservative party does, but by a straightforward increase in benefits under the Old Age Security Act itself.
I may say I do not like the proposal the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka makes that the $600 exemption level be removed as far as contributions are concerned. One of the things that is good about that exemption level is that it weights the contribution scale in favour of the low paid people. People with $1,000 or $2,000 do not pay as high a percentage of their total earnings as do the $4,000 and $5,000 people. I regard the re-
Canada Pension Plan
moval of the $600 exemption as a totally indefensible means of getting extra money and I will vote against it. This is the reason I am against the amendment to put in a residence clause. It is part of a package deal which has been clearly outlined to us by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, and I have pointed out that it worsens the whole arrangement instead of bettering it and I ask my friends in the Conservative party to take another look at it. My hon. friend and his friends believe something should be done for those who are 70 and over. They argue that the legislation should be made more simple. But they have done something to make it more complicated. I suggest that in view of their interest in seeing that things are simplified they should abandon the proposal they have made and support us in asking for a straight increase in old age security benefits to $100 a month. Inasmuch as the plan put forward by the hon. member worsens the picture and would mean lower pensions for people now between the ages of 45 and 62, we shall have to vote against all aspects of these proposals.
Mr. Chatterton:: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre permit a question? I think he is a fair minded man. I think he said that all Canadians in the age bracket between 45 and 62 would be worse off under our plan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


George Louis Chatterton: Why did he use people in the three categories $5,000, $3,600 and $2,400 per annum? Why did he stop there? Why did he not go further down to the man who needs it most, the man earning $1,000? He gets more under our plan. Everyone earning less than $1,000 gets more under our plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In practical terms, surely in the next 20 or 30 years there will not be people down in those lower brackets. If the hon. member and his friends are thinking in terms of that kind of an economy I suggest, there is some other place for them than in the parliament of Canada. I picked figures which I thought were representative and just as low as we ought to contemplate. To me, $200 is a starvation wage and we should not be thinking in terms of a pension plan being necessary for people below that figure. There ought not to be any such people. I picked not only the $5,000 level, which is the standard one; I picked also the reasonably low figures of $300 and $200 a month which, I suggest, repre-

Canada Pension Plan
sent a true picture of our people across the board. It is these people, the great mass of Canadians, who would have their pensions reduced if the Conservative package were accepted.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask the hon. member how he proposes to raise the $455 million a year that his proposal would cost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was straightforward in letting the house know the source from which his party would get the money to pay for their plan. They would get it by postponing the benefits available to people now aged between 45 and 62, by removing the $600 exemption level and so on. I accept that as being the position of the hon. member, though I do not agree with it. We propose that the extra money needed to pay higher pensions under the Old Age Security Act would be obtained by general taxation either under the old age security 4-3-3 formula or by amending the Income Tax Act. We would remove the $3,000 ceiling on income tax payments into the old age security fund so that people in the brackets above $3,000 taxable income would pay their share of the total cost. A capital gains tax and other taxes are possible methods, but we think the cost of paying increased old age pensions should be borne by the whole community on the basis of ability to pay, by graduated income tax, and not by charging a select group between 45 and 62 as the Conservative members propose to do.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is it not a fact that the proposals the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made might result in an increase in personal income tax of approximately 23 per cent, according to the evidence which was given before the committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the figures which were given to us in the committee. I do not know whether the hon. member is talking about 23 percentage points or 23 per cent of the income tax now being paid, but it would all depend on whether there was a flat rate tax or whether you graduated the increase. I favour a graduated increase. But the hon. member's question is one which has been asked since the earliest days when old age pensions were first contemplated. Even when the pension was to be only $20 there were people who said we would never be able to afford it. We were told we could not raise the amount, that we could not abolish the means test. But we have managed to do so, and just as I think we can afford a Canada

pension plan which provides for a maximum pension of $104, so we can afford an old age security plan providing for $100 and enable all our people to enjoy the security and dignity in retirement which the government and others like to talk about.


Mr. Thomas:: The hon. member spoke of taking the cost from the fund. Did he mean the pension fund-the fund required to pay these pensions under the pension plan? Or was he referring to the huge investment funds that are supposed to be built up as a result of the operations of this plan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope I did not make anything less than clear. I did not propose that any of the funds necessary to pay increased old age security benefits should be taken from the Canada pension plan fund. I said the money should be obtained either in the same way as old age security money is presently raised, or through general taxation. I do not think you should take out of the Canada pension plan fund, which has been devised as an earnings-related scheme, funds for adding to flat rate benefits. We have made our criticism, and it still stands, about the level of contribution that is required. Our criticism is that too much of this money from low paid people is to go into a fund which will be lent to the provinces. But two wrongs do not make a right. Money which we think should not be collected for lending to the provinces should likewise not be used to pay flat rate benefits. I am asking that the money necessary to pay adequate old age security benefits should be raised from all the people of Canada through old age security taxation, through general taxation on a graduated basis and by means of a capital gains tax, not by a levy against a particular age group.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Would the hon. member not agree that the 1.8 per cent contribution which is to be derived from industry across the country is not a direct tax on industry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am lost in the hon. member's double negatives. Would he state the question again?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not agree that the 1.8 per cent part of the contributions made by employers will not constitute a direct tax on industry in Canada?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am still lost in the double negative, Mr. Chairman. But let me state it my way. I agree that it is a direct tax on

industry, but I do not think it is out of the way as a tax for helping to build up an earnings-related plan. I am willing to accept that kind of rate for that purpose, whereas in terms of general corporation taxes for general revenues, I think the rates should be much higher.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak again, but after hearing the hon. member for Carleton last night and today I thought I should say a few words. I am also pleased to have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because I am now beginning to realize how the minds of these socialists work.
The hon. member said that the man 55 years of age who pays in for ten years and whose average earnings have been $5,000 a year minimum-it might have been $50,000 a year-arrives at a pension, under the Canada pension plan proposed by the government, of $104 a month, and under our proposal it would be $52 a month. He criticizes that; but apparently he condones the fact that this man, under the government proposal, gets an unearned bonus, a windfall, of something like $18,000. He pays for ten years about $800, escalated, by way of his own contributions, and his employer matches that. This is a total contribution, over the ten-year period, of $1,600. But he gets a pension which is worth $18,000, or more than $18,000, because $18,000 represents the windfall part. That is the man the hon. member is supporting; but the people earning under $1,000, on the average, do not concern him. In his mind, they do not exist. These are the people we are trying to help, the people who are in the greatest need. The people earning under $1,000 a year will be helped by our proposal, but the N.D.P. says they are not concerned with them. Now, Mr. Chairman, referring to some of the points put forward by the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that the help the hon. member would give to those people is the $25 floor, and do we not propose the same amount, namely $25, by adding it to old age security, on a permanent basis?


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member was comparing our plan with the government plan and decrying the fact that we are taking something away from those who can afford it most. He is not concerned with those that have the least. Referring to the points put forward by the hon.
Canada Pension Plan
member for Carleton this afternoon, he referred to the-


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that under the proposed changes of the government for the old age security, the man earning $900 a year throughout his life, or the man earning $1,000 will at age 65 get $900 in old age security pension?


George Louis Chatterton: I am talking about the Canada pension plan. This is the old, red herring that government members are trying to bring into this question, but I am talking about the Canada pension plan. I dare any member on the other side of the chamber to refute my statements with regard to the Canada pension plan.
This afternoon the hon. member for Carleton referred to the taxing of the first dollar with regard to those who earn over the minimum of $600, in the case of employed persons. May I point out to him an inequity that exists in the present proposal of the government. The man who earns an average of $601 a year pays 1.8 per cent of $1; he pays 18 cents a year-yet he gets a pension for that, say 20 cents, of $150 a year.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? What would a man earning $601 pay under the proposal put forward by the hon. member's party?


George Louis Chatterton: He will pay the same, or a little more. But the hon. member quoted increases in percentages; he did not quote the amounts. A man earning $2,500 a year, for example, under the government proposal would pay $34.20 a year; under our proposal he would pay $5.40 a year more. The man earning $600 would pay only 90 cents more a month.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member permit another question?


George Louis Chatterton: Would the hon. member wait until I have finished. Under our proposal all those people who earn less than the minimum would at least get a pension of $25, whereas under the proposal of the government they would get nothing whatsoever. I would like to quote from the hon. member's statement of yesterday:
It is not an instrument by which we are heading an attack on rural poverty. It is not an instrument by which I submit we race in a cavalier fashion, and I suggest an irresponsible and cynical fashion on the part of members of the opposition who have espoused the doctrine which first came from that corner of the house-

Canada Pension Plan
And so on. I hope those words will be remembered by the hon. member in future elections, because these people who are in greatest need will have received nothing from the Canada pension plan. The hon. member goes on to say that we are playing politics. I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are trying to take politics out of the Canada pension plan, because just as sure as night follows day these people that do not get anything from the Canada pension plan will say, when they see a tremendous fund of some $5 million built up in the first ten years, "Why don't we get something out of that?" In every election campaign from now on that is going to be a political football. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that our proposals will tend to take this matter out of the political arena.
As reported on page 11704 of Hansard, the hon. member for Carleton apparently decried our proposal and said it would also have very serious effects on the nature of the fund itself. In other words, he wants a large fund. What did the Minister of National Health and Welfare say on July 18, 1963, when she introduced the first plan? As reported on page 2342 of Hansard, the minister said, when talking about the fund:
These were the arguments balanced by the government in coming to its conclusion that this plan should not be funded; thus the plan is framed on a pay as you go basis.
Apparently at that time it was fine to have no fund at all, but now when we say that some of this enormous fund should be used to help those who need help the most and receive no benefit from the Canada pension plan, that is wrong. The hon. member yesterday spoke about politics and said we were playing politics with the Canada pension plan. I would like to quote Hon. John Robarts' statement made before the legislature of Ontario on Thursday, January 21, 1965. This is recorded at page 1785 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special joint committee:
Subsequent to the introduction of this bill

He was referring to the pension bill:
-the federal government proposed to introduce a universal old age pension. Through what was, in my view, very bad judgment indeed, this idea in a most primitive state, was injected into the provincial election campaign of September, 1963. This precipitate action served merely to prevent the logical development of a pension plan which could be understood by the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. It was an action that has led to many misunderstandings.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carle-ton referred to our proposed amendment with 
regard to a resident. May I point out to him and all hon. members of the committee that the Canada pension plan itself has no residence requirement; a man could come from some foreign country and reside here for two years-


An hon. Member:: From South Africa.


George Louis Chatterton: Possibly from South Africa, yes. That man could come into Canada from any foreign country and live here for one year, qualify for a pension of $10 a month and then leave the country and draw it for the rest of his life. Another man could stay in Canada for two years and draw a pension of $20 a month, leave the country and also draw it for the rest of his life.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member permit a question. How could such a person qualify without the necessary period of contributions?


George Louis Chatterton: Under the Canada pension plan if a person has contributed for one year before retiring at age 65 he gets one tenth of the maximum pension.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member not agree-


George Louis Chatterton: Well, would the hon. member save his questions until after I have finished, and then I will try to answer them. We have been frank enough to say that with our amendment some people will get less, and we admit that. But our chief objective is a redistribution of the outgoing money so that those who we feel are in the greatest need will at least get something from the Canada pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken on this particular clause I think a few words by way of reply are due to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the first place I have not, of course, had a chance to check his figures, and since he says they are his own I will at least credit him with an effort to produce good, honest figures. I will of course go no further than that, because as everyone knows, not having the facilities which are available to the government we can only do the best we can with our estimates.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If when he checks my figures in Hansard tomorrow he finds any errors, will he publicly point them out?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly I will point them out. What the hon. member has not pointed out in his statement to the committee is that his proposal would require additional taxation starting in 1966 of roughly $455 million per annum, which amount would be assessed against the people of Canada. At the same time he would be permitting the Canada pension plan fund to build up, yet not make any use of the funds which are available. In other words, he is proposing that the people of Canada should pay an extra sum by way of general taxation amounting to something of the order of $455 million.
The second matter is that he suggested that our proposals are cynical; at least, someone suggested that, perhaps not the hon. member. However, I say this about the hon. member's plan, that while our proposal deals with the Canada pension plan, he is attempting to do something which he knows very well is legally impossible under the bill as it is now proposed. The funds which he would have to raise under his plan would require a resolution to bring in changes to old age security. This is legally impossible for a private member, because when the hon. member gets to part IV of the bill he will having nothing to hang his hat on.
We feel, Mr. Chairman, that our proposal is within the confines of the Canada pension plan and payable from its fund; and that without changing the nature of the plan we will be able to bring benefits to those people who need them the most, and that we will be able to redistribute the funds in a much more equitable way. I agree that, if we were to adopt his figures and raise another $455 million per year by way of taxation, some people would be better off; I do not know how one could expect otherwise. But I still say that his proposal calls for increased taxation, and in addition is legally impossible under the bill before us.
We admit that by extending the transition period of this plan beyond 10 years certain persons in the higher income groups aged 55 and over will not benefit by the windfall which this plan provides. Those people with $5,000 income and aged 55 will under the present plan be able to pay in something like $900 and draw out a pension worth something between $16,000 to $18,000 at present values. We are proposing that this windfall be reduced and the money thereby saved 20220-742
Canada Pension Plan
used to provide a minimum pension of $25 a month for the man who otherwise might only receive $8.75 a month or $14.20, or some such figure.
In addition, those people in the marginal area around $600 a year will also receive a minimum pension. Many of these people may earn $600 to $1,000 this year, but perhaps next year are down below $600. Under the present plan they draw nothing, they are left out in the cold. Their total lifetime earnings will be so low that it would not be worth the effort. We contend that these people who earn under $600 will have such difficulty in paying the premium that we are not even going to collect it from them. We are going to collect it from the people in the higher income brackets and use those funds to pay a minimum pension of $25 to everyone regardless of the size of their income. Therefore I make no apology whatever for some of the figures which have been quoted indicating the windfall which the rich people in the older age groups, the people with good incomes, may receive. I also make no apology for seeking to reduce these windfalls, giving the benefits of them to those people in the very small income groups.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I only have a few remarks to make, because, like you, I see that we are looking into the revised version of the tower of Babel of modern times.
Advocates of socialism represented by an expert in planning were heard respecting Bill No. C-136 and the proposed amendment.
On many occasions, we were told about the Liberal plan, the Conservative plan and the N.D.P. plan but those planners do not seem to agree too much among themselves.
The technocrats or mathematicians who came up with those figures to establish a pension plan seem to have second thoughts about them and to feel now that the old age security allowance should be increased. It is now being argued right and left that the old age pension should be raised to $100 or $125 as we have been advocating for a long time. Today, everyone seems to feel that this minimum of $75 a month should be increased to $100 as soon as possible whereas, only a year ago, it was felt that the $10 boost to raise the pension from $65 to $75 was quite generous.
As for the amendment under consideration, it bears witness to the complexity of this bill. Even experts who examined Bill No. C-136

Canada Pension Plan
during 51 meetings each have their own interpretation of the revised scheme.
What will result from that? There is talk of using the money paid into the fund by the contributors to put into force the plan proposed in Bill No. C-136. Others propose an increase in the old age security pension.
In closing, I would say that instead this pension scheme will get its funds from those who do not have enough already, because it is a plan that taxes poverty. Why? To entertain a host of civil servants who will play at mathematicians.

Amendment (Mr. Aiken) negatived: Yeas, 48; nays, 99.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 2 as amended by the committee carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Mr. Monleith:: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to a consideration of clause 3 I might perhaps be allowed to make a suggestion which the government can consider over the dinner recess. I make this suggestion in an effort to expedite the passage of this bill, and in an attempt to assist the Prime Minister in reaching that stage to which he referred earlier this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps from the point of this bill we have now reached Your Honour could call the remaining clauses, clause by clause, up to the commencement of part IV, at which time we could return and consider again those clauses which have been stood for the purpose of amendments being made. The official opposition intends to suggest certain amendments of a substantive nature which will necessitate other consequential amendments. I understand that the government also wishes to propose certain amendments. I am sure that the passage of those clauses which the opposition does not wish to amend will be facilitated by this procedure.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might ask the hon. member a question for the purpose of clarification. Did I correctly understand the hon. gentleman to suggest that the chairman call the clauses of the bill up to part IV, and that the clauses to which amendments are proposed, or in respect of which there will be discussion, will stand and that the clauses other than those will be passed immediately?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right.


George James McIlraith: I should like to consider that proposal during the dinner recess.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We do wish to make one or two substantive amendments which will necessitate certain consequential amendments, but if our substantive amendments are not agreed to it would not be sensible to propose the other amendments.


George James McIlraith: I thank the hon. gentleman for this proposal. Perhaps we could now continue with a consideration of clause 3, and I will undertake to consider his suggestion during the dinner recess.


George Louis Chatterton: Just so the situation is clear, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might explain that if the substantive amendments to clauses 8 or 9, for example, are not agreed to we would be wasting the time of the committee by proposing the consequential amendments which are made necessary by the substantive amendments. We feel, therefore, if we follow the procedure proposed by the hon. member for Perth we will expedite the passage of this bill and eliminate certain discussions.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, it is one minute to five o'clock. Perhaps this is a good time to call it five o'clock, allowing more time for the government to consider the proposal.


Lucien Lamoureux: In order to permit the house to consider private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill S-41, to incorporate Mountain Pacific Pipeline Ltd.- Mr. Deachman-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, is the sponsor going to make an explanation as to the purpose of this bill?


Mr. MacNaughl:: We are in committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the sponsor is going to make an explanation as to the purposes of this bill during the second reading stage.



19B5

John Watson MacNaught: We are now in committee.


An hon. Member:: That was done during second reading.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is the understanding of the Chair that this bill was reported back from a special committee, and I am wondering whether it would be in order to have the purposes of it explained again.
Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


Mr. Deachman moved: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the sponsor of the bill mind telling the house what happened to this bill in committee?


Grant Deachman: The purpose of this bill has, I believe, already been referred to in the house. It is to incorporate a pipe line which will carry gas liquids from western Alberta to tidewater on the west coast. It is new in principle. It is neither an oil line conflicting with existing oil lines carrying crude oil, nor is it a gas line in the sense that it carries combustible gas. It is for the purpose of carrying those elements of wet gases which are used in the petrochemical industry for the manufacture of paints, explosives, plastics and chemicals of many kinds. It is a high pressure line and its object is to bring these liquid gases through under pressure and refrigeration to export them to world markets.
I understand from those who are asking for the incorporation of this company that as soon as the bill carries they will be able to go ahead with the financing of this line. It will result in the building of a line of approximately 600 miles to the west coast. During construction, something in the neighbourhood of 1,800 men will be employed and a working force in the neighbourhood of 125 employees will be needed after the line is completed. By making use of the liquid elements of gases which are now merely running to consumers in the United States in some of these combustible gases, it is proposed to create a new secondary industry in western Canada with plants and developments both in Alberta and British Columbia.
Those who are asking for this incorporation are responsible citizens of Canada with 20220-742J
Private Bills
proven and extensive records in oil drilling and in oil exploration work in Alberta. In particular, Mr. Peter Bawden, of Calgary, is a young Canadian who came west in 1952, bought one drilling rig and with half a dozen employees began business there. He is now the owner and operator of 28 drilling rigs employing 600 people and has expanded into a plant in Australia. This is a company which is in very responsible hands and will bring to Canada a new secondary industry.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN-MONTANA PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-43, respecting Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company-Mr. Gundlock-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


Mr. Gundlock moved: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: was going to ask the sponsor of the bill if he would give us a brief outline of what happened in committee.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I should point out very briefly that the Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company was incorporated in 1951 under a special act. At that time the company was allowed to construct a pipe line, 18 miles in length, in the southeast corner of Alberta. This was during the Korean war, Mr. Speaker. In addition a pipe line four miles in length was also constructed in the southwest corner of Alberta to supply Montana with power and specifically the Anaconda Copper Company. It was essential at that time. The company is only asking now that the act be extended and brought up to date for the specific purpose of using some of the accumulated funds to return to Alberta for exploration purposes.
I think, very briefly, I can truthfully say that is the real purpose of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE BURRARD INLET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-47, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bridge Company

Mr. Davis-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time, now?


Mr. Davis moved: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the sponsor of this bill just give us a brief outline of its purpose? We have not the time to read all these minutes.


John (Jack) Davis: I shall be glad to do so. The purpose of this bill is to wind up a company which was incorporated by an act of parliament back in 1910. The present owners of the company are the three communities on the north shore in Vancouver, North Vancouver city, the district of north Vancouver and the district of west Vancouver. Within recent years they have sold this bridge, formerly known as the Second Narrows bridge and which is now paralleled by a new highway bridge, to Canadian National Railways. This is now a shell of a company. The assets are held in the form of Canada savings bonds. The municipalities would like to have these savings to invest in other municipal enterprises. The company, therefore, is being wound up by this act of parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



LAURENTIDE BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford for the second reading of Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Laurentide bank of Canada.
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, before the Christmas recess, we dealt on several occasions with Bill No. S-13 providing for the establishment of a bank to be called the Laurentide bank of Canada. At that time we heard several members of the house wondering whether it was really necessary to grant additional bank charters in Canada.
As a matter of fact, since we received the Porter report after the government indicated its intention to revise the Bank Act, such

revision to be effected during 1965, I feel it would be in order that the promoters of new banks withdraw their project so as not to increase the confusion already existing.
We were able to read in the various reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce the evidence given by the main promoter of this project, Mr. Saunders.
It is interesting to note the exceedingly fast growth of the Laurentide Finance Company owned by Mr. Saunders and other associates.
I think it is also interesting to know that at one time Mr. Saunders recognized that in 1950 when he founded the Laurentide Finance Company, he had only $1,500 and that today, in 1964, at the time he was giving evidence, he had assets of $35 million.
Of course, you may say that money was invested in the business and that it is not only the initial $1,500 that produced such a phenomenal increase in the assets. We recognize that, but we are led to ask ourselves other questions. Why does the Laurentide Finance Company wish to have a bank charter since that finance company is already doing wonders?
It is very interesting to note that when he appeared before the committee, as may be seen on page 10 of report No. 1 dated May 27, 1964, Mr. Saunders said:
It is because they were convinced-
He referred to the promoters of this project.
-and they still are, that such an establishment would be very profitable for our company-
Their company.
.-at the same time, benefits could be derived and their relations could be mutually profitable.
I can only agree with him and recognize that a bank would be of a great assistance to them. To show to what extent that could help them to get credit funds enabling them to borrow money at a small rate of interest to lend it back at a rate of 2 per cent per month, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members of the committee to a few words reported on page 129 of the report of the royal commission on banking and finance. We read on page 114 of this report tabled last year:
About 30 per cent of the bank's authorized lines of credit of $100,000 or more at the end of 1962 were to directors, their firms, or corporations of which they were officers or directors, or were guaranteed by them.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this simple sentence defines the main reason why the

promoters and present owners of the Lau-rentide Finance wish to have their own bank.
It is obvious that under those conditions these people, with the credit and the capacity to multiply credit enjoyed by a chartered bank, will have at their disposal fantastic sums which they will lend at a rate of interest known to all, 1J or 2 per cent per month. They want a bank not for banking operations but to have sources of credit and money to finance their own finance company which has now branches throughout the country.
This company, the Laurentide, has opened an office in my own town of Alma, where there are already too many finance companies, and I have been told that it chose the former site of the Bank of Montreal because it is well located, it is known as a place where many business transactions have taken place, and if it turns out that the Laurentide Finance obtains its charter for a bank, it could use that branch for its Laurentide Bank.
You can picture the situation. Someone goes to the bank wicket to obtain a loan and is referred to another wicket.
The teller goes to another wicket, borrows money from the bank at 6 per cent interest and then lends it to me at 24 per cent interest. Of course that saves us a few steps, there is no need to cross the street.
Today there is a bank and a finance company facing each other on opposite sides of the street. The bank refuses to grant us a loan and advises us to see a finance company across the street. If the idea is to save steps, the best thing is to have everything under the same roof, the bank and the finance company, to save time.
On the other hand, the time is ill-chosen to authorize new chartered banks. We have that commission's report and we know also that the government intends to amend the chartered bank legislation every ten years, although that is already a year overdue. Therefore, in these circumstances, I think it would be advisable to wait another year before reviewing those applications for chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note the interest shown by honourable senators in the banking and commerce committee with regard to this proposal; they were extremely interested. Of course most of them are bank and finance company directors. Therefore, they were extremely interested in that proposal and they asked probing questions to all the witnesses appearing before
Private Bills
the committee, and to Mr. Saunders in particular.
These gentlemen wanted to make sure that there would not be any competition with their own businesses. They also wanted to make sure that they would be able to buy shares of that concern. In fact, the questions asked showed their interest-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are out of order.


Marcel Lessard: I beg your pardon?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You cannot comment on what happened.


Marcel Lessard: You made your own comments last year, and I think that you were allowed complete freedom of speech. Now let me express my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, if one considers the questions asked and the answers recorded in the proceedings I have in my hand, one sees that the senators who attended the meeting were strangely interested in finding out what was advocated in respect to the incorporation of this bank.
This also leads us to ask ourselves another question. Why did the senators deem it advisable to concur in the proposal of the Laurentide bank of Canada, as well as that of the bank of western Canada, while refusing the proposals of the government of British Columbia?
They claimed that it was excessively dangerous to allow a government to invest in a bank.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is no more dangerous to let a government invest in a bank than to let individuals do so, since the individuals who now request the establishment of a chartered bank, in brief the promoters of the Laurentide bank of Canada, have certainly some personal interests to protect.
When they appeared before the committee, they gave evidence that it is for their own interest that they want to establish chartered banks. In fact, Mr. Saunders himself stated that in the interest of shareholders, what they want is a deal.
Mr. Speaker, if it is dangerous to let a provincial government hold shares in a banking business, I feel that it is just as dangerous to allow any individual in this country to do so.
If the Senate felt justified to recommend to the house the granting of a charter to the Laurentide bank of Canada and the bank of

Private Bills
western Canada, it should also have recommended the taking into consideration of the request for incorporation of a bank in British Columbia. I am not opposing the incorporation of the Laurentide bank of Canada merely because the request of the province of British Columbia was turned down. I feel that the basis of preference used in three cases was unfair, and justifies my opposition.
In my opinion, the house should continue refusing to pass any of those bills during the remainder of this session. The whole question should be shelved until we have had a chance to examine the proposals the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) intends to put before us concerning the amendments to the Bank Act.
It is only after the decennial revision of this legislation has taken place that we shall be able to decide whether it is advisable to grant charters to other banking interests in our country.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, we still have a few remarks to make concerning Bill No. S-13, not because we are opposed to the creation of new banks in Canada, not because we are against new banks, but rather because we are opposed to the means they use to aggravate Canada's economic position.
We feel that we have an adequate number of banks in Canada at the present time.
I feel also that we have enough bogus money circulating in Canada at present, that we should not establish other banks that would create still more.
Mr. Speaker, another application for a bank charter is placed before us. It is very difficult to refuse honourable Canadians the privilege of creating new institutions which would benefit them, and all the Canadian people at the same time, as is the case in all other types of production or service.
If a farmer produces foodstuffs, it is certainly for himself and at the same time to help other people. If a carpenter builds houses, it is certainly to earn money, it is for himself, but it is also to render a service to others, to those who need housing. So it is for all trades and professions.
But if chartered banks restricted themselves to rendering such services as loans, exchange, administering public and company savings, we would not object to an increase in their number as far as it may be needed.
But in the case of banks, as they now exist, with their credit creating privilege, even on the guarantee of borrowers and governments, in the case of banks, precisely because they perform a part of the duties of the Bank of

Canada, that of creating the money needed for the movement of goods and services in Canada, we object to the incorporation of new banks that would issue new money, new credit, and we propose that all those issues of new credit, new money, be made exclusively by the bank of the people, for the benefit of the people.
Nowadays it is useless and harmful to multiply banks which are in competition with the Bank of Canada for the issuance of money or credit used as money.
Mr. Speaker, I am not expressing an opinion, I am not preaching a new doctrine, I merely give facts. I am pointing out an obvious evil, a permanent evil, an evil which undermines all financial structures in Canada. This evil is the national privilege of creating money granted to individuals in Canada who may use that privilege for their own benefit, whereas the Bank of Canada is, or should be, the only one to have such a privilege, in the name of Canada as a whole and for the benefit of all Canadian citizens.
Last year, for instance, the Bank of Canada had a net profit of $116 million, which it turned over to the Minister of Finance of Canada, whereas all other banks distributed their profits to stockholders and saw their shares go up from $10 to $80 between 1944 and 1964. Who is profiting by that? The people or the stockholders?
Once again, let companies and banks make profits, we are not against that. But the fact that banks are given the privilege of creating credit money, the fact that this privilege is given exclusively to the eight chartered banks, when that should be the exclusive function of the Bank of Canada, that is what we are opposed to.
Recently, that is on September 23, 1964, without going further, the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir used an eight column headline to trumpet forth that:
Canada Is experiencing a tremendous expansion in money supply credit.
This money supply amounts now to $18,600 million, that is $16,000 million more than the amount of money issued by the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada has issued, in round figures, only $2,300 million in paper currency and $230 million in coins, which gives a total of $2,630 million.
Why then is there an $18,600 million money supply? Where does the $14 billion money supply which was not issued by the Bank of Canada come from? That is what the people want to know. Le Devoir points out, through a headline in its financial page, that



IS55

[Stage Direction]
f±ie money supply is steadfastly increasing and it uses the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to make very interesting remarks. The Minister of Finance may make speeches in Hamilton or elsewhere to praise his department and boast about Canada's finances; he is free to do so. He can have a field day when speaking before people who cannot contradict him or who have no alternative but to accept his statements at face value, but as far as we in the House of Commons are concerned, we, the representatives of the people and not only of big business, as representatives of the people, of every citizen and not only of millionaires who are merely putting up millions of dollars in this country, we-and it is our duty to do so-at least try to throw light on the facts, to bring out the truth, to remove the causes of the economic chaos in which our finances are sinking and will continue to sink year in and year out, even if the Minister of Finance does his utmost to boast everywhere that Canada has never had it so good.
No, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not prosperous, most Canadians are not prosperous, and it is up to us here in parliament to remedy a state of affairs which becomes more intolerable every day. We all have to bear some responsibility for this, at various degrees, but the greatest responsibility rests upon the Minister of Finance. He has already given many signs of his incompetence, but goodwill, I believe, is the only thing he lacks. He could use his intelligence-it is just average but he could still manage-to fairly and shrewdly pinpoint all the faults in our monetary, economic and political systems, the exclusive privileges granted to private banks, and bring about the necessary remedies in due course. But no, as soon as hon. members take the floor, he leaves, he refuses to hear anything, and resumes the remote corners of his lair to meet consultants of foreign countries or representatives of big business who have succeeded in gaining his confidence and who wield their influence on him.
In all those requests for incorporation of banks or finance companies, we are always faced with the same social phenomenon: people everywhere need money. On the one hand, everyone needs money, everywhere at the same time, governments included; on the other hand, small groups of citizens get together to lend money and make profits without making any effort. Others work, build things which are beneficial to the people, but the big profits always go to the financiers, the finance company directors, for the simple
Private Bills
reason that they hold the strings where finance, money and credit are concerned.
That is how the system works. It is not the fault of company directors and chairmen if the system is organized this way and protected by legislation. The 26 ministers are the only ones responsible for the legislation, the administration of that legislation to the distribution of taxes, the control of all monetary, economic and political mechanisms within Canada.
These company officers and directors have always the right to enter into partnership, to ask company, bank or finance company charters. They are not to blame. Anyone of us would like to do the same. Those who are to blame are the government, the ministers who maintain a financing system for the benefit of companies and never in the interest of the human beings living in families.
It is all right for men to take advantage of exclusive privileges granted by the statutes, and they are to be commended for doing so. What must be changed are the provisions in the acts which always favour institutions, by tax exemptions or privileged taxation. The 26 ministers are the only ones responsible for the distribution of taxes and privileges among individuals, families, companies or institutions of all kinds.
Whatever may be the power of pressure groups lobbying ministers and government authorities, it still remains that every citizen has the right to exercise his freedom of speech, his right of association and influence. It rests on members of the government to maintain their position, to act at all times as representatives of the people, protectors of equity and justice, on behalf of the great and the small, the strong and the weak, the rulers and the oppressed.
The rulers, the 26 ministers of the government especially, must above all be the protectors of the weak, the humble folk, the children and the parents less favoured by talent, work, instruction and capital.
The right to live of the individual is the basis of any society. When you see how our ministers are acting as regards the distribution of tax revenues in the society, you would think that only institutions have a right to live, to make profits and to accumulate capital.
Our government ministers are solely responsible for the legal machinery grouping persons to make money to the detriment of the individuals who stand alone against the leaders of society and who cannot make themselves heard to assert their right to live, to
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
the necessities of life, to freedom, to the protection of their person.
If a man who is educated, rich and a hard worker becomes eventually director of several companies, he is not to be blamed. If he is a good administrator, it is a good thing for himself and for those who make use of his services. But when the companies he administers are not taxed at the same rate as the individuals and when they enjoy privileges in regard to capitalization and profits which are denied to individuals, that is the responsibility of the ministers, particularly of the Minister of Finance and of the top officials of the main departments.
Let us stop seeing guilt every time we see people who know success and make money. It is not the fact that they succeed that is bad. Wealth is a good thing in itself, especially if it is well used. Power is a good thing in itself, especially if it is well used. Science is a good thing in itself, especially if it is put to good use.
Our governments have power, wealth and science, but do they use their power to push up the rich or to crush down the poor? Do they use their power and authority to render justice or to continually patronize the same privileged people who accumulate profits while all the others go into debt, those people who pile up wealth while all the ohers are faced wih increasing hardship?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be well understood. I want to make myself very clear when I refer to companies, banks and finance institutions.
It is not the men that I rebuke. It is not the managers, the presidents and the directors of these institutions that I rebuke; it is the methods of financing between capital and credit that I find fault with. It is the intermediary system between the individual who works and the one who finances, that I want to improve. It is not because I am a Credi-tiste that I speak like this; it is because I think like this that I am a Creditiste, and this is a personal matter.
I ask you not to consider my words and my interpretations as being those of a group, nor as being those of a founder of the social credit system. I am unable to judge Mr. Douglas' philosophical views, but I am able to judge actions that take place before me every day, every week, every month, in brief the year around; and I can detect whether these actions are good or bad. I can distinguish whether these financial habits are profitable or harmful and whether these methods of disposing of credit, money and capital are beneficial or detrimental to the hard-working

people who make little profit in comparison to these finance administrators who work little but make big profits and earn large incomes.
Once again, even if I were not a Creditiste, even if I were not a member of this house, even if I were only an ordinary Canadian citizen, this is what I would think of this financial system which always enriches those who do no real work and always impoverishes those who truly work, producing something true, real, useful and progressive. Only the financiers, the producers of credit, finance, mortgages, loans can find the way to prosperity, security and control over those who build up the country, who make up the people and the nation.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, I am not against the men, presidents, directors or officers, I am not against the experts controlling this system, I am not even against capitalism, the financial system, or the banking system.
I am against certain methods only, against certain privileges being granted to privileged persons; I am against those special favours granted by governments to some companies through tax exemptions, permissions to keep internal, secret and hidden reserves; I am against certain facilities provided to a few individuals and denied to others.
If only I could make myself understood, we could readily understand one another and agree. But a Creditiste member is immediately thought of as an anti-banking theorist. Such is not the case at all. This is not in accordance with the facts. We are perhaps more conventional than most socialistic capitalists, who think they are protecting the present system by allowing it to creep into socialism.
I even think that we are protecting the present capitalist system by striving to remedy its inadequacies, to rid it of its abuses and of some of its methods which are no longer suitable in this age of fast and automatic production.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that his time has now expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to go on with his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, just when the world is crumbling under the strain of debts and usury, when the provincial legislatures are obliged to propose measures in order to restrict the excessive

exploitation on the part of finance companies in exercising the rights they had obtained under finance company charters, when large labour organizations, labour unions have been campaigning for years so as to caution people against falling prey to those companies, which are taking advantage of them through the interest charged on loans-a great number of consumers are barely able, when they start housekeeping to buy the furniture they need unless through finance companies-just when those finance companies' usurious rates are being denounced from all sides, it is really surprising to find that the other place has so readily approved Bill No. S-13 for the incorporation of a new bank.
Let us pause for a moment and examine the names of the petitioners. Who are those seeking a bank's charter or the incorporation of the Laurentide bank?
It is readily seen that the petitioners hold certain positions in some other branches of our financial system. Are we really trying to make fools of the people who are already hard pressed by usury, by the exorbitant interest charged by finance companies which are exploiting the consumer, the small wage earner, in our Canadian society, when we endeavour to make it easier still, through a bank, for people to take out more short term loans repayable over a period of 12, 18 or 24 months when all those instalment purchases are financed by means of loans requiring no endorsers, if you please? All that is required from the borrowers is a signature on the dotted lines of a contract, of a promissory note showing the amount in favour of the bank holding that promissory note.
We are simply making it easier for that company to multiply, through its own bank, this kind of credit.
What is even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, is that barely a week ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) tabled in the house a motion to limit the ability of certain provincial governments to hold existing bank stocks.
It was also said that the measure was intended to prevent foreigners from becoming the main shareholders in our Canadian banks and thus from gaining control of our economy.
Just a glance at the names of the petitioners and of those in key positions suffices to convince us that while they are Canadian residents, they have large interests outside Canada. First of all, there is Mr. Peter Saunders, president of the Laurentide Finance Corporation, president of Coronation Credit, 20220-743
Private Bills
director of the Commonwealth Industrial Bank, in Nassau, and director of Elite Insurance. Then comes Mr. Andrew Elliott Saxton, general manager of the Laurentide Finance Corporation, vice president of the Laurentide Finance Corporation of California, president of Elite Insurance, director of Coronation Credit and director of the Commonwealth Industrial Bank in Nassau. They are precisely interested in the capital market.
It is claimed that if this finance company was granted this new operating charter, denounced by many organizations in our society -including our trade unions which, in the province of Quebec, have carried out a campaign intended for farmers and workers living in our great industrial areas, such as Lake St. John, to discourage those who want to borrow from these finance companies because, too often, unfortunately, they are unable, because of illness, to meet the obligations imposed by the present cost of living- our fellow citizens would be exploited even more. We are not in favour of an increase in the credit through a banking or financial system of which the promoters are the masters.
We are asked by the other place to authorize the creation of new banks. As I said a short while ago, that bill was presented to the house about a week after the motion of the Minister of Finance to provide for, according to him, better control of the Canadian monetary policy and a restricted number of banks. What if all provincial governments were to decide to follow British Columbia's lead, that is to create a charter bank and hold $30 million worth of shares in it?
Others claimed that the Minister of Finance feared precisely the multiplication of chartered banks controlled by a provincial government. We are told that would be something to fear since there would be a Social Credit bank in Alberta, an N.D.P. or socialist bank in Saskatchewan, a Conservative bank in Ontario, a Liberal bank in Quebec and a Conservative bank in Nova Scotia. A bank is neither Liberal, nor Conservative, nor Creditiste, nor socialist, it is a usurious institution which, with the very blood of the people, can control the economic blood stream of the country because when you control credit, you control the economic blood stream of the nation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

Private Bills


William Arnold Peters: After what you did today you should not.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is obvious that this bill is going to be talked out, and I would therefore suggest as a question of privilege that the house give unanimous consent to terminating this debate, standing this bill and proceeding to item No. 7 on the order paper and the other items thereafter, most of which I believe are non-controversial. Unless they are dealt with today, in view of the fact the end of the session will be reached soon, they will have little or no chance of passing. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the house to terminate this debate and proceed to a consideration of item No. 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member obviously does not have a question of privilege. He has made a suggestion to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) who now has the floor. That hon. member may move the adjournment of this debate, and I suggest he is the only one who can do so, having the floor.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I admit with you that there was no question of privilege. That was only another trick by the mover of this bill. On the other hand, only a few hours ago, we heard the person responsible for the business of the house say that this bill would stand and suddenly almost without warning, it is brought forward. Therefore, we intend to discuss it at least during the whole hour provided for the bill.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, instead of denying the provinces the right to obtain, under the provisions of the Banks Act of the country, new bank charters even if the Porter commission recommended the creation, the issuing of new charters for additional banks, it would have been more appropriate to study objectively the possibility for the general economy of the country, to issue charters on behalf of certain governments that could use these bank charters to facilitate credit in provinces that need it, and this in order to promote a development more in line with the needs of society.
I understand that, in some places, it is claimed that influence was exerted by sending a lot of telegrams to show that the people of British Columbia were pressing for the setting up of additional banking facilities and that, among those who signed such telegrams, there is one of the petitioners for the Lau-rentide Finance Corporation charter. Support might have been given to the request from 
the premier of British Columbia, who did not want an institution for himself, for his own benefit, but one through which the whole population of that province could have benefited by means of credit made available to certain crown corporations to assist in certain projects such as those provided for in the Columbia river treaty, for they will surely need a tremendous amount of capital to carry out the work required. Other essential projects could also have been financed through the credit which the bank of British Columbia could have made available to various government, municipal and school bodies. There, at last, one could have said: a step forward has been made toward a banking system truly designed to serve the people, and we would have given it our support because it would have been a service institution, instead of the exploiting institution which the Canadian banking system has become.
It is nothing but the exploitation of man by man. And how are you going to refute such an argument?
I have here certain figures on the debt of the Canadian people, taken from the Porter commission's report. That debt stands at $72 billion, that is the total debts of Canadians. That is not a bank debt, but the debts of all Canadians under a system managed by individuals, debts of the community at all government levels.
That is why I am against-rightly so, I think-not only myself personally, but on behalf of my group, to the multiplication and spreading of those chartered banks, especially when petitioners are none other than the directors of finance companies who are already taking unfair advantage of the permission granted to them under a charter which they already hold.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part very briefly in this discussion and say at the outset of my remarks that I oppose the proposal before us, which is an application for the granting of a charter to set up a private bank in British Columbia, namely the Laurentide bank.
I should also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I believe British Columbia should have a large financial institution of its own and that it should have had such an institution many years ago. It is perhaps not generally known that British Columbia is not only the third largest province of Canada but has the

third largest provincial population. Although its people are numerous, it is separated by almost a continent from the headquarters of existing chartered banks.
When the government of British Columbia, supported by all other political parties in the provincial legislature with the exception of the Liberal representatives, sought to gain the right to have its own provincial bank participated in by the public, that right was denied. There are many good economic reasons why that right should have been extended to British Columbia. The present volume of business in British Columbia is very well illustrated-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at five o'clock.



PENSIONS


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
George James McIlraith: Just before the committee rose at five o'clock some suggestions were made in connection with procedure and I undertook to have the matter considered over the adjournment period and to indicate what our position was at the resumption of the sittings. It is agreeable to pass all the clauses up to part IV on which no one has an amendment, excluding of course the amendments from the committee report in schedule D, then revert to the clauses which have been stood. They will be called and dealt with in consecutive order as they are numbered in the bill. I believe that meets the point raised.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It does to a certain extent, Mr. Chairman, and it is quite all right with us. I only suggest one further possibility for shortening the time spent in the committee. Some of the amendments we proposed to put 20220-7431
Canada Pension Plan
forward were consequent upon other amendments. If these substantive amendments were not accepted, then the others would not be necessary. However, whatever the government desires to do in this respect will be acceptable. We are going to have to follow it. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I can only suggest we go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is one aspect about this procedure about which I should like to be clear. It seems to me if we are going to follow a procedure that varies from the normal one we should know precisely what it is. In other words, we should be given a list of the clauses which are going to be passed without debate and the clauses which are going to be amended, so that we know at the start what the program is. It will be extremely awkward for members who chance to come in and who will wonder where we are. Even the chairman might wonder at times.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am very happy to suggest the clauses to which we suggest amendments. I believe on Monday last when we opened the committee hearings on this bill, I suggested to the government that if they had any clauses which they were going to amend, other than those recommended in the report of the committee, they should give us that information. Perhaps I am mistaken, but at that time I understood that there were. I took it from what the minister said that there were other clauses which the government proposed amending, that is other than the ones that were recommended in the report of the committee. Now, the minister did not see fit to do this. I am not arguing that point, other than to say that at this moment I am very happy to suggest to the committee the clauses we have in mind amending, up to part IV. I am just wondering if the government may do the same thing.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be very happy to suggest at this time that we do propose amending clauses 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, and 69.


George James McIlraith: I take it that is all up to
part IV?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not suggesting that there might not be the odd question raised in the interim, but those are the only ones which we propose to amend.


George James McIlraith: What I was seeking to get at was, that is all coming from the official opposition?

Canada Pension Plan


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if it would be appropriate for the other parties to give a similar indication?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, apart from part IV, the only clause that I can detect at the moment, other than the ones the Progressive Conservatives have mentioned, is clause 7. We have amendments to some of the clauses they mentioned, but we have an amendment of our own to clause 7.
I should like also to hear from the government at some point soon with respect to two categories of amendments. Appendix D to the committee's report specifies certain amendments. I believe it is understood we will call those clauses, perhaps have the amendments explained and let this committee of the whole house confirm them. I am interested also in the recommendations that are contained in paragraph 8 of the committee's report. These recommendations are general in nature. They do not spell out in words the precise amendment in each case, but it is our hope that the government has amendments ready. We are not even in a position to say what the numbers of the clauses are which it would be necessary to amend to implement those recommendations. Could we be given that information?


George James McIlraith: Yes, we will give that, and it will become quite clear when the government gives a list of the amendments it proposes. Do the other groups care to indicate any amendments they propose? I propose to ask my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue to indicate the amendments the government will propose.


Edgar John Benson: The amendments, which incorporate the amendments indicated by the committee in general terms, include amendments to clauses 6, 7, 43, 44, 48, 58, 77 to 79, 91, 110 and then some amendments in part IV with which we are not going to deal at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one other question which arises in connection with this, and I have to put it pretty bluntly. Are there any of the recommendations in paragraph 8 of the report which the government has not accepted? If there are any that have not been accepted, we want to know so that we can raise these points on the clauses that should be amended.


Edgar John Benson: I would like to point out that all these recommendations are dealt with, but not all necessarily exactly the same as in the committee report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we have been given all of the clauses that would have to be called in order for us to discuss the recommendations in paragraph 8 of the report?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 3 carry?


George Louis Chatterton: To be quite clear, do I take it that the government agrees that when we reach the clauses we have named where we have proposed amendments, we might skip the consequential clauses which might come first in the bill, and deal with the substantive clauses first?


George James McIlraith: No, that was not the way the statement I made was worded. It was that we would call them in the sequence that they are numbered in the bill. Based on experience we had a few years ago I think that would be a more orderly and better procedure, because otherwise we would have to start trying to decide which ones are consequential without its appearing why they are consequential. I have sent my statement to the Hansard reporter, but it was worded in such language that it was made clear we would call those clauses which are to stand in sequence, starting with the way they are numbered in the bill.


George Louis Chatterton: Subject to further consideration, we want to reserve the right to reconsider our position, because so far as I am concerned I think our proposal is not being accepted. Our proposal was intended to save time.


George James McIlraith: When the committee rose at five o'clock I undertook to consider the proposal and to discuss it with my colleagues. I did that, and I think the hon. member will find that the statement I worked out pretty well meets the situation. It is true that it was worded in language different from that in the proposal moved by the hon. member for Perth, but I think it will be found that the procedure I have outlined will be the most satisfactory in the long run.


George Louis Chatterton: I accept that, with reservations.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 3 carry?


George Louis Chatterton: I want to make a few brief comments-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Was it not agreed that the clauses which were not listed would be passed?


Mr, Chalterlon:: It was agreed, so far as we were concerned, that they would be passed without amendment, but it was not agreed that there would not be brief discussion here and there throughout their passage.
Clause 3 describes the circumstances in which the Canada pension plan will not be operative in any province. In other words, the plan applies in all provinces but under certain circumstances described in clause 3 it will not apply in any province which opts out under the terms of the clause. The point I want to make is that words have been bandied around that this is a universal plan, a national plan, a Canadian plan. In fact its name, the Canada pension plan, seems to imply that under all circumstances it will be a national plan operative in the same way in every part of Canada. It is well for members of the committee and Canadians generally to realize this need not be so.
Clause 3 provides that any province can opt out after due notice, and under the provisions of section 94(a) of the B.N.A. Act all provinces can legislate in this field. The people of Canada should realize that it is not axiomatic and necessarily a fact that this plan will become national in scope and will be completely portable. There is a possibility it might not, and in support of my contention I want to quote Hon. John Robarts, premier of Ontario, in a statement he made to the legislature of Ontario on January 21, 1965. Referring to the question of whether his province was to come into the plan or opt out he said:
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.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that clause 3 provides that a province can opt out provided that within a specified time it passes a bill through its own legislature, establishing a plan with comparable benefits. In effect the premier of Ontario says that if they were to opt out it might impair the national portability of the Canada pension plan. I quote again from his speech, which is to be found at page 1787 of the minutes of the proceedings and evidence of the joint committee:
In coming to this decision-
That is, the decision as to whether or not they should join the Canada pension plan.
-I am well aware that the government of Quebec has indicated that it intends to administer its own pension plan, which will become comparable to the Canada pension plan and, it is hoped, will not seriously impair interprovincial portability.
Canada Pension Plan
I emphasize those words:
-it is hoped, will not seriously impair interprovincial portability. This decision by the province of Quebec is based on the determination of its government to administer its own social welfare legislation. 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.
The object of my brief remarks is to point out that under this bill a province can opt out after due notice and within a certain period of time and, if it does, the Canada pension plan will not, so to speak, become operative in that province if the province at the time of opting out within a specific time passes its own plan which is comparable as far as benefits are concerned. But at any time thereafter, that province or any other province can change its plan in any way it sees fit. This is within their constitutional rights. The people should know this. There is no assurance that the Canada pension plan will be completely national in scope and completely portable. It is true that subsequent clauses in the bill provide for agreements to be entered into between the federal government and a province which may opt out. But such agreements can be made only subsequent to the present bill becoming law and subsequent to the opting out province passing its own legislation. I certainly hope with the best will in the world that this is not the way in which things will turn out. But this is what may happen.
It might have taken a little more time to have arrived by agreement at a plan which would have had a greater chance of becoming a national plan without the possibility of destroying national portability. I believe that what prompted the present approach of the government is its well established policy of co-operative federalism. I believe the attitude taken by the government in establishing this pension plan is in line with its stated policy of allowing provinces to opt out of federal-provincial programs. Had the government not established this policy it might have been possible to have set up a different program, one which would have had greater assurance of being national in its scope. In this regard I should like to quote again one or two of the statements made by the premier of Ontario in his speech before the legislature on January 21, 1965. This indicates the attitude of the premier of On-

Canada Pension Plan
tario toward a national plan. He points out that it is possible for the province of Ontario to opt out and operate its own plan. He said:
With regard to the alternative of operating our own plan, may I say that our studies clearly indicate that it would be entirely feasible for the government of Ontario to do so; indeed, there are substantial arguments in favour of our so doing.
We would then have a plan which could be operated to our satisfaction, both efficiently and economically, for the benefit of the people of this province. We would preserve the constitutional rights which are ours under the British North America Act. We would have complete control over all the funds generated in this province. We would have complete control over any future amendments respecting contributions, benefits and other financial aspects. In addition, although a provincial plan must be comparable to the federal plan, I am convinced that we could make improvements and simplifications in benefits, contributions and administrative features of the plan if we were to devise and operate our own.
In spite of the statement that the people of Ontario could probably benefit by operating their own plan, what did the premier go on to say. He said, in effect, no. These are his words:
The first duty and responsibility of the government of this province is, of course, to look after the interests of our own people. This is our primary objective. On the other hand our position with respect to the whole of Canada and its people is one of which we are proud and which we have traditionally maintained. Thus the decisions we make must be made within the broad context of what is best for the Canadian nation as well as for the province of Ontario.
Mr. Robarts goes on to make other statements along those lines. I maintain in all seriousness that had it not been for the stated policy of this government allowing opting out, it could have been possible even within the constitutional rights of the provinces, indeed it might still be possible, that a truly national plan could be developed.
Remember that a province does not have to state its intention of opting out until this bill has become law. There is a possibility that other provinces may opt out. We know, for instance, that the premier of British Columbia has done many things which have been unexpected in some quarters and it could well be that other provinces would opt out. The premier of Ontario has indicated the real danger to national portability if this were to happen.
I say again that the position taken by this government was predetermined by its policy of allowing any province to opt out, and I hope members of the house and the people of Canada will realize that this is not neces-

sarily a national plan providing for complete portability.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I know that hon. members wish to move along with this uncontentious section but I can hardly allow some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich to pass without comment. It was pointed out long ago that when this legislation is passed by the House of Commons there is no guarantee that every province in Canada and all of our people will be covered by the plan. This has been stated categorically by the government ever since it first presented its proposals to the provinces in July of 1963 with regard to a national contributory wage related pension plan. It will be recalled that at that time no province apart from the province of Quebec indicated that it had any interest in exercising its undoubted constitutional rights in this field-the rights to which the premier of Ontario referred in the speech quoted by the hon. member. Yet the hon. member tries to make the point that had this government taken a different attitude no province would have considered the possibility of legislating in this field. I suggest the hon. member's argument is a non sequitur at this point, as it is at many other points.
However, he said something more important. He suggested that this is not a truly national plan. I submit that by such a statement he is misleading not only this committee but the country at large.


An hon. Member:: He has gone now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I know the hon. member is not sufficiently interested to stay in the chamber during the discussion-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -but I will not permit to be left on the record, uncontradicted, some of the misstatements he has made, intended to mislead the people of this country.


An hon. Member:: He is back.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't be so partisan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not being partisan. I am trying to explain the legislation which has been carefully worked over for two years and upon which one of the best committees ever set up by parliament deliberated at great length. It is obvious that some hon. members have not understood anything about the plan. But the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich who was a member of the committee should well have understood-unless

he chooses deliberately to mislead. This is a national scheme in concept-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Nonsense.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -and there has been worked out, for application to Canadians from coast to coast, a scheme which will have universal application. In so far as the Canadian constitution permits the federal government to go, it has gone. The hon. member quoted something from one of his favourite spokesmen, the premier of Ontario, to the effect that they might have at any time exercised their own constitutional position to bring in their own legislation. The legislation is so drawn in this clause that it is not possible at whim for a province to go outside the plan. The clause is so drawn that there are conditions upon which a premier and government of a province may take its people from out of the Canada pension plan and, as has been stated, that is by way of comparable provincial legislation giving comparable benefits, covering a comparable number of people, giving comparable amounts and types of pension, and presumably with a comparable rate in so far as contributions are concerned.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Presumably.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was mentioned that this plan was not in itself universal. I can hardly believe that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, or those with whom he is now sitting, could possibly intend the federal government to operate within a jurisdiction wider than the constitution permits. I think that partisanship aside, in all fairness they will have to admit to the committee and the house that the legislation goes as far as the constitutional position warrants.
It is clear that as of this date, aside from the province of Quebec, which as far back as August of 1963 passed a resolution in its legislature that it intended to bring in its own legislation, and which has since that time amended its own resolution with a very detailed plan that has certainly comparable or perhaps identical provisions, no other province has indicated privately or publicly that it intends to pass its own legislation. I should like to say to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that if indeed there is any question of this being a national plan, had the amendment put forward this afternoon by spokesmen for the Conservative party been passed, there is one thing that would have been certain, and that is that there could have been no national plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Canada Pension Plan


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Indeed, the legislature of Quebec-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Who is getting political now?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -voted to pass its own legislation. Had the legislative changes as proposed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka this afternoon been adopted by this chamber, there is no suggestion in the world that those amendments, so drastic a change as they were, would have in any way been comparable with the legislation proposed in the Quebec legislation.
It was also mentioned by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, as part of the quotation from the speech of the premier of Ontario, that the premier of Ontario could have had control over his own funds. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment had passed this afternoon, by the admission of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, this would have been meaningless language because there would have been no funds over which to take control.
I have no objection at all to hon. members standing up, particularly those who have been on the committee, and attempting to make clear a very complex piece of legislation. But I object very strenuously to an attempt to mislead the committee, as certain members of the press have already widely, unhappily, misled the public at large.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can let these remarks of the minister go without some comment. I think they are rather insulting remarks-


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -saying that members of the committee of the whole house who have spoken on this bill did not know what they were talking about, and including charges that attempts are being made to mislead the committee.


An hon. Member:: And the press.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. minister should be somewhat less arrogant in attempting to get a bill through the House of Commons, particularly a minister who was excluded from some of the preliminary work on two or three of the revisions of this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and who was shunted to one side and her position taken over by the Prime Minister, and then by an adviser on the Prime Minister's staff. I am not sure what contribution she made to the joint committee that sat to consider this bill.

Canada Pension Plan


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Read the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For the minister to stand here and lecture the committee, which started off at eight o'clock being very co-operative, is surely not the way to get a bill processed through this chamber. I think the minister should learn a little by experience.


Mr.   Kindi@: She will never learn.


Gordon Minto Churchill: She should avoid this partisan discussion to which she is so prone and should accept the fact that other members of this house who speak on this bill are in possession of some knowledge of the facts.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member speaking on clause 3?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, here we have an interruption by the hon. minister. She was speaking on clause 2 and the amendment in regard to clause 2 for half of her speech.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was speaking to clause 3.


Gordon Minto Churchill: She was not called to order by the Chair, and she made all these extraneous remarks earlier with regard to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the other hon. members who sat on the committee. Now she wants everybody else to be restrained because she has had the privilege of getting her partisan comments placed on the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? It has nothing to do with the discussion of the last few minutes, but it does relate to clause 3. We had some discussion in the special committee about the fact that this clause seems to some of us to be a one-way street. It has in it provisions for provinces to opt out. The provisions spell out the techniques very fully. The question I raised in the committee was this: What about a provision for a province to opt in or to opt back in?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought you were dropping that word in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I beg your pardon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Chairman? Reading the committee reports, I gathered that the hon. member withdrew the use of the phrases "opt out" and "opt in", and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend and neighbour from Winnipeg South Centre has just given me one of the finest

compliments I have ever had from him; he has informed me that he has been reading what I said in committee. He is perfectly correct. I suggested that the phrase "opting out" is a misnomer, but it has become rather common language and most people know what it means. There is provision in clause 3 of the bill, if I may take the hint from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, for a province to indicate that it is going to set up its own plan and therefore to put the federal government in the position where its legislation will not operate in that province. I would like to know whether further consideration was given to the possibility of putting in the bill provisions under which a province that had done this could reverse its position and come back under the provisions of the bill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to my hon. friend that what he suggests is perfectly correct as to what occurred in the committee, but there is no machinery set out in the bill for a province, which has opted out for some time and is desirous of coming back, to come in under the Canada pension plan. I think the reasons were explained by the draftsmen of the legislation from the Department of Justice, namely that it is almost impossible to guess at any point of time what the circumstances might be for the province concerned, whether it might have been at some time in the Canada pension plan, then gone out and then come back, and whether it had had its own legislation and then come back. It was impossible to determine how much of a divergency there might be between the federal legislation and the legislation of the province. Accordingly, it was considered that there could be so many computations and permutations that it would be virtually useless at this time to set them down in legislation.
I should like to say, however, that considering the fact that all hon. members of the house have expressed themselves, whatever their political colouration, as being so firmly of the view, as have all provincial groups, that there should be legislation which is portable and universal in its application, I think I can say, even for those dim shadows who may sit in these seats 20, 50 or 100 years from now, that their inclinations for a universal scheme would also be as great, and legislation to fit the circumstances of that time will be readily put through the committee of that day.

Canada Pension Plan


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, on this particular point I think there is a good bit to be said for the difficulties confronting a province which is withdrawing from the plan which, 10 or 15 years later, wants to come back in again; I think it would be a hopeless task. But if a province were to avail itself of the non-participation feature at the very beginning-in other words, not having been in the plan right from the beginning they said 10 or 15 years hence that they would like to come in-then in those circumstances the problems would not be nearly so difficult. I feel that some consideration should perhaps be given to this.
For instance, I am thinking now of the province of Quebec. They have presently said that they are not coming in but are setting up their own plan. That is a privilege that is accorded to all provinces, and some provinces might still do that. Yet they have never become involved in, shall I say, the complicated financial machinery of administration of this plan, and for this reason I am wondering why we could not consider, under certain circumstances, the possibility that a province which had never participated in the plan might at some future time join the plan, thus making it a truly national portable plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think there is a great deal in what my hon. friend says. However, 15 or 20 years from now there is absolutely no way of saying what the parliament of that day or the legislatures of that day will do in this regard. We cannot tell whether there may be diversions. It is to be remembered that this legislation provides certain safeguards which have been made at the request of some of the larger provinces, safeguards which provincial legislation will not carry. We hope that the urge for comparability, portability and universality will be such as to keep plans from diversion. Therefore with the greatest respect it was considered by those who drafted the legislation that, welcome as such a move would be, it would have to be dealt with in the open arms of that day rather than this.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to, on division.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 8?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 9


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 10?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 11?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 15-Amount of maximum contributory earnings for a year.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, clause 15 deals with the maximum contribution and I just want to say a few brief words on this. I think there is a place in the Canada pension plan for an individual to make an arrangement to pay more than the 3.6 per cent if he chooses to do so. There are a number of people in Canada, particularly the self-employed and farmers, who have a very variable level of net income. Over a long period of time it may average out to about $3,000 or $4,000 net income on which they would make their contributions. Nevertheless, during such period, say a 10 year period, there could be a number of years when there would be no net income at all. These self-employed people, however, may have assets or some money from which they could make a contribution to the Canada pension plan and thus build up their potential pension benefits.
It seems to me that at the present time the maximum they can build up is 3.6 per cent of their earnings in any one year. A lot of people are going to fall short of earning a maximum potential benefit in the application of these maximum contribution clauses.
I should like to hear from the minister as to whether some consideration could be given to enabling the self-employed to contract to pay a higher level of contribution in those years when their earnings are down for any reason. If the plan is actuarially sound and they wanted to pay 5 or 5J per cent or even more of their net income, they would not be doing any disservice to others in the plan by making these larger contributions. I am more interested in evening out the contributions between those years when their net income may be very low and when the selfemployed would in fact show a loss, in which event they would be unable to contribute to the plan at all.

Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: With respect to this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that basically this is a social insurance plan. Usually social insurance plans call for a maximum amount of contribution and benefits derived therefrom. I might point out that in the United States the maximum earnings on which one can contribute is $4,800. Any lessening of this principle and allowing people to contribute on amounts beyond the $5,000 level would tend to favour those in our society in the higher income brackets, particularly those who could do so in the first 10 years. In this way they might tend to receive higher benefits from the plan than they would have normally received under the present provisions of the plan.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it abundantly clear that the range would certainly be between a minimum and a maximum wherein one could make an option. We certainly would not expect a provision which would permit a person to contract to pay any more than 3.6 per cent times $5,000-or in other words $180 a year-to the plan. I want it made clear that I am not suggesting that anyone should have the opportunity of contributing more than $180 in any one year.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if we were to allow some people in particular years to contribute beyond the stated percentage of his income, the plan would no longer remain an earnings related pension plan. This plan is intended to be related to the earnings of an individual in a particular year. His benefits are designed to be paid out on this basis. If people wish to contribute to pension plans beyond the level permitted under the social insurance scheme which is known as the Canada pension plan, there is opportunity for them to make additional contributions to private pension plans and reap the benefits which exist there. But within this particular plan is the intention to relate it to earnings. A limit is provided. The range of contributions are adjusted upward as our earnings index increases. The benefits are also adjusted upwards as our cost of living index increases, and thus the pension increases.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, is it not also true that in the United States, in respect of high income brackets, the percentage which is applied to average earnings is less, while in respect to high income brackets in West Germany they are completely excluded? The proposal made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat would be contrary to the best interests of the people of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member has said is correct.
Another relevant point in this regard, when considering the United States plan, is the fact that they have no flat rate benefit such as our old age security plan, so that in Canada we have to combine the two in considering the rates and benefits of the Canada pension plan and the old age security plan.


Mr. Barnett:: 
Edgar John Benson: In answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, Mr. Chairman, let me state that there is a problem in regard to varying incomes as far as the Income Tax Act is concerned. A similar problem must be faced in this country in connection with retirement savings. As I am sure the hon. member is aware, within the Income Tax Act there is a provision allowing farmers to average their incomes. Indeed, this problem was considered in connection with this plan. However, the benefits individuals are to receive under a pension plan must be decided in relation to their annual earnings, but at the same time must be determined on the basis of actual annual earnings of individuals for the documented period. For this reason, among others, instead of considering an averaging formula in connection with the Canada pension plan the dropout period was included. This dropout provision will allow individuals who have varying incomes over a period of years to take out years in which they received low incomes.
One of the things which would happen if we included an averaging provision as well as a dropout provision in the Canada pension plan would be that the gain obtained by the averaging provision might be offset by the dropout provision. We had to make a decision as to how we were going to deal with this situation, and it was felt that if we provided an averaging provision for a specific group of people covered by this plan we would experience pressure from other people to extend to them the same privilege. One might think, for example, of professional athletes.
When an individual receives an income in one year which is higher than normal, which would warrant a contribution higher than allowed under the provisions of the Canada pension plan, that individual may take advantage of the provisions under the Income Tax Act to make contributions to other schemes, such as savings plans or additional pension plans. That individual can use this extra money in those ways.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the minister what he intends to do under the circumstances which I propose to outline. In the event farmers or fishermen, as well as other similar groups of workers, take advantage of the provisions in the Income Tax Act which allows them to average out their net incomes over a period of five years, surely those averaged out incomes become the official in-oomes of these individuals for the five year
period. How will the Minister of National Health and Welfare be able to reject those averaged out figures as being the acceptable incomes of those individuals for the five year period of time?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the averaging provisions of the Income Tax Act do not affect the net income of an individual, but rather affect his tax on that income over a five year period. Net income is determined for the purposes of the Canadian pension plan on the basis of the income reported in each of the individual years. The averaging provisions of the Income Tax Act do not apply to the Canada pension plan.
From an administrative point of view, the Canada pension plan would be very difficult to deal with on this basis, because the Department of National Revenue must accumulate contributions from every individual in Canada, and keep records in that regard. There must be some finality to the computation of these contributions, otherwise one would find it almost impossible to administer the machinery through which this information is fed back.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, if the machinery that is to be set up under the provisions of this plan is unable to do justice to the task, perhaps we should develop some better machinery.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question. Through what procedure is the value of a pension plan to a self-employed person, whose income varies during the years, to be determined? How will the value of an individual's accrued investment in this plan be determined when the time comes for the individual to receive pension benefits?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, what will happen in this case is that the contributions made by an individual in each year will be recorded.
A pension record will be kept of every contributor to the Canada pension plan and when he retires at age 65, if he chooses to retire at age 65 or if he retires at age 70, then the earnings over the period of years in which he contributed will be adjusted according to the earnings index. If the earnings index in Canada has risen, his pension benefit will be determined at that point after deducting the number of dropout years which he is permitted, which under the bill as it stands is 10 per cent. There is an amendment in this regard to come later. The low years

Canada Pension Plan
are deducted and the earning years are adjusted upward according to the earnings index, and the pension benefit is paid. It is paid to him from that point onwards on a monthly basis. It is subsequently adjusted according to the pension index. If from the time he retires the cost of living index tends to go up, the benefits which he receives, and which all other pensioners receive, are adjusted upwards by the pension index. When a person retires a computation is made of his earnings, adjustments due to the earnings index are made, and his pension is determined at that point. The only variation of his pension from that point onward would be dictated by the pension index.


George Louis Chatterton: There is one technical point I should like cleared up. I thought the minister said these average earnings are adjusted by way of the earnings index, but I thought that only applied to 1975, onward.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, up until 1975, the pension index is used in lieu of the earnings index. The earnings index is based on an eight year moving average and it will take until 1975 to get a separate earnings index and a pension index.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is the minister not denying his own argument when he says that provisions whereby the government might be able to maintain an average maximum contribution would not be more simple? Would it not be more simple if a contributor were allowed to do that? When the time comes for him to retire and draw his pension it would be based on the maximum amount of what he had earned. Where does the complexity of such an arrangement come in?
What I am saying is this: You have said that if he were unable to maintain a maximum for some years and yet he is able to make a greater contribution in other years you will, at the time of his retirement, determine according to the index what his pension shall be. If he were permitted to maintain a maximum over a period of years you would simplify the thing rather than complicate it.


Edgar John Benson: In answer to my hon. friend's question, I may say that the point that is involved is that this is an earnings related pension plan.


Robert Norman Thompson: This is what my argument is about, an earnings related pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, and I am attaching it to earnings as well. Within the range of earnings one can contribute under this plan for a wage

earner, a deduction is made by the employer of his 1.8 per cent, the employee pays his 1.8 per cent and the amounts come in at the end of the year to the Department of National Revenue. They will be distributed to the particular employee, and the employee will have no forms to fill out.


Robert Norman Thompson: What if the man is selfemployed?


Edgar John Benson: I will deal with the self-employed now. When a self-employed person makes out his annual tax return at the end of the year, he will be required to complete a very brief form which will be inside the return or attached to the return, indicating what his self-employed earnings for the year were. He will then calculate on this his 3.8 per cent and make his contribution to the Canada pension plan. This will, in turn, be fed through the computer and credited to the individual who is self-employed. Once these millions of records of individual earnings are set up, and you move on from there and say that any one of these people can take an average over a period of five years, it means that you have to go back for each such person and adjust the five calculations and note it on his earnings record, which by this time has been passed over to the department of health and welfare which also has to have information in this regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Am I right in saying that this has been considered and rejected? I think it is denying a principle which has been well established under the Income Tax Act, which is to allow farmers and fishermen to average their incomes and pay taxes on the average income. I do not agree with the minister that there is a difference between what he calls earnings and taxable income, because if the application of the income tax law is fair, and I think we agree it is the best we can do, then taxable income is exactly the same thing as earnings over this period. It is possible for someone to earn $3,000 in one year and $7,000 in the next year, which is an average I guess of $5,000 for the two years. Under the bill all he can possibly make a contribution upon in that kind of situation is $8,000. I feel that the minister should seriously reconsider this matter because it is a well known and well established principle that there should be a provision for averaging income in those cases where the net income is in fact a fluctuating figure.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to put something on the record which was written by my

assistant deputy minister. It is found in the pension committee record at page 1903, and this same information was included in a letter which was sent to farm organizations. They have not come back with any adverse comments. I quote:
The effect of averaging upon the amount of the pension benefit to which a farmer might otherwise be entitled would not be beneficial or would be beneficial, depending on the following conflicting factors.
(a)	Reducing all income in an averaging period to a common denominator has the effect of taking into account losses which would otherwise be excluded from contributory earnings and also tends to deprive a farmer of the benefit of the "dropout formula" (the dropout formula used in the calculation of benefits excludes certain years of low earnings and this in part, compensates for fluctuations in yearly earnings).
(b)	Earnings in a particular year in excess of the maximum which would otherwise be excluded are taken into account.
In other words, those two factors are conflicting and they have the opposite effect.
Although the effect of averaging on the benefits of any contributor could not be determined until after the record of his lifetime earnings had been completed, it is quite likely that for the majority of farmers with moderate income there would be an adverse effect.
This mainly arises because, in averaging, loss years have been taken into account as well as variations of income.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was just going to explain, Mr. Chairman, that we have suddenly realized clause 15 might be affected and I did not mention it in my original list of clauses which we would like to have stood. I offer my apologies and if the government insists that it pass, I cannot say anything. However, we would like to add this to the list which we gave.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 15 stand?


Edgar John Benson: I would be glad to allow it to stand if I do not have to repeat the arguments which I have just made.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, no further debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the clause is allowed to stand, may I indicate another aspect of this matter which is related to clauses 15, 17, and also to clause 8, which has already been allowed to stand? At this point, I will not ask for any discussion on this, but I should like to put it on the record so the two ministers can think about it.
As everyone knows, there are certain proposals that we make that will cost more money. We recognize that the money has to be found somewhere. One of the places in which we feel this extra money should be found is by providing for a contribution above
Canada Pension Plan
the $5,000 level. I am not asking for a highei ceiling so far as benefits are concerned, but we do feel a higher ceiling as far as contributions are concerned should be considered. Our position with respect to this is analogous to that which we take with respect to the $3,000 limit in connection with the personal income tax for old age security. If I may put it in the commonest language, arrangements of this kind make the poor pay for their own pensions to too large an extent.
I hope that when we get back to clause 15, and possibly clause 17 where the $5,000 figure is mentioned, and also clause 8, this whole idea will be considered and maybe by that time we will have been able to make our point about the need for an increase in old age security.


George Louis Chatterton: Would the hon. member support our proposals if we found the additional revenue by way of this proposal?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The trouble is that they are in part proposals for increased benefits and in part proposals for decreased benefits.


George Louis Chatterton: But assuming we do not extend the transition period?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say is that that is the most interesting comment I have heard from the hon. member. I hope the Conservatives are dropping that idea.


George Louis Chatterton: The hon. member is beginning to understand.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest clause 15 stand because it could be included in one of the other amendments. The minister would not have to repeat all the arguments he made tonight if he came forward with an amendment to take care of the matter I have suggested.
Clause stands.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-Amount of year's maximum pensionable earnings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not objecting to the $5,000 figure in this clause because it would be the ceiling so far as benefits are concerned, but I would like to enter the caveat I entered a moment ago with regard to clause 15. While I am on my feet I draw attention to the fact that this is the first clause in which reference is made to escalation on the basis of the pension index, and escalation on the basis of the earnings index, and I hope as we proceed through the bill we might have some discussion on these points, though not in the detail we had in the joint committee. In brief,

Canada Pension Plan
I think the arrangements worked out with respect to the earnings index are excellent. They struck me as a bit ingenuous at first but the more I studied them the more I thought they were good and that they really give our people the benefit of rising wages and rising productivity.
My hope is that the government will consider using the earnings index rather than the cost of living index for escalation of pensions after they have been put in pay.


George Louis Chatterton: Questions were raised in the committee regarding what is an adequate pension after retirement, and no real definition or statement was made on that subject. However, there seemed to be some consensus that the retirement pension must bear some relationship to the average earnings of the working population. Therefore I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that a more realistic index to use in adjusting pensions, once they are being paid, might be an earnings index rather than a pension index based on the consumer index.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
On clause 20-Pension index for year 1967.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, several witnesses who appeared before the special joint committee expressed concern about the indexing feature of the bill. In fact the first witnesses to appear gave the committee some very serious facts to consider. They were strongly of the opinion that the tying of the pension to the cost of living index would contribute to inflation. The same opinion was given in connection with the earnings index which is mentioned in the next clause.
There were two bases on which these opinions were given. The first was a financial or actuarial one, in which it was felt that where there was a cost of living increase in our national economy it would have the effect, in a short time, of increasing the amount of the pension. It was felt that the effect of increasing the pension would increase the amount of money available in the country for expenditures, thus sending up the cost of living once again which would result later in further increases in the pension itself. In other words, there was a great fear that it would be a self-sustaining inflationary feature.
The second reason given was of a psychological nature. The witnesses felt that once you accepted the feature of indexing in any plan then people would expect it across the board. In other words, if we accept the

principle in the Canada pension plan that, as the cost of living increases, pensions ought to increase then people in all other levels of society would also feel they were entitled to protection against inflation. The witnesses felt this would extend itself into the private pension field and all features of the economy.
Against this is the principle that I for one proposed on many occasions five or six years ago, that the old age security itself ought to have some protective index and that it should be raised by some measurable amount rather than by being raised just before general elections. Indexing does protect our aging people against the continual rise in the cost of living, and I think it is well worth noting that the indexing applies not only in connection with the pension under the Canada pension plan but is also made to apply to old age security. I wanted to raise this point at this time because it is a matter which was seriously considered by the committee.
On the other hand, on balance it was felt by our members that since the government had come up with this feature, since it and its officials felt that the danger of inflation was not that great, and since some of the economists who appeared said it would not really create inflation but might create an atmosphere for inflation, we have decided not to move an amendment or vote against this clause. We have decided not to move an amendment in the circumstances but we do not wish to let the clause go by without this comment. The fear is there, and also the possibility. It is one of the things which will need to be watched very closely and borne in mind as the pension plan goes into effect.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I should say a few words about the pension index. I am pleased to see that the hon. member is at direct variance with what his hon. friend from Macleod said in his speech yesterday, at which time I had to make a few comments with regard to the pension index being attached to the plan.
The purpose of the pension index is to deal with inflation, not to cause inflation. As I read the reports of the committee, the general opinion was that it would not have an inflationary influence on the economy except in so far as this might arise because of the psychological effect on people generally. The index is used to adjust the ceiling on earnings for each of the years 1988 to 1975 inclusive, as mentioned in clause 17 dealing with max-

imum pensionable earnings. This adjustment affects the amount upon which a contribution is payable and also, by virtue of clause 51, the determination of the earnings related benefits. It is also used to adjust for the year 1968 and thereafter the monthly flat rate benefit under the plan of $25 per month, and $12.50 if the bill is amended later on; the amount of all benefits after they are in pay, either flat rate benefits or earnings related benefits, and the flat rate old age security benefit.
The calculation of the pension index is to be made by the officials once a year as required. Its purpose is to provide for the reasonable adjustment of pensions according to changes in the cost of living.
The pension index for a year is defined in relation to the consumer price index for the 12 month period ending June 30 of the previous year. For 1967, the pension index will be set at the average of the 12 monthly consumer price index figures for the period July 1965 to June 1966. For 1968, the pension index will be set at the average of the 12 monthly consumer price index figures for the period July 1966 to June 1967, provided the average is not more than 2 per cent or less than 1 per cent higher than the pension index for 1967, and so on for each year. If it is more than 2 per cent higher, the 1968 pension index will be set at 102 per cent of the 1967 pension index. If it is less than 1 per cent higher, or if it is lower the 1968 pension index will be the same as the 1967 pension index. I would refer those who are further interested to page 226 of the proceedings of the joint committee.


George Louis Chatterton: I appreciate the explanation given by the minister but may I suggest that explanations be offered to those who were not on the committee only if they ask questions. Apart from that, it might save time if explanations were given only when questions are asked. We are anxious to expedite the proceedings of this house in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a brief word about this question now, though we shall come to it again later in the bill, particularly when we get to part IV. I am delighted to hear that the decision has been made by our friends to the right that they are not going to be frightened by the concept of indexing. I am glad they have decided to support the principle that is laid down here.
I should like to say again that I heartily endorse the earnings index and the way in
Canada Pension Plan
which it will be used ten years from now to adjust the ceiling on earnings; also the way in which it is used to calculate the basis of a pension when a person retires. Because I approve of the use of the earnings index in these circumstances I feel it should also be the basis for escalating pensions. On the old theory that one has to be grateful for half a loaf when one would like to see a whole one, I suppose we have to be appreciative of the decision to keep pensions, once they have been put in pay, on a level with increases in the cost of living. That is what the escalation of these two pensions on the basis of a pension index is designed to do.
But surely increases in the standard of living, increases in the wages of those still working, increases in general productivity, increases in the nation's affluence, are just as much factors in the lives of retired people as they are factors in the lives of people who are working. We do not think it is good enough to say to people after their retirement that though they may have been able to keep up with the escalation which took place during their working lives they must henceforth fall behind it year by year. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Perth quoting with approval what was said I believe by William Anderson regarding the desirability of making actual increases in the flat rate of pensions as people grew older. That is perhaps even better. But 1 feel that now that we have accepted the principle that pensions put in pay shall be increased, increases should be not just in proportion to the cost of living but in proportion to the general improvement in the economic conditions of the community around us.
Some interesting figures were placed on the record of the committee at page 151 of the evidence. Statistics were given as to the changes in the gross national product both in basic figures and on a per capita basis, in the consumer price index and in average weekly wages and salaries in Canada. A few minutes ago I made a rough calculation from the year 1939 to the present. I took 1939 because that is the earliest year in which there are figures in all four columns. The committee will notice that in 1939 the gross national product, at market prices in current dollars, was $5,636 million. By 1963 it had risen to $43,007 million. On a per capita basis it amounted to $500 in 1939. By 1963 it had risen to $2,276. The consumer price index adjusted to the new scale was 63.2 in 1939 and 133 in 1963. Average weekly


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to express my own endorsement of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am sure no one in the committee will be surprised at my saying that. I listened with interest a little earlier to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I thought I detected a slight note of concern on his part that this idea of indexing might be catching in the field of private pensions, and so on. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned I hope it is catching. I think it would be a wonderful thing for those who are going to be looking for supplementary pension plans, over and above the benefits provided by this proposed plan, if they were able to secure pension arrangements based on this same principle or some variation of it.
However, I am not going to suggest that I feel the government of Canada, or parliament for that matter, should at the moment take any particular action or initiative in this direction. But, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that there are one or two places where the government and parliament should be looking into the question of how, and in what way, this principle can be applied in certain directions where other, existing pension retirement plans have already come into being under the auspices of parliament and the federal government.
I am going to mention one of them in particular, and that is the operation of the

annuities branch, which I think 1 am correct in saying comes under the authority of the Minister of Labour. This is a plan which has been in effect for many years and which has been painted sometimes in rather glowing colours as a method by which the people of Canada could make provision for their old age. I may say that the idea is already catching on, with respect to the operation of government annuities, as far as some of my constituents are concerned. I refer to people who have become involved over the years in the purchase of government annuities. I certainly would like to know, while we are discussing this clause, what consideration, if any, the government is giving to making some provision for those who have put money into the annuities branch to enjoy some of the advantages that are proposed in the Canada pension plan. Has any thought been given to some form of melding or incorporation of the operation of the annuities branch within the framework of the Canada pension plan, so that the people who have in good faith used this as a means for making a modest provision for their retirement years can have the advantages of the principle which is now being proposed in the Canada pension plan?
I may say that I am still finding it a little difficult to believe that this principle is actually being proposed in a measure introduced by a Liberal government, because it is only a few short years ago, when I was in this house and a Liberal administration was sitting over there, that anybody from this quarter of the house who rose and suggested that this idea be developed was told that he had holes in his head and that this was an actuarial impossibility; it was something that could never happen even in one's wildest dreams, or nightmares.


An hon. Member:: What about superannuated civil servants?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am expecting the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre to raise the question of superannuated civil servants. I am confining my remarks at the moment to the question of the operation of the government annuities branch. I am quite certain that if some consideration were given to this question, something could be done to deal with this obvious disparity; that is to say, in dealing with the situation of those who will be coming into the Canada pension plan and who in good faith have already put money and savings into the government annuities plan.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised an entirely different question from the Canada pension plan when dealing with the matter of government annuities, which of course come under the purview of the Minister of Labour. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I could not comment on that matter when dealing with this particular legislation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Minister of National Revenue may not be familiar with all the details of the operation of the Department of Labour, and I appreciate that he would not want to speak in detail for the Minister of Labour. But I am asking him, as the spokesman of the government-and we hear quite a bit about the principle of cabinet solidarity-whether the government is giving some consideration to this question. The Minister of Labour is only one member of the government, and presumably he is bound by the decisions that are made by the government. I was not asking the minister to talk about the ideas of the Minister of Labour.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of the Minister of Labour; but I think it would be quite improper for me to comment on a matter of government policy falling under his particular ministry when we are dealing with a piece of legislation which really has nothing to do with the annuities legislation as such.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will not pursue the matter further with the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Chairman. I think it should be quite obvious that this is a question which at the appropriate time we may be asking the Minister of Labour to speak about on behalf of the government. I am merely suggesting that in my view this is something which the government as such should take into consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there are just a few remarks I should like to make with regard to this inclusion of a cost index; in fact, any wage index. The principle has been recognized with the introduction of this legislation. The next extension, of course, is to social security; and then, where do you stop? The pressure will be on to tie it in to every type of pension or allowance payable out of the public purse.


George Louis Chatterton: And government bonds.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I cannot conceive of any more dangerous source of a wage-price spiral
Canada Pension Plan
being built into our whole economy than this general acceptance of the principle. As a matter of fact, I would have thought that this matter would have been approached with the greatest hesitation. After all, in our neighbour country to the south the President has been exhorting business and government to keep a lid on anything that would tend to create a wage-price spiral, that is, not only wages, but profits and everything else. And that has been done with some success.
We have also seen these exhortations in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, it is only within the last fortnight that the O.E.C.D. in their examination of the Canadian economy made very pointed remarks to the effect that Canada must devote attention to keeping a lid on a wage-price spiral. Yet it the Minister of Finance pays any attention to this there will be a complete negation of this principle by the introduction of this concept into this plan. It seems that is admitted. Certainly our friends to the left of me will quite blithely endorse anything which may boost payments out without any regard at all to the level of payments in. This has been the history all the way along. The money will come from somewhere, but not from those who are going in the end to get it. The government itself has also blithely stepped into the picture. At this time I should like to sound a word of warning that we may be planting an economic bomb in the innards of our economy through these particular features of the plan.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West, but I think I should point out that many witnesses before the committee expressed opinions on the subject of inflation and whether it was the result of tying pensions to a consumer price index. There was a good deal of disagreement. Mr. Anderson, although he appeared in his own personal capacity, was president of a life insurance company in this country. He indicated that he did not have the time of day for this contention, that by tying pensions to a consumer price index any inflationary effect was created. He just felt that that was a ludicrous argument which should not be pursued. He argued, as has been argued here, that they should be tied to an earnings index, which would not only include rising prices as an element thereof but would also reflect rising productivity in the nation.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Lamberi:: May I just ask a question for information. I have not, of course, read the whole transcript, but was Mr. Anderson asked whether his own company would tie their payments out under their annuity plans and life insurance policies to a cost-price index?


John Carr Munro: I am informed, and this can be checked, that the insurance laws do not permit that in any event.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I just put one question. Did Mr. Anderson not inform us on one occasion that his own company does make pension arrangements for its own employees which provide for escalation as the years go by?


John Carr Munro: I think that is correct. But as far as the beneficiaries are concerned I do not recall a question to that effect, although there might have been.
I was also a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Edmonton West arguing against the consumer price index being a consideration as far as old age pensions are concerned. I do not know why we should treat only the aged as a hedge against inflation, or why they should be the one segment of our population who should be prevented from receiving increments which would assist them to meet rising prices. We know that most of the other people in our work force in other segments of our society receive increases to meet the rising cost of living. For example, we as M.P.s have done so. Workers in plants are receiving increases in wages based on the argument that prices are going up, and also productivity. All others in our society are receiving these increases. Why just pick on the aged as the ones not to receive the increase?
Another point which was made and in which the hon. member for Edmonton West might be interested was that many witnesses indicated before the committee, as a result of being questioned by hon. members, that in their opinion the increment provided by tying the pensions which the aged will receive to the consumer price index is not the cause of inflation but the effect of it. The consumer price index goes up and is used as the basis for calculating the increment received by those people subsequent to the rise in prices. I think the effectual character of this should be emphasized, namely that the inflation has to a great extent already occurred. Since it has already occurred and since the purchasing price of the dollar has gone down, the old

age pensioners should not be prejudiced as a result.
That point was made in the committee. Therefore I do not really have too much sympathy for the argument made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, especially when other members of his party have this evening already indicated agreement with the government's proposal in this regard.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I might point out that I did rise to express some hesitation about it. I merely said we would not oppose it, and I gather my hon. friend has nothing further to say.


Mr.   Chaiierlcn@: Mr. Chairman, I spoke about the earnings index as compared with the consumer price index or pension index vis-a-vis the pension received. I did not say that I was necessarily in favour of automatic escalation; I merely said I was in favour of the earnings index compared with the price index when it comes to pensions already granted.


John Carr Munro: As compared with the price index. I take it from the remarks of the hon. member that he really prefers no index at all in this regard?


George Louis Chatterton: No, I did not say that.


John Carr Munro: This is a divergence of even greater proportions, because if it was tied to an earnings index the increment would be even larger than if it was tied to a price index. So where the consistency of view among the members of the opposition is with respect to this point, I do not know.
I think I should also point out that on page 133 of the minutes of the committee proceedings appears an appendix which was attached to the report of the committee. This appendix is headed: "Automatic cost of living adjustment of pensions in foreign countries". It is a well documented article by Daniel Garig, and at the bottom of the page Mr. Garig has this to say:
There are now nine countries that, under their laws, currently make automatic adjustment of existing old-age pensions to specified economic changes. The first law to embody an automatic adjustment procedure in a national pension program was adopted in Denmark in 1922. Two more laws were enacted in 1946 in Iceland and Luxembourg, and one in France in 1948. The decade of the fifties witnessed the addition of six more nations to the list of those with such legislation: Belgium, Chile. Finland, Israel, the Netherlands, and Sweden. It will be noted that four of them are Scandinavian countries, which have taken somewhat of a lead in this field. Of the others, all but Israel and Chile are also located in western Europe. Israel is currently the only nonEuropean country in the group. Chilean legislation

providing for automatic adjustments was suspended in 1957 because of the extreme inflation there, but its provisions are included in the analysis.
So that except for Israel, most European countries adopted this type of legislation several decades ago and have witnessed no great misfortune such as that suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in reply to that statement let me say that the countries of western Europe at the present time are experiencing a very severe inflationary problem. I do not attribute that problem entirely to this situation, but certainly this may be one of the causes. I do not suggest for one moment that this will necessarily be the only cause of inflation in this country, but nothing the hon. member has said has convinced me that I am wrong in my suggestion that there will be inflationary pressure as a result of the inclusion of this feature in this type of a plan. This is a national old age contributory pension plan which applies to not only elderly people but to others. Contributions are to be made on that basis and I suggest the hon. member takes rather too much upon himself in glossing over the remarks of individuals who have pointed out a warning. I have warned the government in this regard and I am not alone. Many good authorities have written in financial newspapers and magazines regarding the same point, and their opinions are as legitimate and accurate as any selected opinion the hon. member may pick out.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Amount to be deducted and remitted by employer.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this is the time I should make the few remarks I wish to make, but I will preface them by stating that it is not politically popular to speak on behalf or in defence of employers at this time. There is an aspect of this clause which I feel should be brought to the general attention of the people of Canada. While contributions are to be paid by both employer and employee, if an employee occupies more than one position during a year-six months with one firm and six months with another-he will have paid his full annual deduction twice. If the employee occupies a position for which he is paid a
Canada Pension Plan high salary he is apt to have his full deductions made in the first three months, or perhaps even in the first month. If an employee of that type worked for two or three different firms in a period of a year, making his full contribution through pay-roll deduction by each of the three employers, he is entitled by the provisions of this clause to a refund. However, there is no provision which would allow an employer who has made full contributions on behalf of three individuals occupying one position in one year to apply for a refund.
As I have stated, I realize it is not politically popular at this time to plead an employer's case, but I think these facts should be made known to the public. This attitude was adopted by the government, as explained to the committee, at least partially because this is what is done in the United States. I am not complaining about this situation, nor do we intend to amend the clause or vote against it, but I feel the public should understand the situation. I understand that government actuaries have accepted the fact that there will be overpayments by employers and that these overpayments are not subject to a refund.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I do wish to make a few remarks in connection with administration costs. Although there is very little time left at our disposal this evening I should like to take this opportunity to present certain facts to the committee.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. member's remarks, perhaps hon. members of this committee will agree to sit for a few minutes longer. We are making very good progress.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request made by the house leader who was kind enough to accept our proposal which has been, and I am sure will continue to be, a means of expediting the passage of this bill, but really it has been a long day and tomorrow our sitting day commences very early.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 26, 1965