1965-03-11

[Stage Direction]
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun) presented the second report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Twelfth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.
[Later:'}
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Richard.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has now given consideration to the suggestion I made that a day be set aside for a discussion of the perilous situation in Viet Nam. When the minister replies to that question will he also indicate whether there has been any communication between the government of Canada and the United States administration regarding the need for negotiations in respect of this problem in South Viet Nam, and particularly whether the Canadian government has suggested to the United States administration that a conference to include the various nations which participated in the Geneva meetings, as well as Japan, should be convened regardless of whether it can be known in advance what possible success such a conference might attain?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of my right hon. friend's question, this matter is under discussion. During a consideration of the matter with the leader 20220-773i
of the house he asked me to take into consideration the progress which has been made in this house. However, the matter is under discussion at this time.
For some time now discussions have taken place between Canada and the United States and other countries regarding this matter, and particularly with regard to conditions under which various countries might consider that a conference, such as that mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, could be held. Nothing would be more disastrous than the holding of a conference which would not bear promise of fruitful results. The way to avoid that disaster is by making sure that the necessary conditions for the holding of such a conference are clearly understood by all the parties. Assurance is required that such a conference will be attended by that kind of promise which might result in conclusions which are not now available under the terms of the Geneva accord of 1954, if it were given effect.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what are those conditions that must be acceptable in order to be conducive to the convening of a conference? Surely at a time when people in all parts of the free world and elsewhere are fearful of this situation, to use an oft quoted phrase, accelerating into war, even though one cannot anticipate what success would attend such a meeting, action along these lines should be taken in order to obviate what appears to be a continuing and increasingly perilous situation.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because this is a continuing and perilous situation that one has got to take into account the considerations which I mentioned a moment ago. All the countries of the Geneva accord group may not agree as to what the conditions should be. Certainly one of the conditions must be a cessation of hostilities. Other countries might take the position that not only must there be a cessation of hostilities but there must be a withdrawal of northern forces in the south. Other countries may impose other conditions. These are matters that cannot be spelled out in this way at this time but are the subject matter of these negotiations.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs two supplementary questions. First, would a second condition be that foreign troops, particularly the Korean troops who have now entered South Viet Nam, also be withdrawn prior to any conference? Second, may I ask the minister if the Canadian government has approached the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord powers, namely Great Britain and the Soviet union, since they would seem to be the logical ones to sponsor such a conference; and what is the nature of their reply?


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the 2,000 Korean troops in South Viet Nam are there at the invitation of the government of South Viet Nam. We have not only been in touch with the two co-chairmen and the United States; we have also had vicarious participation in discussions in Warsaw with other countries as well. Our ambassador has had discussions with the appropriate authorities in Moscow. All these matters have been discussed, with the object of seeing if there cannot be an agreement that would lead to a cessation of hostilities and the implementation of what others would regard as essential conditions prior to the holding of peace talks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister may have forgotten the latter part of my question. I asked what was the nature of the reception which this suggestion received from the governments of Great Britain and the Soviet union. Are both these governments prepared to support such a conference, and are they prepared to extend an invitation not only to the Geneva accord powers but also to the United States to sit in on such a meeting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate, as the British prime minister said the day before yesterday in the British house, that in a matter of such delicacy it is not possible to give a response to that kind of question.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the minority Canadian truce commission report on aggressions against South Viet Nam, will the Prime Minister comment on a report by Bruce Phillips in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday, March 10, that the Prime Minister is severely critical privately of the American position in Viet Nam but will not express this publicly for


fear of United States economic retaliation against Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows that under the rules as given to the Chair a question should not be asked inquiring whether statements made in a newspaper are correct, and surely that is the purport of that last question.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: How can there be a supplementary when the question was out of order?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that on one side the government publicly supports a policy that was supported by Mr. Goldwater and also supports a policy that could receive the endorsation of the Voice of Women, when will the minister clarify this situation so that we may no longer be confused?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, if I did not know my hon. friend I would say he knew more about former Senator Goldwater than I do. But I know my hon. friend, and I do not think that really applies to him as fully as I intended it to apply. I can only say to my hon. friend that the matter before the house in this question is one of the most serious matters facing the world at the present time. It is easy for my hon. friend to put questions that seemingly lend themselves to ready answers. As a spokesman for the government in respect of a matter involving the defence of the free world, and involving the avoidance of war and all its implications for Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he is going to do his job, will respond only in a most responsible manner.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the minister has given his official imprimatur to the seriousness of the situation and the grave danger to the western world, does he not think this is a time when we should have a discussion in this house in order to secure the opinions of all hon. members, rather than be restricted to those of the other side of the house?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am sure my right hon. friend, who shares with me the view that this is a very serious matter and whose declared views on Monday were not basically different from those put forward by me and by the Prime Minister, will realize that while we might want the greatest freedom of debate on matters of such importance, there are times when the best service we can render is to give careful consideration to

whether while negotiations are on, that is the way to further an important cause such as the one which he and I, in this instance, share so strongly together.


John George Diefenbaker: May I therefore suggest to the minister that he should not be led astray by the President of the Privy Council, who indicates there are other matters that are before the house with which we should proceed and that this question of world peace should be placed in a secondary position to those other matters that exercise the mind of the President of the Privy Council. He has given the best argument I know why parliament should have an opportunity for discussion of this question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask this as a second supplemental question, but I was not able to get recognition from Your Honour. I respect the rules of this house and attempt in every way possible to follow them. However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the very serious world situation that centres in Viet Nam and about the misrepresentation of facts that relate to it which do get out to the public. Therefore I would ask this question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Is there any pressure from the United States to influence the foreign policy of Canada in regard to Viet Nam?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is the minister thinking of extending the winter works period by another month in the distressed areas designated by the government?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: This question of extending the period of the winter works program is under review at the present time. I may be able to make a statement on it later. There is a provision in the program at the moment that makes it possible, in certain designated areas of the
Inquiries oj the Ministry country, to extend a program that has been held up because of weather conditions.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Labour tell the house if there have been any representations from different municipalities across the country to that effect lately?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had representations, principally from municipalities in western Canada.



ST. HYACINTHE, QUE-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Did the minister receive any communication from the St. Hyacinthe city council to the effect that the policy now being applied by the government in the selection of designated areas is placing that municipality in an unfavourable position with regard to the establishment of new industries within the city limits?


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



ASSISTANCE TO DISPLACED WORKERS IN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbifi (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the government making any plans to assist workers in the Canadian auto parts industry who are now, and will be in the immediate future, put out of work by the hundreds as a result of the government's recent automobile deal with the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government is giving close attention to this question. I would like to tell my hon. friend I have arranged to meet next week with Mr. George Burt of the auto workers to discuss this very matter, including the whole question of labour dislocation and labour improvement.



REPORTED DIFFERENCES RESPECTING MANPOWER POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether the chairman of the economic council, Dr. Deutsch, has made representations to the minister about the serious differences of opinion on manpower policy which seem to exist between the Department of Labour and the economic council of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no discussions with Dr. Deutsch on this question.



STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOLLOWING TRANSFER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour a question. In view of the fact that the national employment service will very soon come directly under the minister, can he give any indication of the status which the head of the service will have, and whether he intends soon to issue a statement as to the relationship of the national employment service with the rest of his department, particularly in view of the fact that it would tie in with manpower policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement before the effective date of the transfer, which is April 1, indicating the status of the service in the department and its relationship to the senior officers of the department.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. In view of the concern of the Canadian Labour Congress and the economic council in regard to the national employment service, has the minister now under consideration giving the head of the national employment service deputy minister status?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been considered.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, prompted by the answer he has just given to the hon. member for Port Arthur. Will the minister include in the statement he has indicated he will make before April 1 regarding the national employment service facts relating to the question I asked him as to the additional employees who will be under his direction as a result of the transfer from the unemployment insurance commission to his department?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Pictou that several days ago in his absence I answered the specific question he asked earlier in respect of the number to be transferred, and he will find that information in Hansard.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the house continuously except for a short period of time during which I was in my constituency, following a visit there by the minister, in order to check into certain matters.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I made my comment without any reflection on the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



QUEBEC-STEPS TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he has yet determined the projects which he thinks will be implemented to fight unemployment in the province of Quebec. Because we have 39 per cent of the unemployment of all Canada, and it is time something was done-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -to help those unemployed in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question has been asked, if I am not mistaken, at least once a week during the three previous weeks, always to the same effect.


Mr. Churchill:: With no answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is far too wide to expect an answer on the orders of the day.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but with all deference to your judgment I have attempted to obtain an answer to this question from the minister time and time again, but as yet have been unable to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member state his point?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I want the minister to tell us what he plans to do.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY NOVA SCOTIA-REPORTED KICKBACKS BY TRUCK OPERATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question of great

national importance and urgency to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as being responsible for the trans-Canada highway. The question arises out of the fact that three truckers in Nova Scotia have testified to the public accounts committee of that province that they had to kick back part of their pay to certain contact men in order to keep their trucks on the road on trans-Canada highway construction work.
I would ask the minister to outline what protection the federal government has to see to it that federal funds, which make up 90 per cent of the cost of the highway, will not be used to enable friends of the provincial government to force workers and truckers to give part of their meagre wages-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is an excellent question for the order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate it at ten o'clock tonight.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister when the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) is going to resign to take up the leadership of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At ten o'clock tonight, perhaps.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister given any consideration to increasing the quota of seal pelts which can be taken in the gulf area this season beyond the 50,000 established in the regulations?


Mr. Speaker:: This is basically a question for the order paper, but if the minister is ready to answer, in view of the great interest in it and the many persons concerned perhaps he could do so.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, since the season opened on Monday, and for reasons I would like to explain to the house, in view of the urgency of the situation may I ask the indulgence of the house to make a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Fisheries.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest which was shown last year during the sealing season, not only in the house but outside it and in many parts of the world, I would like the indulgence of the house to give a report on the situation as it exists now.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The 1965 sealing season in the gulf area opened on March 8 with approximately 50 aircraft and five large sealing vessels licensed to operate in the area. A large concentration of seals was located about 15 to 20 miles east of North Point, P.E.I., and almost all the seal fishing is taking place in this patch.
The weather has been favourable during the early days of the season, and about 30,000 young seals were taken during the first three days. At this rate of catch it is expected that the total quota of 50,000 young seals will be taken very soon. There is no quota on older seals, that is on seals over one year old.
The quota of 50,000 young seals was established on the basis of scientific evidence gathered over the last 10 to 15 years which indicated that the gulf harp seal herds had been reduced to levels below that which would produce the maximum sustainable annual harvest. An established quota will permit a regular annual recovery of the herds to levels which will provide the maximum annual harvest.
Because of the favourable conditions which have permitted the fishermen to reach the quota during the first few days of the season, requests are now being received to extend the quota. I may say here, Mr. Speaker, that the regular season, which opened on Monday, was to close on April 26. After giving careful consideration to all the factors involved I have decided not to extend the quota for this season. Furthermore, just as I was coming to this chamber today word was received from our officers indicating that the quota would be taken by the end of operations today. Thus, fishing for young seals in the gulf by aircraft and licensed vessels will end today.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the house whether the geographical coordinates have as yet been established on the 12-mile limit basis between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, thereby making the sealing area with regard to which he has just

Inquiries of the Ministry given a statement a territorial sea or territorial waters of Canada.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that the only foreign nation which was involved in operating inside the gulf, in the area mentioned by the hon. member, was Norway. After negotiations with the government of Norway it has been agreed that no Norwegian vessels will operate in the gulf this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to the minister's statement concerning the sealing operations. I should like to ask the minister what steps have been taken by his department to make absolutely sure there is no repetition of the situation which obtained last year, when it was alleged that young seals were being skinned alive, films of which were taken and shown in this country afterward.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that every precaution possible was taken this year to prevent the abuses which have taken place in previous years, particularly during the 1964 season. Arrangements have been completed to place officers on all sealing vessels proceeding to the gulf area. In addition, eight officers were stationed in the Magdalen islands, and a few more on Prince Edward Island. These officers have co-operated with the five local officers of the Quebec area inspection branch to enforce the regulations.
Notwithstanding all these precautions, I want to state that reports which have reached me in the last two days prove that there have been some violations of the existing regulations, due to the fact that there are inexperienced fishermen engaged in these operations. However, I want to assure the hon. member that every precaution is being taken to prevent such abuses.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. I would ask the minister whether the arrangement was carried through whereby members of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals were on hand during this rich harvest.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, earlier this winter arrangements had been made with representatives of these societies to visit the area. We made arrangements to have a helicopter pick them up in Moncton on Monday. Yesterday, on the third day of operation, we realized that the season, particularly for the


killing of young seals, may have to be closed earlier than expected. The officers of my department immediately contacted those representatives to find out how soon they would be available, so we could take them to the ice patches in order that they could see for themselves how the operations were carried out.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. The great urgency of my question relates to a declaration made yesterday by the premier of the province of Quebec relating to the proposed legislation for the repatriation of the constitution, when he said that this legislation will give Quebec a veto power on the constitutional evolution of Canada.
I am not asking the right hon. Prime Minister to comment on the premier's remarks, but I am asking him to tell the house whether the Quebec government has transmitted these views to the federal government, and whether it is government policy to give the province of Quebec a veto power on the constitutional evolution of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on this particular matter Quebec has exactly the same rights of veto in regard to constitutional amendments, on those matters which are within provincial jurisdiction, as any other province; no more and no less.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the federal government agree with Premier Lesage that the proposed legislation will give the province of Quebec a veto power on the constitutional evolution of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion the question is not in order.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to put to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does his government support the view that Quebec should have a veto power?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think Quebec should have the same veto power as any

other province in respect of matters within their own constitutional jurisdiction.


William Heward Grafftey: Should any province have a veto power?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister take the view that any province should have a veto power?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, any province should have, on matters within its constitutional jurisdiction, under the British North America Act; and the British North America Act provides for that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Na-naimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Could we have a little order, Mr. Speaker?


John George Diefenbaker: There is quite a bit of heckling going on over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands need not worry about order being kept in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I will do my best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem reasonable that while we are on one subject we should try and finish it, if we can. For that reason I was assuming that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would be courteous enough to allow the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary question on this particular point, so that we may finish this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister this question. Will this veto power, to which such explicit reference has been made by the premier of Quebec, apply to those matters that up to now have come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman should read and try to understand the formula.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister suggest that the premier of Quebec cannot read?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE PAPER TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask this question during the constitutional flurry. I am advised by members of provincial legislatures that they have not yet received copies of the white paper on the amendment and repatriation of the constitution. I think these copies have been promised, and the legislatures are on the point of discussing the problem now; in fact the government of the province of Quebec is at the moment discussing it. Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will use his good offices to see that the distribution of this document is made to our provincial colleagues forthwith?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, copies of the document have been sent to all provinces. I will be glad to get the exact numbers for each province for my hon. friend.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It is based upon the report of the Canadian tax foundation in its annual budgetary forecast and on an obiter dictum of the right hon. Prime Minister, quoted on the air, in which the Prime Minister said it was the policy of his government to pursue an expansionary policy and at the same time aim for a balanced budget. I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance has been able to resolve the complexities of this rather schizophrenic approach.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friend contain himself for a few weeks; then I will do my best to enlighten him.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



OIL-REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. RESPECTING IMPORT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government of Canada represented at the hearings of the United States department of the interior in connection with foreign oil imports; and if so, what representations is the government of Canada making in connection with the maintenance of Canada's oil industry and its orderly expansion?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government felt it should make its representations to the department of state and make its views known in that way, rather than appear before a tribunal established by a foreign government.



NOVA SCOTIA-SUBVENTIONS ON COAL SOLD TO ONTARIO HYDRO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago in the absence of the minister of mines I posed a question to the representative in the cabinet from Nova Scotia with reference to extension of subventions on Nova Scotian coal for use by the Ontario hydro commission. The Minister of Labour was most co-operative and said, as reported at page 12026 of Hansard:
I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and possibly he will be able to provide a definite answer later.
I realize the minister of mines has been ill and is not able to be in the house, but I was wondering whether the Minister of Labour is in a position to shed any further light on the question today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the minister of mines is not available tomorrow I will be glad to undertake to answer the question.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES OTTAWA-ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF ETHNIC ORIGINS OF CIVIC EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Prime Minister

gave an undertaking that he would attempt to ascertain whether the proposed inquiry by the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism into Ottawa civic employees' backgrounds was in fact a violation of the Ontario human rights code. I wonder if he has been able to ascertain whether or not it is a violation, and will he give an undertaking that any federal government sponsored royal commission would not be allowed to violate or attempt to circumvent any human rights laws?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have made such inquiries. They are not yet complete, but I hope to be able to make a statement on the whole matter very early next week.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Ouellel (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Since Canada is the country of French Canadians, as well as of all Canadians, could the Secretary of State tell the house whether his department has got in touch with the New Brunswick government so that official recognition may be given to the French language in that province, before the centennial of the Canadian confederation?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that this matter comes under the administrative and constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial government. Since this government has implicitly authorized the Lau-rendeau-Dunton commission to look into the problem of language teaching, I am sure that the commission will make recommendations in that connection.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry whether his department would consider and expedite the development of the Rideau waterway in the counties of Fron-tenac, Leeds, Lanark, Grenville, Stormont and Carleton.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member it does take two years nevertheless he will would like to put that question on the order give me the list of names of those who have paper.	ordered the mint series for this year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Could the minister tell us whether he will make a statement today concerning the submarine that was seen recently in the vicinity of Isle aux Coudres?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
yesterday it is not the custom to make public statements in respect to these sightings. That is a policy which has been followed for a number of years. Nevertheless I can inform hon. members of the house that a report was received by the Royal Canadian Navy on Monday afternoon of what was thought to be a sighting in the St. Lawrence river about 60 miles northeast of Quebec city. As is customary on such occasions the report was investigated, but it was not confirmed that there was a submarine in the area.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, mine is a twofold question concerning answers given yesterday to questions put on the order paper, one from the Minister of Finance and the other from the Postmaster General. Question No. 2,778, which was answered by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, concerned the mint series, and the second part of the question was as follows:
2. What are the names of those whose orders were accepted?
The answer given was to the effect that there were 400,000 orders and that it would take two man years to supply a list of names. I can assure the ministers, as far as that is concerned, that I will be here for two years. The answer also indicated that it would cost between $4,000 and $5,000 to prepare a list. Can the minister assure me that he will supply that list within two years, or that if


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have more confidence than I would have thought he might have. I can give him no such assurance.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: My
second question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns an answer given by the Postmaster General, who is absent today, to the effect that 2,500 points of delivery were required before delivery in a city can be made at every door. Can the Prime Minister inquire how it is that in Charny, in the county of Levis, there are only 1,080 doors and door to door delivery has just been put into effect in that town?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will most certainly inquire into this.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
LUCIEN RIVARD-PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR REWARD FOR CAPTURE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
As I see that he has just left his seat, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice tell us who are the persons who could not be given the $15,000 reward for the capture of Lucien Rivard and whether such a reward could be given to the Liberal members and organizers of the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Pictou.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, having helped in respect of the atmosphere in the

Inquiries of the Ministry house by his last question, surely is not going to press forward and perhaps spoil the effect.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to address to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether a member of a police force or an individual connected with a police force is eligible to receive the $15,000 reward?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's inquiry to the attention of the minister when he returns to the house in a few minutes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance for the purposes of clarification. Will the minister inform the house whether the reward which has been offered in respect of Mr. Rivard, when and if it is earned, will be considered as a capital gain or a taxable item?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should venture a legal opinion by answering that question. This might involve a question as to whether it was earned income or the result of an act of God.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOTING IN B.C.- APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with his promise to establish a commission to inquire into an allegation that six trade unions in British Columbia conspired to cast improper votes for New Democratic party candidates at the last election. The right hon. Prime Minister promised that this commission would be set up without delay. If this commission has been set up, will the Prime Minister indicate the name of the commissioner or commissioners?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner has been appointed and I thought I had given this information to the house. Judge Nemetz has been appointed as commissioner.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Has any time limit been set within which the commissioner will present a report, Mr. Speaker?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know how long it will take him to make his report, Mr. Speaker, but I hope he will do so as quickly as possible.



REQUEST FOR REPLIES TO LETTERS TO MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister consider that between 30 and 40 days is ample time for a minister to answer his correspondence, or does he associate the 60-day period to this time period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that would depend entirely on the nature of the letter.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister to check his own files to find the nature of certain questions which were put forward in correspondence he has had with the Minister of Labour. Check your own files.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance which has been inspired by correspondence, phone calls and news reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once more the hon. member was courteous enough to send me notice of his question. Perhaps I can dispense with making a daily statement to this effect, but having examined this question with the greatest of care and consideration it is my opinion that the hon. member makes definite statements in the first two paragraphs, such as the suggestion that students in Canada are fed up, etc. The standing order suggests that in putting any such question or in any reply no argument or opinion is to be offered. The first two paragraphs of the hon. member's question definitely contain opinions. I do not see too much serious objection to the question which is contained in paragraph 3, and perhaps if the hon. member rephrases it, it will be in order and allowed. The question as submitted is definitely out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of your words I will take the opportunity to put the preceding paragraphs on the record at an appropriate time. At this time I should like to address the following question to the minister. Will the minister inform the house whether any consideration has been given to an investigation of the Moral Re-Armament organization, as to whether it is a genuine religious organization, the financial supporters of which are entitled to receive income tax exemptions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consult the Minister of National Revenue in respect of this matter, and perhaps he will be in a position to give an answer to the question at a later time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Guebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Is he aware of the fact that the civil service commission posters advertising national harbours positions in Quebec are in English only? Will he take the necessary action to correct this anomaly?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire from the civil service commission about this and report to the hon. member as soon as I have the required information.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour.
Could he make a statement to this house concerning discussions with the state of Maine and the few American states which have not yet concluded any unemployment insurance agreement with respect to Canadians working in the United States, who later return to Canada? Can he tell us anything new concerning those discussions? Briefly, will they give any results?
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper? It is an important question, but one which perhaps requires considerable research.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister intended to reply; he was already on his feet, and therefore, I believe that an answer could be given immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been advised from my right that a decision has been made.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether the Atlantic development board has received a formal submission from the government of Nova Scotia regarding the proposed construction of a causeway and power complex across the Minas basin, and whether the board intends to make a determination of the cost and feasibility of such a causeway?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that most hon. members in the house were not as attentive to the hon. member's question as I was trying to be, and I could not hear the substantive part of his question. If I am able to guess correctly, it had reference to the tidal development request from the government of Nova Scotia. If that is the case, I would want to verify all the facts before giving an answer.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Slraihcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I know he will understand the urgency. I am sorry I did not have time to give him sufficient notice. I should like to know the cost of the Northern Transportation Company's new supply vessel which I believe is called the Broderick.

Canada Pension Plan


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice unless the hon. gentleman wishes to put it on the order paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I should like to have the information as soon as possible.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
In view of the fact that we are now approaching mid-March, can the minister tell the house around what date he will announce his new dairy policy which is eagerly awaited by the dairy producers?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Before April 1.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Agriculture-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I see that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already called orders of the day, and the custom is to proceed with orders of the day. Surely these questions could be deferred until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.


Robert Muir: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the only reason I wish to say anything is that I see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has recovered from his illness and is back in the house and I thought he might be in a position to supply the answer to my question.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive pro-

gram 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. Consideration of clauses 69, 71, 78, 79, 91 and 110 will be the next business of the committee. When we adjourned yesterday the committee had reached consideration of clause 69.
On clause 69-Monthly exempt earnings defined.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this clause I do so in a spirit of cooperation, and I hope I may receive the same treatment from the ministers involved in this particular bill. I feel that the bill is of such very serious importance to everyone living in our country that it is only by co-operation with regard to some of its clauses which I think could be improved that we can hope to come out with a pension bill that will be reasonably acceptable to the people.
This particular clause, of course, is phrased in technical language which it is difficult for an ordinary person to understand. However, I am given to understand, and my understanding is confirmed by the white paper, that it simply means that anyone between 65 and 70-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. gentleman. There is a little too much noise in the chamber and it is difficult to hear the hon. member who is now commenting on clause 69. Maybe the usual courtesy could be extended to the hon. member.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not easy for me to speak at any time, and certainly it is more difficult when there is noise. The point is that if you break down the clause into ordinary language it simply means that if a person reaches the age of 65 and continues to have any income over $900 a year, then no matter how long he has paid into the pension plan, whether for 47 years or less, from $900 to $1,500 some 50 per cent of such earnings are deducted from his pension, and over $1,500 there is a 100 per cent deduction from his pension. This in itself is a very serious matter, but there are other serious implications as well as the financial one, and I believe we should give this clause considerable thought.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he said on February 25 that in the booming economy we are ex-

periencing in this country we are completely wrong even to give a thought to the idea that $200 a month will be a lot of money in the future. I agree with him that we should consider $200 a month a very niggardly amount. I bring out that fact only because when he mentioned it the other day it confirmed my impression with regard to this particular clause. As he stated, it is a starvation wage, and we should not think of these figures as being adequate at all for future generations. In my opinion this particular clause is based completely on the economic viewpoint, and the economic viewpoint is not the most important implication in the clause but rather the least important.
Before I go on to what I consider to be the serious shortcomings of the clause I should like us to ask ourselves one or two questions. What happens to those people who have contributed to the plan for all these years when they reach the age of 65? Think of the farmer. He probably has not made a great amount of money and has to continue operating his farm because the income from his pension is not sufficient. Is he supposed to give up his farm? What about the small storekeeper or small businessman? Is he supposed to close his doors so he can get his $104 a month from the pension plan?
To me these are serious matters. What about tradesmen? Let us say a man is a carpenter and wishes to do a little carpentry work after he is 65. If he does and makes any reasonable return, it is deducted from his pension and he gets no pension until he is 70. The same thing applies to all other occupations. If one of our friends in the press gallery decides when he reaches the age of 65 that he is going to write a column for a newspaper he will find himself with no pension, even though he has been paying into the fund for many years. If he decides to write a book on the peculiarities of the people he looks down on from the gallery he will find he has no income from the pension plan. These are purely economic features.
With all due respect, I find that in the bill the Minister of National Health and Welfare is creating a paradoxical situation.
She is riding two horses, one the economic horse and the other the health and welfare horse. They are going in different directions, and if that situation continues we are going to get into serious trouble.
We have in the world today, and we are certainly not exempt from it in Canada, a very serious medical problem that arises in con-
Canada Pension Plan
nection with people who are 65 years of age and over. These people, who have been mentally and physically active all their lives, find they are pensioned off at 65. They are put out to pasture. What happens? They deteriorate physically and mentally; then we have what we call a geriatrics problem. Now, Mr. Chairman, I feel this is one of the serious results of this clause. We are putting these people in the position where they have to discontinue their work at a time when they should be engaged in some part time activity. If these people could be encouraged to carry on some form of mental and physical activity they would be very much less of a burden on the welfare of our country.
I say, therefore, that this is a problem the minister faces. She is basing this bill on an economic principle. I am afraid this is going to lead eventually not to an economic saving in the country but an economic loss. I do not believe we can really look at the problems of the health and welfare of our people from a purely economic aspect.
What will happen if we keep on with this particular type of plan? It will simply mean those people who are going to retire at 65, such as the farmer and businessman, will have to sell their farm or close down their business. This will mean we will have to have more homes for the aged, more hospitals, more nursing homes and more mental institutions. Hon. members may feel that I am exaggerating the situation. I am sincere when I say this problem of geriatrics is a serious problem for our country. I feel that this particular clause will simply increase the problem of looking after these elderly people who reach 65 years of age. I feel we should not deprive these people of their initiative. We should encourage them to have some mental and physical activity.
I should like to ask the minister if she would give some consideration to the health and welfare of our senior citizens. Will she give some consideration to the comfort and happiness of our senior citizens? Will she give some consideration to the long term economic situation that will develop from the increased unemployment that we are going to create amongst these older citizens? Personally I would eliminate this clause. I am only trying to compromise when I advance this suggestion. I say that in the interests of our elderly citizens this clause should be completely eliminated; let there be no misunderstanding about that.
Since it is quite likely, however, that this clause will remain, I should like to ask the

Canada Pension Plan
minister to please give some consideration to modifying, in line 3, page 52, the figure 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent. This will not allow anyone to have a large income, but at least it should help to encourage activity amongst our senior citizens. I should like to know whether the minister is prepared to give this suggestion consideration. If she is I will leave the matter at that point; otherwise I should like to speak further on the subject.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I understand my hon. friend's concern with the problem of geriatrics. I hope he will appreciate that the department of health and welfare, being a dual department, during the last few years has spent an increasing amount of its time on this very problem, as indeed other public bodies have. The hon. member knows that for the last two years there has been a Senate committee dealing wth the problems of aging. It must be quite obvious to my hon. friend that the department, in preparing the Canada pension plan, had to take a very wide view of those approaching retirement age and the effects this retirement plan would have on our national labour policies, as well as what it would mean to the health of our older citizens and what it would mean with regard to recreation. Almost every aspect had to be considered.
I think my hon. friend, being a doctor, is particularly aware of the interest that not only the department of welfare but the department of health have had in this field. In essence what my hon. friend is asking is the removal of what we call the retirement test for those who take their wage related pension at age 65. I think we should be very clear about the fact, first, that no one is forced to take this portion of his pension at 65. If I may, for a moment, assume that the committee will adopt the part IV amendments which are proposed by the Prime Minister, then this will mean that every human being in this country, provided he meets the residence test, when he reaches the age of 65 is going to have available to him a pension without any means test of $900. You cannot forget this. There is no point in talking in a vacuum, and we must not forget that there are two halves of the program the government has designed for people who retire in this country.
With respect to the wage related part again, I should like to underline the fact that no one who is age 65 need take his or her pension. It is a matter of application. The individual, when approaching the age of 65, will have to look at what his pension would

be. He will have to consider his own circumstances. If a man of 65 who lives on a farm does not wish to stop farming, he does not have to sell his farm. Remember, this is true only of earned income, and he is able to have investment income. So long as his earned income does not go above a certain level, then his contributory pension is not reduced in any way. If he wishes to go on farming there is no reason why he should not do so as long as his health and his own inclination is that way. I would expect that many active, vigorous people approaching the age of 65 may feel they would rather work. If this happens they can go ahead and work and earn whatever income they can, and I would hope it would be a very adequate income.
Many hon. members opposite were talking earlier about the drop out years. If a man continued working beyond 65 he would have an opportunity to catch up on those drop out years because of bad crops or other reasons. If he is in full, vigorous health and wants to work and can make a good income, he can draw his $900 from old age security and go ahead and make all the income he can, subject of course to the income tax provisions which are applicable to everyone in the country, and put in one of those good years for the years in which he had a bad crop, was ill or had dropped out for some other reason. In this way he can make sure that when he does retire his wage related pension is going to be higher.
I think my hon. friend should realize that in the closest comparable schemes, which are those of the U.K. and the U.S., there is also the same kind of retirement test. We do not want to pay pensions to people who are members of the labour force, but in this particular case when the man retires-or when he reaches the age of 70-then he has a higher pension because of having worked on beyond the age of 65 at top earnings, of which the maximum is now $5,000 a year and perhaps it will be more in the future.
All this time he has the additional $900 a year which he does not have to retire in order to obtain, and this means that when he does retire he will have almost $2,400. If he decides to take his pension and keeps on doing some work he can have over $3,000. There is the allowance of $900, under clause 69, as well as the $900 he gets because he has resided in Canada for the required period, and at the age of 65 years or over he is going to be able to draw this much, almost $50 a week together with his pension of up to $1,250.

I suggest to my hon. friend that the things he proposes would lead to pressure on older people to stay at work. I do not know whether he was present when many members of the house and of the cabinet heard the very long and very good presentation made by the Canadian Labour Congress. It is not too difficult to see that over the years there will be more and more pressure to reduce the age for retirement; and remember, the Canada pension plan is a projection for a great many years, probably forever.
My hon. friend has also heard those in the Creditiste corner saying there ought to be a flat rate pension payable at age 60. There are many people, and I might personally subscribe to this, who think we ought to pay a pension to women at age 60 or 62. Many countries in the world make such provision and allow for such differences between men and women who are part of the labour force, but it all has to be balanced against the question of increasing productivity, against the fact that a man or woman can produce much more than they could 20 years ago. The whole labour policy has to be covered to keep men working to age 70 for their own individual good, and from his own practice I am sure my hon. friend will agree it is a real hardship to keep people working beyond age 65. You have to balance this against the increasing productivity and low demand for labour, especially older labour.
Physical labourers who approach age 65 find it increasingly difficult to keep up their end, whether it be on the farm or in the factory, and I dare say that in the next few years there will be more and more pressure to lower the age for those who rely on physical dexterity or strength, so they will have to retire at an earlier age.
We balanced all this very seriously. This was one of the reasons the Prime Minister announced that he would introduce, with the part IV amendments, a provision which would give individuals the present basic old age security allowance at age 65. It is up to those 65 and over to decide whether to apply to take the contributory pension they are entitled to then or to defer it for a few years, possibly until the age of 70.
We have done everything we could to get flexibility, to fit within the changing circumstances in the labour market and the problem of what to do with people you push off the labour market and sort of condemn to die, as it were, because they have nothing useful to do. I think the committee will agree that, having considered all the problems, we ar-
Canada Pension Plan
rived at a good balance in giving one flat rate pension with no retirement test, and another earnings related one with a retirement test. As I have pointed out, both the U.S. and U.K. contributory schemes have such tests.
Further, the $25 flat rate benefit in the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party was to have been subject to a retirement test, and the Ontario government, which considered the plan for some considerable length of time, also favoured a retirement test, and even suggested a retirement test which should be extended beyond the wage related part of the plan to old age security.
Over the past two years we have considered this problem in depth and it is the government's decision, based on the balance of factors involved, that the proposal embodied in clause 69 is the one which will best meet the needs not only of today but of people who approach the age of 65 and then decide at that late point whether they want to go on earning or retire and have the fruits of their pension at that date.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I realize the government has probably given considerable thought to this problem, but I do not accept the contention that we should do something in this bill just because it is what was done in the United States or United Kingdom. If they made a mistake, don't let us make a mistake. I have heard this same argument presented many times, and I do not think we should allow these things to influence our own judgment.
I feel very strongly about this clause and I have been anxiously waiting to discuss it. With all due respect, I think the minister must recognize that we are dealing with human nature. We have had the same problem in connection with unemployment insurance. We know there are many people who are abusing unemployment insurance. They abuse it because they say "I have paid into that thing and I am going to get my money out of it." If there is any way they can get around the legislation they will take it, and it is very hard to prove that there is abuse.
We will have the same thing with this bill. One individual will want to get his money out because he put it in, and another individual will want to keep on his job because he thinks it is the best thing to do. The latter, in his own eyes, will be penalized. He will have to decide, "Am I going to forfeit what I am entitled to or should I continue to work"? I believe he should have

Canada Pension Plan
the same benefits as the man who does not work.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If my hon. friend does not mind me interrupting, I suggest that man will not be penalized. As I mentioned, the drop out provision will prevail because it gives him an opportunity to improve his average lifetime earnings. In addition, I think my hon. friend should realize that the longer he stays attached to the basic body of pensioners not in pension his pension is going to be tied to the indexes. If he retires at age 65 in most cases he will not get the same pension, but if he continues working his pension will be improved, first by the additional application of a drop out year or two, and second by the indexes. He will be able to look at all this and say "I would like to keep on working and I won't lose by it. I will be better off." Or else he will say "To heck with this. My wife and I are tired of the city, putting our noses to the grindstone, and we will go to southern Ontario, P.E.I.-"


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Niagara Falls.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We would be glad to welcome them as second honeymooners. I do not want my hon. friend to be misled by believing there would be any loss to the individual retiring at age 65 as opposed to a subsequent year, although in most cases he will make more money per month if he defers his retirement.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: The minister has a reasonable argument, but she must realize that a lot of people do not survive beyond 65. A lot of people will take the position, "I have got this coming at age 65 and I am going to take what I can get." We have to give some thought to this problem, and in order to leave it open for discussion I shall move an amendment and leave it up the Chair to decide what it wishes to do with the amendment. I move:
That subclause (1) of clause 69 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"For the purposes of this section, the amount of the monthly exempt earning of a person for a year is an amount equal to 3 per cent of the year's maximum pensionable earnings for that year, if that amount is a multiple of $5, and if that amount is not a multiple of $5 then the amount that is the next multiple of $5 below that amount".


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, the subject that has been opened up by the hon. member for Willoughby-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monleiih:: "Kamloops".


Stanley Howard Knowles: -by the hon. member for Kamloops-


Mr. Bell:: It is great to have a constituency named after you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the subject that has been opened up by the hon. member for Kamloops is a very important one, and I think all of us will agree that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has given an indication of the fact that a great deal of attention has been given to this question. I believe the hon. member for Kamloops makes a good point when he suggests that times are changing; that we are gaining new attitudes with respect to the position of older people. Therefore I would like to hear some pretty serious discussion on the amendment which the hon. member has proposed.
I may say that I followed this subject very closely when we were in the special joint committee, and as the record will show- there being no doubt about it-I made no complaint about the retirement test with respect to the Canada pension plan benefits. Members of the committee will recall that my major concern, when we were in the special joint committee, with regard to persons between 65 and 70 was that they might be given the old age security pension and that it might be in the amount of $100. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put this question to the minister. Has any revised thinking been done about this question since the government made the decision to reduce the eligible age for old age security to 65? For the moment I am not arguing about the fact that it is going to take us five years to get down to that age; the fact is that the principle has been accepted that old age security is going to be paid in full at age 65. Does that not suggest that the government has accepted some of the new thinking about people in that age bracket?
I notice that in the record of the committee, when we were discussing this matter-the record is found on page 324, 325 and so on of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence for Tuesday, December 8-Mr. Thorson and Dr. Willard were giving the answers and most of the questions were being asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. At one point the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked this question:
Does his initial figure of $900 relate to something, or was it taken out of thin air?

The answer by Mr. Thorson was:
It is arrived at by reference to the year's maximum pensionable earnings. However, I do not think that is the answer you are looking for. Perhaps Doctor Willard could answer your question.
Our staff learned something from us, namely how to pass a question from one to another. Dr. Willard's reply was this:
In arriving at these levels, account was taken of the old age security benefit.
The rest of the answer was this:
We did get to levels that would assure a reasonable level of pensionable and other income when the two were taken together.
The point I am making-and the basis of my question is in this point-is that when the $900 and $1,500 figures were arrived at, the points at which the pension benefit is cut back if you are making income after age 65, the government had in mind old age security benefits at a reduced level. I know the government can say, "We have now increased that amount, so does that not move us in the other direction?" But I am looking at this change regarding old age security as a change in principle, as accepting the fact that people aged 65 should not be discriminated against as compared with other older people. I wonder whether any new thinking has been done about the amount at which people should be considered retired, in relation to the new stand being taken regarding old age security.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might take the liberty of explaining what I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops to mean. When he changes the figure 1.5 per cent that appears in the bill to the figure of 3 per cent, the result would be, under today's $5,000 contributory earnings ceiling, that instead of $900 being the point at which the pension benefit would be cut back by 50 per cent, that point would be $1,800.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Likewise, instead of $1,500 being the point at which it would be cut back by 100 per cent, that point would not be reached until $3,000. I say quite readily to my hon. friend from Kamloops that, though I liked the philosophical approach he was making earlier, I was not happy about his suggestion that the clause be wiped out altogether. It seems to me there are actuarial and other considerations to be taken into account. In my view his amendment-I know this may sound strange coming from me-is more responsible than his proposal to wipe
Canada Pension Plan
the clause out altogether. This proposal that the cut-off point should be changed from $900 and $1,500 to $1,800 and $3,000 respectively is a serious one on which we should have some comment by both ministers, perhaps after they have had a chance to consult their advisers. I have not done all the arithmetic I could have wished, but I should like to see this amendment put in terms of what can be the total income of people between 65 and 70, taking into account their earned income, income from old age security, and so on. This is the sort of amendment which ought to be given serious consideration by the minister.
There is just one point on which the minister commented with which I agree. I think she was trying to make the point that people between 65 and 70 cannot expect to have it both ways. In other words, they cannot both draw the pension and get credit on their earnings to improve their pension later on. I agree that either they draw the pension under the Canada pension plan or keep on working to improve their pension at a later period, but they should not have both. But if they do decide to draw the pension, in the light of our newer thinking about people in the 65 to 70 bracket I am wondering whether there should not be a further statement from the minister as to the amendment. Her earlier statement on the suggestion that the clause should be wiped out altogether was quite impressive and I think she persuaded me not to vote for the elimination of the clause altogether, but I should like to hear what she says about the amendment, for it strikes me as one we should support.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Mr. Chairman, before we go any further on this, when I moved the amendment I was under the impression that $1,800 was the correct figure, meaning a person could make $150 a month. But I was under the impression there was only $600 between that and the full deduction, in which case a person would be able to make $200 a month. After a person had reached $1,800, 50 per cent of the amount then up to $2,400 would be deducted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend changes the percentage from 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent, when that is applied to the present base $5,000 you get a figure which, when you multiply it by 12, comes to $1,800 a year, and which, when you multiply it by 20, comes to $3,000 a year. I think the hon. member's

Canada Pension Plan
amendment does better than he thought it would.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I appreciate that. I was thinking of $150 a month.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg that the effect of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Kamloops would be to double the amount, permitting anybody to draw up to $3,000 a year earned income over and above investment income, plus the amount of money which he and his wife could draw from the O.A.S. which is $1,800 a year. So that would mean that anyone could have $4,800 exclusive of investment income before being unable to draw any pension. I think that my hon. friend and all members of the committee can see how ridiculous that would be, when $5,000 is the upper limit of the amount on which pension deductions can be made. It would really make a farce of the whole plan.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg asked whether the government had considered this when the change was made. It is obvious that in drawing up the Canada pension plan the government acknowledged the principle-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but she is talking so loudly that I cannot hear all the Liberals behind her.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There is too much noise in the chamber and it is difficult to hear what is being said.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the government did consider this when it first drew up the Canada pension plan. It provided a pension at 65, and in doing so the government acknowledged this principle for the first time in the history of parliament. But in reconsidering the matter over a period of time it was appreciated that what would happen would be that people who took the pension at 65 would have a smaller pension, which is why the government decided that the O.A.S. amendment which will be proposed to part IV of the bill will provide that people can draw the full $75 pension at age 65. Of course at that time the government considered whether or not there should be some change one way or the other in the limits of permissible income under clause 69; but as my hon. friend will appreciate, what this proposed amendment does is to increase the amount in the hands of an individual at 65, which increase is not taken into account when it comes to esti-
mating his income. Accordingly there is even less reason to touch the amount up to age 69; if there is any reason at all it would be to downgrade the amount instead of to double it, as my hon. friend from Kamloops is doing.
It seems to me that when you compare pension legislation in other parts of the world with the circumstances in this country, fairly generous sums are being allowed which will permit a man and his wife to earn a substantial sum of money without having their pensions touched, which is something which no Canadian need blush about when you compare his pension with those offered in other countries. Indeed, this clause of the act, as many others, is something which the Canadian people can take some pride in. I would suggest to my hon. friend and the committee that there is really not a great deal more we can dispute about this matter and perhaps it is time for the committee to divide on this clause.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before the question is put I should like to clarify in my own mind something with regard to what the minister said. How would she explain investment income, which I understand is exempt?


Mr. Benson:: Perhaps I could mention this, Mr. Chairman. Investment income does not affect the amount of one's pension. This is an earnings related pension. One's contributions are not related to one's investment income. Consequently, when a man retires his investment income is not taken into consideration in determining the amount he can earn before any deduction is made in the pension benefits he receives under the Canada pension plan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what I understood, but I would like the minister to define what he means by investment income. How wide a scope does that cover?


Edgar John Benson: I would prefer my hon. friend to the Income Tax Act, where there is a pretty wide definition. I think also that there is a pretty wide understanding in this country as to what investment income consists of. It consists of all sorts of things, such as interest and dividends on securities. In addition pension benefits are outside the interpretation of employment earnings under the Canada pension plan, for this purpose.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the minister's efforts to explain the definition to me, but the idea that we follow the Income Tax Act definition is not good enough. For example, in the case of farmland, would revenue derived by a retired farmer from money invested in farmland be considered investment income? Say a farmer retires at age 65 and he has a lot of investment in his land. He does not want to sell his land on the day he retires, or the day after he retires, so he leaves his money invested in his land. Could the revenue which he receives from that investment be termed investment income? It is a simple question.


Edgar John Benson: I would refer my hon. friend to page 327 of the proceedings before the pensions committee, where this matter was referred to. That would be rental income if he received it as a result of renting his farm. It would not be earned income and would not affect his pension under the Canada pension plan.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just before the question is put, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one more question. For the sake of argument, if an individual owned a store and had been operating it from the time of the commencement of the Canada pension plan, at which time he was 50 years of age, until he had reached age 65, during which time he had an income of $5,000 per year, and then sold the store and put his money into investment and retired, this would not affect his pension; but if he continued to operate the store the income from that operation would then have some effect on his pension. Is that right?


Edgar John Benson: That is quite right, Mr. Chairman. This is an earnings related pension plan.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So the provision of this plan would encourage such a businessman to sell out and quit working?


Edgar John Benson: This may be an encouragement to him to retire.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to ask one further question in respect of this investment income aspect. I want to be absolutely sure in my own mind that I understand exactly what is the situation, and I want the minister to make it clear so that every individual across Canada will understand.
Canada Pension Plan
Let us take as an example a farmer who retires at age 65 and turns his land over to his son, his grandson or a neighbour on a crop sharing basis. No cash rental is involved in this deal. Perhaps I should state that this is a common practice all across Canada, and that is the reason I ask the question. Would the income that farmer received on that crop sharing basis be considered as rental income or investment income?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is my position here in this committee to give legal opinions in this regard. The situation would depend entirely upon the type of arrangement that had been made. If the income is rental income, that is what it is, and if it is investment income, it is investment income. If the man formed a partnership on a crop sharing basis, sharing in the net profit of the farm, that would be a business operation and the income would be business income.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is exactly the situation I had in mind when I asked the question. We are sitting here passing laws, we are not attempting to provide jobs for every lawyer across Canada. Surely we must make our laws abundantly clear and understandable so that everyone who wishes to find out the position he is in will not have to go to a lawyer for an interpretation. Let us have a clearcut understanding of the provisions of this bill.
The crop sharing arrangement I have referred to is something that takes place all across Canada, not only in Alberta or in western Canada. Many farmers who retire because of ill health, or for other reasons, turn their farms over to sons or neighbours on a crop sharing basis. That is a very reasonable, understandable and ordinary proposition carried out time and time again in Canada. Before this amendment is agreed to I should like the minister to give us a clear explanation as to its effect. It is now that we must make these things abundantly clear. We do not wish to provide extra jobs for lawyers all across Canada. The Lord knows that they have enough jobs as things are at the present time, because we all run into difficulty and have to consult them. Let us have a clear understanding of this amendment and this clause.
Will the income a retired farmer receives from a crop sharing arrangement be investment income? It is normal for a retired farmer to make such an arrangement so that in the event of a crop failure the individual

Canada Pension Plan
operating the farm will not have to meet exorbitant rentals, whereas in normal crop years both he and the retired farmer will do well. Surely the income that a man receives on that basis should be considered as investment income.
Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the minister to give us any legal opinions. If this bill was law at this time and I asked the minister to give me a definition in respect of a particular clause, then I would expect him to stand in his place and say he is not in a position to make a legal judgment. But this bill has not been passed. Surely this is the time to obtain clear and understandable explanations of the effects of this bill as they relate to the illustration I have outlined. We are not going to be sloughed off by the minister who says he is not in a position to give legal opinions. The bill we are now considering is not law, and before we allow this bill or the amendment to this clause to pass we want to know exactly what the effects will be.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I had a little difficulty in hearing the hon. member at times because he was not speaking loud enough. If an individual is absent from the farm and does not take part in the management of that farm his crop sharing income would be rental income. On the other hand, if he was sharing in the management of the farm by directing the operations his income would be earned income. If that man moved away from the farm, as my friend has suggested, and gave it to someone else such as his son and his only income was received through a crop sharing arrangement, and he had nothing to do with the operation of the farm, that income would be deemed to be rental income and would not affect his pension.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to understand quite clearly what the minister has said. I do not want my farmer constituents, or farmers in other parts of Canada, to find out at some later date that there is another definition or interpretation of crop sharing. I am pleased to hear the minister's statement in this regard, but I want to make it absolutely clear that what he has said is that a farmer who rents his land but who has nothing to do with the management of the farming operations and receives his income from a crop sharing arrangement will have that income treated as investment income. Will this be the situation regardless of whether land or livestock is involved, as long as an individual's returns are derived from a sharing
[Mr. Horner (Acadia).)
arrangement? Do I understand the minister correctly in that regard?


An hon. Member:: Certainly; that is what he said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to make this abundantly clear.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member repeats his understanding four or five more times that side will then have enough members in the house for the vote. I have answered his question quite clearly, and I have no reason to change the answer I have given.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for the minister to be arrogant. I have asked him a specific question in an attempt to elicit information from him before we vote on this amendment. Now is the time to get that information. If some hon. members wonder why I am speaking so loud perhaps I should indicate that I do so because of the chattering going on in the Liberal benches. Apparently those hon. members are no longer interested in the people of Canada. They are only interested in themselves and their own pockets. I am interested in a particular piece of legislation, and a particular clause of that legislation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit a question? Perhaps the government members are rather tired because they have been sitting here for three weeks listening to this debate. During most of that time the hon. member has not been here.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, it is only fair to point out that the members sitting in the government benches came in only a short time ago when they were warned that there might be a vote.


An hon. Member:: The word has gone out.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me inform the minister that-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think it would be well for hon. members of this committee to confine their remarks to a discussion of the amendment proposed to clause 69.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question which is related to the illustration posed by the hon. member tor Acadia. In respect of a crop sharing arrangement, made on a one third basis, who is responsible for paying the taxes? In the event there is a crop failure who is it who must pay the taxes? The hon. gentlemen opposite are not aware of this kind of an arrangement and cannot answer this question. Would my tenant have to pay the taxes in the event of a crop failure? Of course he would not, because it is my responsibility to see that the taxes are paid on the basis of the crop sharing arrangement under which I receive one third of the produce from the farm. I think it should be cleared up who pays which expenses under such an arrangement. It is time the government took out its regulations and had a look at them.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I was not able to catch the purport of my hon. friend's question, but if he is asking who would be responsible for paying the property taxes under such an arrangement, I would suggest that that would depend upon the arrangement itself.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: It is rather unfortunate that some hon. members in this chamber have not had the opportunity of seeing some of these agreements. As I understand the clause, this is what I have got.


An hon. Member:: You have got it all right.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: And I got it on your terms. As my friend from Acadia said, are we going to spend the rest of our lives paying lawyers?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Winkler:: All the Grits are here, so now we can vote.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. In order to avoid the confusion that may have existed on an earlier occasion I should like to read standing order 12, paragraph 2:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
May I advise those who are within hearing of the voice of the Chair that I am about to put the question.
Amendment (Mr. Willoughby) negatived: Yeas, 62; nays, 86.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 69 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Canada Pension Plan
On clause 71-When pension ceases to be payable.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, I should like a brief explanation of this clause from the minister. I believe I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare say with reference to clause 69 that after retirement, that is, after age 65, the granting of the pension was on application, and yet subclause 2 of clause 71 says that "an application . . . shall be deemed to have been made". I understand that under this clause the beneficiary does not need to apply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is correct. If someone has a disability pension he does not have to make a separate application when he reaches 65.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, when we discussed this clause on March 1 the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked that the clause stand so that the minister could have her officials look into the matter to see if there were any similar adjustments necessary as in clauses 56 and 57.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was considered, but the government considered that no adjustment was necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 77-Persons by whom application may be made.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the next group of amendments to be proposed by the government deals with sections 77 to 79 inclusive and I should like to have the proposed amendments to the three sections, which are all on one sheet, distributed, although I appreciate they will be put to the committee separately The three amendments to these three sections refer to the rules which are applicable to the payment of the orphan's benefit. By the amendment of these sections they are made applicable to both disabled contributor's children's benefits and orphans' benefits. It will be noted when the amendments are distributed that under section 77 (2) (a) a disabled contributor's child's benefit may commence with the month in which a disability pension is payable to the contributor. This is in contrast to the commencement of the payment of the orphan's benefit which begins with the month following the month in which the contributor died, but not earlier than one year preceding the month following the month in which the application is received.

Canada Pension Plan
Under the amendment to section 78 a disabled contributor's child's benefit is payable, where the child has not yet reached 18 years of age, to the person having the custody and control of the child except that where the child is living apart from the contributor he shall be presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be the person having such custody and control.
The amendment to section 79 provides that a disabled contributor's child's benefit will cease to be payable when the child ceases to be a disabled contributor's child as defined in subsection 1(b) of section 43, when the disability pension ceases to be payable to the disabled contributor under this act or under a provincial pension plan or when the child dies. The proposed amendments are now being circulated and it may be that I should read them while they are being distributed. They are as follows:
That the heading preceding section 77 and sections 77 to 79 be revised to read as follows:
"Disabled contributor's child's benefit and orphan's benefit.
Persons by whom application may be made.
77 (1) An application for a disabled contributor's child's benefit or orphan's benefit may be made on behalf of a disabled contributor's child or orphan by such child or orphan or by any other person to whom the benefit would, if the application were approved, be payable under this part. Commencement of payment of benefit.
(2)	Subject to section 61, where payment of a disabled contributor's child's benefit or orphan's benefit in respect of a contributor is approved, the benefit is payable for each month commencing with,
(a)	in the ease of a disabled contributor's child's benefit, the month commencing with which a disability pension is payable to the contributor under this act or under a provincial pension plan; and
(b)	in the case of an orphan's benefit, the month following the month in which the contributor died, but in no case earlier than the 12th month preceding the month following the month in which the application was received.
No benefit in respect of more than one contributor.
(3)	Where a disabled contributor's child's benefit has become payable to a child under this act or under a provincial pension plan in respect of any contributor thereunder or an orphan's benefit has become payable to an orphan under this act or under a provincial pension plan in respect of any contributor thereunder, no disabled contributor's child's benefit or orphan's benefit is payable to that person under this act in respect of any other such contributor.
Subject to the wish of the committee, it may be that I should not continue reading. That is the end of the proposed amendment to section 77. It might be, however, that at this time the committee would wish me to read all three proposed amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Finish 77.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then, subclause (4) of clause
77	reads as follows:
No benefit unless child of contributor when contributor disabled.
Except as provided by regulation, no disabled contributor's child's benefit is payable to a child of a disabled contributor unless the child was a child of the contributor at the time the contributor became disabled.


Edgar John Benson: I so move.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Aiken:: This is part of the proposal to add a disabled contributor's children to those who would receive benefits. We are in agreement with it.


Siegfried John Enns: I simply wanted to have part of the amendment clarified. There is a reference to the fact that an application for a disabled contributor's child's benefit may be made by such child or by any other person. I am wondering if "any other person" could include child care agencies if the child were in the care of, say, the children's aid society or the director of public welfare of a province?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The reference is to anyone who has custody or control. I believe if the hon. member looks at clause 78 he will find that this could presumably be an agency which has custody or control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one question. I notice in the amendment, in at least two places, there is a phrase which I did not see in the clause as originally drafted. The phrase is, "or under a provincial pension plan", and it appears at the end of clause 77 (2) (a) as well as in 77 (3). What is the need for this phrase in this clause?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry to delay the committee, but this is a provision needed for the integration of the plans. If, for instance, a contributor were found to be disabled under the Quebec pension plan and then subsequently moved to Ontario, this provision would permit those benefits to be payable to the child or orphan subsequently, the finding having been made under the Quebec plan so it would apply to the Canada pension plan.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 78-Payment of benefit.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The amendment to clause
78	reads as follows:
Payment of benefit.
Where a disabled contributor's child's benefit is payable to a child of a disabled contributor or an

orphan's benefit is payable to an orphan of a contributor, payment thereof shall, if the child or orphan has not reached 18 years of age, be made to the person having the custody and control of the child or orphan, or, where there is no person having such custody and control, to such person as the minister may direct, and for the purposes of this part,
(a)	the contributor, in relation to a disabled contributor's child, except where the child is living apart from the contributor, and
(b)	the surviving spouse, if any, of the contributor, in relation to an orphan, except where the orphan is living apart from the spouse,
shall be presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be the person having such custody and control.


Siegfried John Enns: I believe the same question could be raised here because the reference is simply to a person appointed by the minister. Could this also be a child care agency? The other question that arises in connection with this provision is that the child or orphan is only eligible to 18 years, whereas I believe elsewhere in the bill a child, if continuing at school beyond that age, may continue to be eligible. Am I correct in that assumption?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that clause 43 defines what an orphan is. If an orphan remains at school beyond 18, then he or she is entitled to the benefit in his or her own right. Here, the benefit is only in respect of a right which belongs to the contributor.


Siegfried John Enns: I appreciate this being clarified because I had in my mind a clause which referred to a student beyond the age of 18.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Without wishing to delay the bill, I think I should say that the question that was raised concerning the definition of the word "person", while it was not really essential in clause 77, might really be essential under clause 78. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa raised a question of whether or not a child in the custody of the children's aid society, or other welfare agency, would have his benefits paid to such an agency. I cannot find that the word "person" is defined in this bill. The only place it might be so defined would be in the general Interpretation Act. I would think that "person" might very easily be defined as an incorporated company. I believe that has always been considered a "person" within the meaning of a statute. However, some of the agencies that deal with children are not incorporated and I am just wondering if this is not a matter that should be clarified at this point, because it may very easily arise.
Canada Pension Plan


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hope the committee will be indulgent for a moment or two while the draftsman is looking at this.


Siegfried John Enns: It seems to me that if after the word "person" we inserted the words "or recognized child care agency", the problem might be solved.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was intended that agency would be covered. May I suggest that one change be made in the draft which has been circulated, and that in the fourth line in the mimeographed copy after the words "any other person" the words "or agency" be included. Subsequently, in clause 78 in the sixth line after "person" the words "or agency" be included, and in the following line after the words "there is no person" the words "or agency" be included.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister not have to do it again in the next to last line?


Siegfried John Enns: While we sire waiting to get this straightened out may I say I raise this point because there are some 20,000 children in Canada who are living away from their parents or legal guardians, and therefore this is an important matter to be amended.
Clause 78 stands.
On clause 77-Persons by whom application may be made.


Lucien Lamoureux: Could the minister kindly let the Chair have a copy of the amended amendment? For the purposes of the record we will return to clause 77, and the amendment will read:
Persons by whom application may be made.
77(1) An application for a disabled contributor's child's benefit or orphan's benefit may be made on behalf of a disabled contributor's child or orphan by such child or orphan or by any other person or agency to whom the benefit would, if the application were approved, be payable under this part.
Commencement of payment of benefit.
(2)	Subject to section 61, where payment of a disabled contributor's child's benefit or orphan's benefit in respect of a contributor is approved, the benefit is payable for each month commencing with,
(a)	in the case of a disabled contributor's child's benefit, the month commencing with which a disability pension is payable to the contributor under this act or under a provincial pension plan; and
(b)	in the case of an orphan's benefit, the month following the month in which the contributor died, but in no case earlier than the 12th month preceding the month following the month in which the application was received.
No benefit in respect of more than one contributor.
(3)	Where a disabled contributor's child's benefit has become payable to a child under this act

Canada Pension Plan
or under a provincial pension plan in respect of any contributor thereunder or an orphan's benefit has become payable to an orphan under this act or under a provincial pension plan in respect of any contributor thereunder, no disabled contributors child's benefit or orphan's benefit is payable to that person under this act in respect of any other such contributor.
No benefit unless child of contributor when contributor disabled.
(4)	Except as provided by regulation, no disabled contributor's child's benefit is payable to a child of a disabled contributor unless the child was a child of the contributor at the time the contributor became disabled.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 78-Payment of benefit.
Lucien Lamoureux: As moved by the Minister of National Revenue the amendment to this clause will now read:
Payment of benefit.
78.	Where a disabled contributor's child's benefit is payable to a child of a disabled contributor or an orphan's benefit is payable to an orphan of a contributor, payment thereof shall, if the child or orphan has not reached 18 years of age, be made to the person or agency having the custody and control of the child or orphan or, where there is no person or agency having such custody and control, to such person or agency as the minister may direct, and for the purposes of this part,
(a)	the contributor, in relation to a disabled contributor's child, except where the child is living apart from the contributor, and
(b)	the surviving spouse, if any, of the contributor, in relation to an orphan, except where the orphan is living apart from the spouse, shall be presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be the person having such custody and control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't we still have to write "or agency" into the second last line?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, "the person" here refers to a contributor or surviving spouse of a contributor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 79-When benefit ceases to be payable.
Edgar John Benson: I move the following amendment:
When benefit ceases to he payable
79.	A disabled contributor's child's benefit or orphan's benefit ceases to be payable with the payment for the month in which the beneficiary ceases to be a child of a disabled contributor to whom a disability pension is payable under this
[The Chairman.]
act or under a provincial pension plan or ceases to be an orphan, as the case may be, within the meaning of this part, or dies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What happened to the qualification in the previous wording, "ceases to be an unmarried child"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The words used are "orphan and disabled contributor's child." In both of these phrases the meaning given earlier is that they include only unmarried people as defined in clause 43.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 91-Regulations.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, subclause (2) of clause 43 provides for the definition of disability and for matters connected with its determination and for the making of certain regulations. After a careful examination of the provisions in the bill, the joint committee made recommendations respecting a number of matters which it felt should be more precisely dealt with by regulation. The purpose of the amendment to clause 91 is therefore to give full effect to these important recommendations of the committee by adding two new subclauses to clause 91 to set these matters out in greater detail.
Although hon. members have before them the recommendations of the committee in both languages, dated February 15, I might say a few words of additional explanation as to the main areas which would be covered by this provision.
An applicant in respect of whom a disability benefit is claimed will be required in the first instance to provide at his own expense the initial report from his physician on the basis of which a determination might be made or further evidence required. If further evidence is required by way of assessment of the individual's condition the cost of this, as I explained some days ago, will be borne not by the applicant but out of the fund. It is considered that the applicant should be responsible for the cost of other than the initial evidence which he should be able to obtain through his own family doctor.
I should also like to say that we would be prepared to give reasonable assistance to an applicant in respect to his initial application where this was required in his interest.
In a number of cases it may be considered that the individual's disability can be reduced and his working capacity improved through suitable rehabilitation procedures. It would

be considered entirely in the interest of the individual that he take advantage of these measures where they are practicable and available. Clearly, he should not be penalized by way of loss of benefit while undergoing recommended treatment or vocational training measures. It might also happen that as part of his therapy he should engage in some form of therapeutic or trial employment for a sufficient period to reach a conclusion as to his ability to engage in gainful employment. This, where recommended, he would be able to do without loss of benefit.
Every encouragement would therefore be given to individuals to take advantage of such measures as might be practicable and available to them to ameliorate or assist in overcoming their disability. Regulations in this connection would be made and the payment of the cost of assessments, as well as rehabilitation, would, under the amendment, be borne under the plan.
It would be logical that even where a determination of disability had been made and a benefit was being paid, there should be continued proof of the disability in question. The regulations would provide for not only the initial assessment but for periodic and other assessments as from time to time would seem desirable. Here again the cost of these assessments would be borne by the plan. While all of the disability procedures have not yet been worked out, it would be contemplated that full utilization would be made of all remedial and other facilities that are available to improve the individual's vocational capacities. While every opportunity and encouragement will be given to persons to take full advantage of rehabilitation as available and recommended, undoubtedly cases will arise where persons for one reason or another will refuse to do so. The committee therefore proposed that where rehabilitation is recommended, failure to undergo rehabilitation without "good cause" should be a ground for a determination that such person had ceased to be disabled for the purposes of the act.
Subsection (f), as is proposed, is designed to take care of this type of situation. Regulations would be made to cover the circumstances as contemplated by the committee and as might from time to time be found necessary. Hon. members can be assured that regulations would take full account of justifiable reasons by an individual for refusing to undergo reasonable rehabilitation measures. For example, surgical or other procedures, where there may be some risk of damage to
Canada Pension Plan
the individual, would clearly constitute good cause. Another ground that might be considered in due course would be whether refusal based on religious belief should constitute good cause. The government has received representations from the Christian Scientists asking that this be done as in the United States. Assurance was given that this would be carefully considered. What I have said is not, of course, exhaustive of all matters that might constitute good cause, but illustrates the type of refusal that would be considered.
This concludes what I thought might be helpful in explanation of the committee's valuable recommendations which are reflected in the amendments that are before you. It is felt that regulations of the kind mentioned will permit of a desirable degree of flexibility in the determination of disability, the conditions under which benefits can be paid and continue to be paid, the circumstances where rehabilitative and other measures may usefully be engaged in, as well as matters of cost. All these matters are in the interests of the individuals concerned and have full regard to their pension entitlement and welfare.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is moved by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue:
That subsection (1) of section 91 be amended by renumbering paragraphs (e) to (i) as paragraphs (g) to (k), respectively, and by adding immediately after paragraph (d) the following paragraphs:
"(e) respecting the determination of disability subject to this part, and the conditions upon which any amount as or on account of a benefit in respect of the disability of a person shall be paid or shall continue to be paid, including the initial and subsequent periodic or other assessments of such disability and the reasonable rehabilitation measures to be undergone by such person, and providing for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the cost of any such assessments of disability and rehabilitation measures and for the charging of the amount thereof to the Canada pension plan account as a cost of administration of this act;
(f) providing that the failure of a person to undergo any assessment of disability or reasonable rehabilitation measure as required by any regulation made under paragraph (e), without good cause as defined by regulation, shall be a ground on which that person may be determined to have ceased to be disabled;"


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


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, I was listening quite carefully to the minister and I should like to know whether I am correct on this point. If a person applies, under the disability section of this bill, for a pension, the initial medical examination he has to undergo will

Canada Pension Plan
be at his own expense. However, if that medical examination results in the recommendation of other treatment, the expense of such treatment is covered by the plan? Is this the effect of amended paragraph (e)?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question on clause 91. It has to do with regulations. I am sure we are all glad to know that we are getting pretty near the end of the clauses with regard to which we can raise anything with respect to the Canada pension plan proper. I notice, also, that the committee of the whole has been given the opportunity to deal with most of the recommendations made by the joint committee. There is one that I am concerned about, namely subparagraph (iv) of paragraph 7, which refers to the integration of private pension plans with the Canada pension plan. It says that this should be a matter of consultation between employers and employees.
I wonder whether this has been considered by the government as the possible subject of a regulation; and if so, would it be covered by clause 91 or should I raise it somewhere else? If it is somewhere else and the minister would rather I raised the question later, I shall be glad to do so, because I do not want to hold up the passing of clause 91. But I would like to hear something from the government with regard to the clear recommendation of the committee that the integration of private pension plans with the Canada pension plan should be a matter of consultation between employers and employees.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Five o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. An hon. member has called it five o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not mind if there was a statement that clarified when and where I could ask this question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Apparently the hon. member does mind. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
[Mr. Enns.l


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



PRIVATE BILLS


Eric Alfred Winkler: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-48, respecting The Economical Mutual Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say that I for one have never heard of any insurance company being economical, whether it be a mutual insurance company or any other kind. I think it would be more appropriately named if somebody would petition to have the word "Economical" removed from the name of this company. I do not want to object on any ground, but I merely wish to draw this matter to the attention of the committee.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions on this bill. Where does The Economical Mutual Insurance Company now operate? Second, does it intend to increase its operations in line with the terms of business legislation?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I regret that someone has taken my copy of the bill so I cannot answer the hon. member's question at this point. However, while I am on my feet I might point out that I am acting on behalf of the hon. member for Waterloo North, he being incapacitated through illness this afternoon. As soon as I can get my copy of the bill, which I expect to be here in a jiffy, I will answer the hon. member's question.
It is my understanding that the company operates out of Kitchener, Ontario.


Barry Mather: I understand the answer to be that the company operates from Kitchener. Does the bill indicate an expansion of the operations of this company?


Eric Alfred Winkler: The explanation as to that is brief. It is not a case of expansion but a case of being able to operate in the province of Quebec under an appropriate title. I also

understand that the supervisor of insurance approved of this in the committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Eric Alfred Winkler: the third reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I might just raise a little point of privilege here which I think is worthy of mention at this time, I am informed by my "legal adviser", the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, that in passing this bill we are witnessing an historical event, because under the new companies legislation such bills will no longer be required to go through this process.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


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



ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-36, to incorporate Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada-Miss	Jewett-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Webster:: Mr. Chairman, the present widespread and practical interest in higher education has been expressed in many ways. One of the most obvious ways has been the co-operative efforts of the universities themselves through two organizations, the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges and the Canadian universities foundation. This bill simply brings together these two bodies into a single organization for greater efficiency. It is a tidying up process. This organization will serve two purposes. It will serve as an agency for the distribution of federal grants to universities, and it will provide a medium through which universities and colleges can communicate and cooperate in advancing the interests of higher education. We are pleased to support the bill.
Private Bills


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to direct a question to the hon. member who acts as sponsor of this bill.
Can the hon. member tell us whether, as incorporated, the association of universities and colleges of Canada will be in a position to ask for federal grants to assist universities and colleges?


Miss Jewett:: Mr. Chairman, this association will operate in this respect in the same way that the association it replaces operated. That is to say, it will act to some extent as the liaison between the universities and the government wherever such liaison is necessary. It will act as spokesman for the universities on whatever matters the universities require a spokesman vis-a-vis the government. If that includes financial matters I assume it will speak on those matters as well as others.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that is not quite an answer to the question I asked.
Will one of the objects of this association of universities and colleges of Canada be to obtain federal grants for the association members, that is the colleges and universities belonging to it?


Pauline Jewett: It will distribute federal grants just as the Canadian universities foundation does now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, today the Canadian universities and classical colleges foundation gets its grants through the Canada Council.
Will the new association have the privilege to get directly from the federal government grants that it would hand over afterwards to colleges and universities?


Pauline Jewett: My understanding is that the Canadian universities foundation now distributes what it calls the per capita grants. It is the agency in this country for the distribution of these grants. Under the new legislation the new association will take over that function. It will not have any additional function. In other words, there will not be, unless the parliament of this country so desires, any other grants to be distributed through this new association, apart from the per capita grants which are already distributed through its predecessor.

Private Bills


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, at the present time, the Canadian universities and colleges foundation distributes subsidies to the amount of $1.50 or $2 per capita to universities, but only to the universities in the nine English provinces in Canada, and not to those of the province of Quebec.
Under Bill No. S-36, will the association of universities and colleges of Canada hold special privileges to do the same in the province of Quebec as the foundation did in the other provinces?
On the other hand, will the provincial privileges not be infringed upon through the incorporation of the association of universities and colleges of Canada?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can rest assured that the arrangement whereby the per capita grants are distributed to universities in the province of Quebec, in a way which is different from the way they are distributed in the rest of the country, will remain unchanged. As the hon. member knows, the per capita grants are now distributed to all universities in Canada, except those in the province of Quebec, through the Canadian universities foundation, and they will continue to be so distributed. Under the new legislation the distribution of these grants to the universities in the province of Quebec will continue in exactly the same way as they have been distributed since 1960.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, one last question. Will the federal government give any other subsidies or grants whatsoever to the association of universities and colleges of Canada, which will allocate them to the universities and colleges of the province of Quebec? Can the hon. member give us any assurance in that respect?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, unless the parliament of Canada decided that there should be further grants, what the hon. gentleman says is quite correct.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the parliament of Canada then decide to grant subsidies to the association of universities and colleges of Canada so that they might revert to Quebec colleges and universities?
I feel that if this new piece of legislation enabled the federal government to pass

through a new corporation in order to distribute subsidies to colleges and universities, this would constitute a serious breach of the privileges granted to the province of Quebec under section 93 of the British North America Act. That is why we would object to it; but if the hon. member can assure us that this association will not be used to infringe upon the rights of the provinces in the field of education, we shall allow Bill No. S-36 to be passed. If, however, the federal government took the liberty, through this new association or corporation, to distribute subsidies to Quebec colleges and universities, we would like the hon. member to say so, because then we would raise strong objections.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, this association is made up of all the universities and colleges in Canada, including French speaking universities and colleges, which are eligible, and I am quite sure that these institutions, whether English or French speaking, would be the last ones to do anything which would in any way take away from the legitimate and rightful powers of government, even if they were capable of doing so. For that reason I believe the hon. member is expressing a fear about a body which, in my view at any rate, is quite able itself to look after the kind of problem he raises. Since I have already stated that there is no additional power being granted by this legislation to this association, the hon. member can rest assured that the problems he has referred to are not substantial ones.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into the much broader question of provincial rights, or the interpretation which some members would make as to whether or not provincial rights are being encroached upon or invaded, but it has always seemed very strange to me that in respect of one province it is perfectly acceptable in principle or in theory to make grants directly or indirectly from the federal treasury to universities or through the predecessor of this organization which we are about to incorporate.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that he is now embarking upon a field of discussion that is far beyond the very limited confines of clause 1 of this bill. It does not seem to me that this is the time to discuss the very large problem which he appears to be talking about, or attacking at this point.


Frank Howard: I do not intend to do that, Mr. Chairman, but having listened to the questions asked by the hon. member for Lapointe and the answers he received, it seemed to me that they touched upon that which the hon. member for Lapointe considers to be the rights of a provincial government, specifically Quebec, under the constitution. There was some expression to the effect that this particular association of universities and colleges of Canada would not encroach upon those rights. That is an extremely broad subject which goes beyond the bill; however, it is something that we must consider.
I do not wish to get into that subject matter, Mr. Chairman, but it has always seemed strange to me that we should be called upon to take two different attitudes, one which applies to one province and another which applies to another province. That is precisely what we are being asked to do. It seems to me that when we are enacting laws in this parliament of Canada we should do so with the knowledge that there will be universal application rather than-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I have reread clause 1 of this bill but I cannot see that the comments which are now being made by the hon. member are relevant. I appreciate that some reference was made by the hon. member for Lapointe to the subject now being discussed by the hon. member for Skeena, but the hon. member for Lapointe asked specific questions, one of which was related to the consequences of the passage of this bill, and whether they would affect the relationship between the federal and provincial governments on matters of education. The answer to that question was that they would not have that effect. I suggest that answer ends the discussion in respect of that problem. If the hon. member for Skeena continues along the lines he has been following it is my opinion he will be going beyond the terms of the bill, and certainly beyond the terms of this specific clause.


Frank Howard: With your guidance, Mr. Chairman, it might be that I should properly raise this matter during our consideration of a subsequent clause, namely clause 8 which deals with the powers of the association. Clause 8 (e) deals with powers to take, receive, accept or acquire property, rights or money, personal or real, movable or immovable. Presumably this association will have the power to distribute that money. Perhaps I should raise my question as to what the 20220-7751
Private Bills
association will do with the money it receives from this parliament in respect of that clause. If I was in error in raising this question on clause 1 I certainly apologize, but I felt that because the hon. member for Lapointe got into a discussion in this regard, although in a small way, I would be able to do the same.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, like you, I do not really see the relevance of the hon. member's argument to any clause of the bill, in fact.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks to clarify one statement which has been made. The hon. member seems to feel that this association will have at its discretion certain powers in relation to giving certain amounts of federal money to universities of Canada. The association will not have such a discretionary power.


Frank Howard: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but it has such powers.


Pauline Jewett: If the parliament of Canada decides that the association shall continue to be the distributing agency of per capita grants in certain provinces, as it has decided, that will be the case. If the parliament of Canada also decides that there shall be some other method of distributing these per capita grants in the province of Quebec, as it has decided, all this association will be able to do is carry out that will of parliament. What the hon. member is suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that we consider this whole large and very important area in respect of how per capita grants should be and are being distributed. Surely that is not relevant to this bill, which is designed to set up the association. This association does not have the discretionary freedom to decide how these funds are to be distributed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you will be courteous enough to permit me to ask, out of ignorance, what enactment or authority exists which limits the control or restricts the powers of the association to distribute moneys received from the parliament of Canada.


Pauline Jewett: This is done by the parliament of Canada itself.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, no.


Pauline Jewett: If I understood the hon. member correctly, he was asking who decides whether the grant is to be $2 per capita or otherwise. That is done by the parliament of

Private Bills
Canada. The parliament of Canada also decides how this money is to be distributed.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, no.

Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Lapointe kindly resume his seat. Only one person can be standing at any one time. Perhaps that suggestion might come from the hon. member for Lapointe at this stage, but it is obvious now that we are getting involved in a discussion which to my mind, and I have to rule accordingly, is not within the confines of Bill No. S-36. Hon. members are quite familiar with the provisions of standing order 59 (2) which says that in committee, discussion must be strictly relevant to the clause being studied and considered.
Clause 1 deals with the incorporation of the association of universities and colleges of Canada, and nowhere in the bill, not even in clause 8, is there any reference to the distribution of the per capita grants and the amounts of grants given by the federal government for education purposes. I would suggest to the hon. member for Skeena that, having mentioned the question by way of introduction, he should revert to the substance of the bill which, I say again, has nothing to do with the grants.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I will not argue the point with you at this stage but it is my submission that when we get to clause 2, which is more pertinent, we will have a valid argument because clause 2 states that the objects of the association shall be to foster and promote the interests of higher education in Canada. I submit that those objects cannot be met if there are restrictions upon the manner in which the association will operate, albeit those restrictions are made by some other statute.


Lucien Lamoureux: This might be a very good argument on clause 2 but we are on clause 1 at this stage and the Chair should not be asked to rule in anticipation.


Frank Howard: I am just giving notice.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to speak on clause 1, Mr. Chairman.
If, as the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) has just claimed, the federal government has the required authority to

decide which contributions or subscriptions to universities will be made through the association of universities and colleges of Canada, then the corporation which is being set up becomes in fact an organization which will have the necessary powers to evade the provisions of the British North America Act.
As the hon. member for Northumberland has just mentioned, the federal government will be able to use this organization after incorporating it, in order to decide which subsidies it will grant, in which amounts and to whom and how they will be distributed. If those are the purposes of this bill, it cannot be accepted, because we claim that it is not a responsibility of the federal government to determine


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member commenting on the point of order which has been raised?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on clause 1.


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, in that case, the statement of the hon. member is out of order because it is related to a point which does not come in the ambit of clause 1. It may be that the argument of the hon. member could be set forth on another clause, later, but as far as the discussion on this clause is concerned, I consider, as I have already suggested to the hon. members, that we should adhere strictly to its content.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member for Northumberland tell me why the federal government should grant a corporate charter to the association of universities and colleges of Canada when those universities and colleges come under education, a field which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces according to the British North America Act.
I have nothing against the granting of a federal charter to Canadian universities and colleges but, on the other hand, I would not want this charter granted to Canadian universities and colleges to be used in order to bypass the purposes of section 92 of the British North America Act.
Following the answer just given by the hon. member for Northumberland, to the effect that the federal government is authorized to do this, I wonder if the granting of such a federal charter is not precisely for the purpose of evading the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act.
When she says that the federal government is authorized to make such grants, I would

like her to explain clearly how those grants would be distributed, what would be their amounts and, also, whether some areas are implied or whether provincial jurisdiction is being encroached upon.


Pauline Jewett: Perhaps I might make two brief comments. First of all, the function of the association is only in part to act as an agent for the federal government in the distributing of grants. It has a great many other functions of great importance that we will come to, no doubt, under clause 2. It acts as agent of the federal government for the distribution of per capita grants, just as the Canadian universities foundation has acted for many years at the request of the federal government.
As I said earlier, I am sure the association has no desire to do anything other than what is within the law. If the federal parliament of Canada has determined that the payment of per capita grants is within its spending power, and this has not been challenged elsewhere in the courts-


Gilles Grégoire: With the consent of the provinces.


Pauline Jewett: -if this has been determined by the parliament of Canada and has not been challenged, as indeed it has not, by the courts or elsewhere, then surely it is not up to us here to decide whether or not at this particular point the per capita grant concept is one which should or should not continue. All we need to do here, if I may say so, is to assist an association which has requested incorporation to perform its multitudinous tasks, only one of which is to act as an agent for the federal government in the pursuit of a policy which is legal, which is in fact constitutional and which has not in fact been challenged.


Gilles Grégoire: It has been done with the consent of the provinces, but it is not according to the constitution.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I share the views of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), but I feel that he has just raised a very interesting point which is closely related to the very principle of provincial autonomy in the field of public education.
After listening to the remarks made by the mover of the bill, I have the impression that the main purpose of this measure is to enable the association to be the federal gov-
Private Bills
ernment's agent, in the field of education, to distribute grants to the provinces' universities. Therefore, it is a hypocritical bill through which the federal government creates an association whose primary purpose will be to interfere in the field of education, which is the provinces' exclusive responsibility.
I see nothing wrong in the various classical colleges and universities of the province being incorporated. But when the sponsor of the bill tells us that the main purpose of that association will be to act as trustee, spokesman, agent, treasurer or distributor of federal grants in the field of education, then I respectfully submit that the Canadian constitution is being violated.
For my part, I shall not support this measure until we know what the aims of the association are. Besides, we should be told whether this is a free association of universities and colleges or if the universities and colleges have been asked by the federal government to form a corporation so the government can intrude in an area where it does not belong.
In my opinion, this would be the first step toward the creation of a federal department of education, because unfortunately that is what too many in this house want.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I will stand against the passing of this bill because it infringes upon the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the sponsor of the bill. Will the members of that association or corporation draw salaries from the government grants, or will their work be unpaid? In my opinion, it is important to know whether they work as a voluntary body or whether they are paid by the government, in order to know their interest in their work?


Pauline Jewett: So far as I am aware, Mr. Chairman, and I would have to check this, there is no other fee paid for the small service they perform. In so far as the prior question is concerned, member institutions are not in any way paid by the government. This is purely a voluntary body financed by a levy on its own members.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether at this stage, the hon. member for Northumberland does not feel it would be in order to make a statement concerning federal grants to the corporation or association
122S2

Private Bills
of universities and colleges of Canada, because the matter is obscure and we would like to know what to think.
I think that as long as this matter is not clarified, it will be difficult for us to take a stand.
In view of the fact that we know very little about it at the present time and in view of the statement made by my colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), we are justified to wonder where that association is going, what is its role? If it is simply an intermediary that will be set up to distribute federal grants to colleges and universities, then, we will have to stand against it.
I think that a statement by the hon. member for Northumberland would be in order at this time.


Pauline Jewett: I may say once again, to correct an earlier remark, that I did not say this was its first purpose or its main purpose. This is one of its many purposes. I am sorry, since this seems to have become such an enormous issue. For many years now, without any objection from that corner, the Canadian universities foundation has been performing this task. I would think the hon. member for Lapointe would know this very well. I am really shocked to discover he apparently does not realize that the new association, which is simply replacing two existing bodies, is carrying on the functions these two bodies carried on separately.


Gilles Grégoire: I know what the Canadian universities foundation was doing, but it was not with the consent of the provinces involved. The province of Quebec did not give its consent but received, quite rightly, part of the federal personal income tax. The hon. member for Northumberland said that the federal government had the authority to change that. This is the point I should like to have explained. I know these per capita grants have been given in many areas and in other provinces, and I know they were given with the consent of those provinces. However, the province of Quebec remained out of that plan.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. This does not affect the constitutional position in any way whatever. Things will continue exactly as they always have.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to ask a few questions right now. I do not know as much about this measure as the hon. member for
Lapointe does because I have not had much to do with the universities foundation. However I am always interested in an agency that appears to be operating in the public domain but remains a private agency. The hon. member has referred to the $2 per capita which is distributed, and that is a large sum of money. It amounts to something like $14 million in Ontario and $10 million in Quebec. Why should this amount be distributed by this agency? Why has the government not introduced this bill rather than leaving it to a private member? It seems to me the work of the organization falls within the public domain, especially if it is a distributing agency for the federal government. If this is the case, then the organization should get its jurisdiction from a public act.
I noticed there was a schedule attached to the bill, and I have looked at it quickly. I find none of the new universities or colleges in the list. This raises the problem, how do these new universities obtain a listing? I am interested particularly in Laurentian University and I notice it is not listed. Second, and this may be a hypothetical question, there is in Ontario a new class of college growing up. These colleges have not asked for that status as yet, nor have they been particularly concerned about it. I am referring to such schools as NOIT, the technical institute of northern Ontario, and EOIT, the eastern technical institute in Ottawa. I believe there are others, and they are somewhat on a par with Ryer-son, which has gone much beyond the normal technical school type of training. It seems to me that one of these days there is going to be a desire on the part of students, instructors and these institutions to establish them as colleges and start giving degree courses in highly technical fields. This has been done in many states in the United States. All sorts of queer sounding degrees are given by these colleges in highly technical fields.
There has been a reluctance on the part of the universities to recognize new colleges. If this is true, and it has been the case until recently, then it is going to be very difficult for any of these new technical colleges to obtain a status that would allow them to be listed in this schedule. It seems to me, from a reading of it, that we are establishing a schedule now that can be added to only by agreement of the board of directors of the conference, the persons named in the schedule. If this is so, it seems to me we are again involved in this problem of whether or not this should be a public agency or a private agency, and whether or not such a
[Mr. Gregoire.l

bill should be introduced by a cabinet minister.
There is no question about the fact that I do not understand this bill as well as some other members understand it. However, it seems to me the points that have been raised are points in which many people in Canada are interested, especially in view of the rapid changes taking place in this field, and there may be a desire to make sure these new schools are not being overlooked by the conference.


Pauline Jewett: Dealing with the hon. member's first point, once again I think it is important to emphasize that the role which the association plays in distributing the per capita grants at the request of the federal government is minor in relation to its whole role. Its whole role is comparable to many other associations. It is true it needs incorporation because of its financial responsibility, but its total purpose is far more in the private than in the public realm. If the time comes, and the hon. member suggested it might, when these roles were reversed, his argument would be very well taken; but at the moment that is not the case.
The association does a great deal of research. It provides an information service for its members. It has an awards division and an international program division. It has a great many jobs to do which, as a voluntary association of universities it is quite justified in doing, and which jobs really have nothing to do with the federal government.
On the second point with regard to the new universities, some of these at the moment are being processed, and others have already been processed. We did not amend the schedule because once they have reached the criteria set out by the association they will automatically become members. As I say, they have already done so or are in the process of doing so now.
I might add that in the bylaws of the association there is a definition of criteria it has established for membership. These include that a college or university, in each of the three years preceding its date for application, must have had a total enrolment of at least 200 members, and must satisfy a visiting committee appointed by the board of directors of the association that it is providing education of university standard.
This brings me to the third point in the hon. member's speech which I found very interesting, but again a little further afield than the actual bill before us. My impression
Private Bills
of both the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges and the C.U.F., which this association is replacing, is that there is among their number a very wide representation of the point of view that the hon. member expressed, that provided the criteria are met, particularly the two with regard to enrolment of 200 and being of university education level, as many institutions as possible should be included. But beyond that I cannot go, except to assure the hon. member that this is a matter of a great deal of concern to institutions now members of the association.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Objects.
Frank Howard: I am expressing my own personal point of view, but it seems to me we should be concerning ourselves with so-called higher education, or education at the university level, as being the type of education which is necessary to foster and promote the greatest possible development in Canada. Therefore we should be looking- and I hope to heaven the government one day will do so-at the question of higher education from the point of view of having the federal parliament involved in it, participating as fully as possible and trying to promote and advance the interests of Canada rather than continuing to promote and advance the segmentation of Canada.
I put this forth purely as a personal and individual point of view, but many people are becoming vitally concerned about the question of education at the higher or university level. This is what we should be doing and, with that viewpoint in mind, I say the objectives of the association cannot be met so long as we continue to adhere to an outmoded concept of education that the fathers of confederation developed in 1867.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would simply like to say that I think the remarks of the previous speaker were quite correct and I believe this bill is one step in that direction. I wish to add that being a member of the board of governors of one of the universities that are listed, I think this chamber should see this bill is passed as a step along that road.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against section I of Bill No. S-36 because it is designed to incorporate into an association universities and colleges in Canada. But section 2, as the hon. member for

Private Bills
Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) have pointed out, specifies the objects of that association and, in my opinion, they are contrary to what already exists in the British North America Act, namely, that education, whether at the higher or lower level, whether primary or secondary, falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Section 2 reads as follows:
The objects of the association shall be to foster and promote the interests of higher education in Canada.
In the circumstances, this bill conflicts with the constitution as we know it. That is why, in the province of Quebec, we would like to see the establishment of an association of colleges and universities not to promote the interests of higher education-and we accept that-but because that higher level of education is not the responsibility of the federal government and because this association will mainly serve as an agency of the federal government to foster a thing which does not come under the jurisdiction of that government.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: It is not six o'clock.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks of my hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and my hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere (Mr. Paul) to the effect that we have to consider the bill before us as citizens of the province of Quebec. As such, we cannot allow the passing of this bill without sounding a warning on account of the danger, in this measure, of interference on the part of the federal government with the rights of the provinces.
That is all I wanted to say, but I want the rights which come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and the province of Quebec in particular, to be respected.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon Bill S-42, respecting the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company was reported back to the house without

amendment. In view of the short time available for private members' bills I would ask unanimous consent of the house to give third reading to this bill now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do we have unanimous consent to give third reading?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we consider all private bills to be equal, and they should be dealt with equally.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A I have to inform the house that the following question will be raised at ten o'clock this evening-the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan)-trans-Canada highway, Nova Scotia, reported kickbacks by truck operators.
The house will now revert to the business interrupted 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.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-136, clause 91.
On clause 91-Regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at five
o'clock I had asked either of the ministers concerned a question based on paragraph 7, subparagraph (iv), of the report of the special joint committee. Perhaps I might read this section again:
There should be scope for further benefits under private pension plans for those in a position to afford them, and integration of private pension plans with the Canada pension plan should be a matter of consultation between employers and employees.

That is a stated opinion of the special joint committee. As the Minister of National Revenue knows, the point was made this morning by the legislative committee of the running trades brotherhoods, and as both ministers know, this is the position taken by the Canadian Labour Congress. I am wondering whether the government has given any thought to ways in which this desirable objective might be achieved.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, we have given a great deal of consideration to it, as members of the committee will remember. One of the first things that was raised in the discussion of the implementation of the Canada pension plan, and from various quarters, was what would happen to already existing private plans. I pointed out, as has the Prime Minister and a number of spokesmen for the government on a number of occasions, that the constitutional rights of the federal government are limited to a number of different classifications. One of these classifications, of course, relates to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the military, and the committee has already dealt with this question. It would have to be done by way of amendment to their superannuation acts. The same is true of the civil service.
As I have pointed out a number of times to the committee and the house, a great deal of work has gone into figuring this out and dealing with the different groups which represent civil servants across the country. In addition of course there is a very large group of Canadians who are employed in federal enterprises, where the federal writ ordinarily would apply. Some of these that come quickly to mind are such enterprises as the railways, perhaps the C.B.C., perhaps the banks and other similar groups. There are many of them. I am thinking particularly of those where-say Polymer or the C.N.R. -the federal government is in a sense the qua employer.
In other cases it really does depend, I would think, on whether or not there has been a trade union agreement negotiated between employer and employee, where there has been agreement in the past as to what proportion of the total contribution is paid by the employer and what by the employee; whether it is all paid by the employee- which I think is a very rare case, if it exists at all-or by the employer.
It would seem to me that this must be left to a greater or less degree to management 20220-776
Canada Pension Plan
and labour, depending on what their previous history has been. There are a great many variations in private plans. One of the largest industrial plans in the country, in which the federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever, is one of the automotive plant plans, where I understand the contribution is paid entirely by the employer; although, of course, in the contract between employer and employee it is a part of the fringe benefit and might be construed by many to be thus a part of the wages. There is no direct deduction from individual workers for their contribution; it is all paid by the employer. In cases where a federal entity is the employer, this may be what happens, or it may be a matter where both groups, employer and employee, share equally, as under the general law for all Canadians coming under the Canada pension plan; or indeed they might share disparately in the required contribution. However, it is not a matter with which the federal government, will have to deal qua a government; but the individual crown corporations or crown entities will deal with it in their own specific sphere according to the kind of labour relations they have had in the past. I would not think there is any jurisdiction for the federal government as such to introduce that kind of legislation here.
With regard to the C.N.R., I remember, as a former member of the railway committee for a number of years, that representatives of the railway unions approached the committee asking for an amendment which would take care of those employees who during the depression years were laid off and could not thus contribute to their pension plan. This was never the subject of any amendment to railway legislation. I think it may often have been the subject of representations made by at least private members to the C.N.R. management itself, but it did not form a part of the legislation. I would think, therefore, that this is a matter which those who are not directly employees of the federal government will deal with on an ad hoc basis in accordance with the way their employer-employee relationships have grown up for some years in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the minister for her statement. What she has said does relate to the precise point I was trying to make rather than to the broad question of integration. I am not at this point arguing that there should be integration or that there should be decking rather than integration, although that is the direction in which I lean. I am simply arguing that before

Canada Pension Plan
decisions are made by those who control private pension plans, as to whether or not to integrate, there should be consultation between employers and employees.
Perhaps the minister has gone as far as she can in saying that this is her view. I hope she agrees with the view expressed by the committee that this is what should be done. In the first place, the government can set an example. Perhaps we could have reassurance on this point, that in so far as the integration of the federal civil service superannuation arrangements with the Canada pension plan is concerned, this is the subject of consultation between the government, as employer, and the staff-side representatives. Another thing the government could do, of course, would be to express its opinion along the lines of the committee's report, to which I have just referred.
There is still another beneficial step which the minister might take, and that is that she might speak to her colleague the Minister of Labour about the matter. She probably knows that there is a provision in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which makes it very difficult, in fact almost impossible, for railway employees to put the pension question on the bargaining table when they meet with management. As I say, the limitation is because of a certain section in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Amendments to that act were asked for this morning by those who appeared before the government over in the railway committee room, so I hope the minister will speak with her colleague the Minister of Labour about that matter. Because if the government shares the view which was expressed by the joint committee, that there should be consultation before integration is effected, then let us do everything we can to bring about that consultation. As I say, I am not at this point arguing either for or against integration; I am just asking for consultation and for everything that can possibly be done to bring that consultation about.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I thought the Minister of Finance did make this point quite clear earlier, as have spokesmen for the government repeatedly. This plan which has been devised for the integration of public service superannuation and the Canada pension plan is one which has been worked out very carefully, through consultation with the advisory committee which deals with civil service superannua-

tion and the national joint council, every step of the way. So that consultation has been the one principle which has predominated in the federal government's attitude as an employer toward integration. We still hope that this will be considered to be a sort of guiding light to show the way in which people should operate. It may not be that we have any jurisdiction to go beyond that, except to show them what we hope will be the best kind of example.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was aware of that. I was hoping the minister would say that, and I thank her for doing so.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just before the clause carries, Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned that to a greater or lesser degree it was going to be left to the employer and the employee to work out a system of integration. If I am wrong about that I certainly stand corrected, but my impression is that she said it would be left to the employer and the employee to work out.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry. The context in which I was speaking concerned crown agencies. If I left the impression that somebody else is going to decide, even in the case of crown agencies, without consultation with either employer or employee, then that is quite wrong. It will have to be decided in light of each individual case, whether it be within our jurisdiction or otherwise. I would imagine that within crown agencies-certainly outside them where we have no jurisdiction whatever-this consultation is in conformity with modern labour management practice; and very serious consultation it is, because pension provisions provide such a large part of the fringe benefits in the wage package nowadays.
If I was not clear before, then I do not want the committee to be at all mistaken about it now. The federal government has nothing to do with those people beyond its jurisdiction

that is, the more than 5,000 plans across the country. These will be a matter of negotiation, in most cases between employer and employee. As I did try to explain, in cases where the employer pays for the whole thing he may try to present it to his employees as a package deal; but that is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, or indeed of hon. members. We may be approached in our capacities as members of parliament by individual employers, especially the smaller ones, who may

ask us what they should do; and in this as in all matters I think the best advice one can give them is that they are to be liberal.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, I cannot let that go unanswered, Mr. Chairman. I think it is only logical that I should take issue to some extent with the minister. However, I will say that even the most conservative employer and the most conservative employee will probably more readily get together than the liberal ones.
If I can just put in a nutshell what the minister implied in her answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it was that she was talking about crown corporations. But integration is entirely the responsibility of the employer and employee between them in any private pension arrangement with which the crown has nothing whatever to do.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the best democratic fashion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little more clarification of this clause before it carries. One question which concerns many Canadians across the country who already contribute to a pension plan is whether they can integrate or whether they cannot. The minister has said that outside of crown agencies-correct me if I am wrong-integration in the 5,000 odd plans across the country will depend solely upon the employer and the employee. Let us think about that for a minute. Getting down to the basic facts of the matter, as I see it, it will depend solely upon the employee and the government. The minister shakes her head in disagreement and that is fine, because before we can reach an understanding we must know where she stands. She disagrees with that analysis of the situation, but that is the way I see it. The administration of many of these 5,000 odd pension plans is carried out to a large extent by the employee himself. I say that integration of these plans will fall upon the employees and the government.
I would ask her what the government is doing to assist these employees who manage and look after these 5,000 different plans to integrate them with the Canada pension plan? Surely she can outline some basic steps which they must follow, whether integration is feasible, and so on and so forth.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I must disagree with my hon. friend. The government has nothing to do with that; it is beyond our jurisdiction.
Canada Pension Plan
Because it became a problem for a lot of people, we did one thing which might be significant. The provinces were concerned about how they might integrate plans for provincial employees, for teachers, and in some cases even for municipal employees, and we sent an official of the federal government, one of the people on the advisory committee, across the country to consult with and advise-when they asked for advice- individuals whose responsibility it will be on behalf of provincial governments to effect the integration of schemes in relation to which the provincial governments are in the category of employers. I might say I explained this earlier to the committee and it was an extremely successful trip, as a result of which there appeared to be no problems unmet.
I also explained to the committee that 75 per cent of the people covered by the private schemes which are in existence are covered under trust company schemes; that is, the carrier is a trust company. About 25 per cent of those covered have insurance companies in Canada as carriers. The trust companies, as I informed the committee, have written to the government and pledged their support. They have been in consultation with my officials and officials of the Department of Finance, and I have every reason to expect that they are very busily engaged across the country in making propositions to employee-employer groups, which have trust provisions in their pension schemes, suggesting methods of integration. In many cases plans will not be integrated. I remember one scheme on the west coast which has a provision which ties the scheme to anything that the federal government does in respect of old age security, and any increase in the O.A.S. pension has an effect on that scheme.
Unless employees are in a position to bargain with their employers, whatever changes are made will be entirely at the option of the company, and there is nothing the federal government, can do in this regard. I think all hon. members of this committee will appreciate that what we are talking about is private contractional obligations between groups of employees and management. Many of these arrangements have been negotiated over a period of years. Many of these arrangements were started as a consequence of wartime provisions, in order to give added benefits to employees because wages could not be increased. Many of these plans have been developed over the years. Many of them have not been changed and do not now have adequate provisions.

Canada Pension Plan
All the federal government can do in this regard is co-operate and make available to most of the carriers, 75 per cent of which belong to the trust companies association of Canada, all the information they ask for. They may need this information in respect of their associated employers and employees. We expect this will be a reciprocal arrangement and that the provinces and private companies will make similar information available to us in order that necessary adjustments can be made with ease.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to hold up the passage of this very complicated bill unduly. I think it is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that we have dealt with for some time. To put it mildly, I think it is unduly complicated.
The minister has spoken of trust and insurance companies in terms of 75 per cent and 25 per cent, as related to 5,000 plans which now exist outside of the provisions of the proposed Canada pension plan. I should like to remind the minister that many farmers will automatically be excluded from participation in this pension plan because of earnings which fall below the provisional requirements. One other category of worker who will not be covered by this plan is that category covered by other pension plans. As I understand the situation, the decision in respect of integration rests entirely upon the employer. What is the minister doing to put this plan in terms which will allow these many existing pension plans to be integrated with it? She says that she is making all the necessary information available, but I suggest that is not enough.
As I understand the terms of this plan, it is not completely actuarially sound, as are most other pension plans.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, let me stop the hon. member at this point. This plan is actuarially sound, despite the attack made recently upon it by an actuary, which was not based on actuarial grounds.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am not referring to any specific actuary. I am suggesting that there is a windfall associated with this plan. This was admitted by the Minister of National Revenue a few days ago. Certain age groups will receive something as a result of this plan which they will not have paid for and which they will not have expected.
There are thousands upon thousands of teachers in Canada, to use them as an ex-

ample, who are now paying into pension plans. Will the establishment of this pension plan impose an additional tax upon the municipalities which are now contributing to these teachers' pension plans? Will this pension plan impose an additional tax upon those municipalities which in turn will impose an additional tax on the taxpayers of this country?
Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all aware of the fact that the basic problem confronting the taxpayer today is the extent of the tax burden now imposed upon them. It is our job as legislators to gauge this tax burden carefully and to decide whether it is too high or whether it can carry a little more weight. Will the increased burden placed upon the taxpayers of this country as a result of this pension plan be the straw that will break the camel's back? That is the question we must answer.
I have taken a very serious and long look at this question. I should like to hear an answer to it from the government. I should like to hear some explanation in this regard, because I am not satisfied with the information given by the minister to the effect that all the available and necessary information will be made available. This pension plan should be designed in such a way that by its normal administration all the available statistical information will be provided to the trust and insurance companies, and others in this field. It should be designed in such a way that special considerations can be given in respect of pension plans already in existence in order to facilitate integration, and in such a way the necessity for taxpayers in Canada to carry the extra burden created by this plan could be obviated.
One other serious question which has confronted me during my consideration of this plan is whether individuals now contributing to existing pension plans will, following the adoption of this plan, have to make additional contributions. Will we be creating an additional tax burden by the adoption of this pension plan in its present state? I use the word "additional" advisedly and in the way in which I feel it should be used. Using the example of teachers across Canada again, I believe that we will be placing an additional burden upon the municipalities in Canada, because the municipalities will have to pay the 3.6 per cent contribution. Those municipalities will have to pay that amount in the form of the employer contribution and in the form of increased wages to the teachers. I

should like to hear some explanation from the Minister of National Revenue in this regard.
There are at this time some 5,000 pension plans in existence. Surely those pension plans can be categorized in some manner. Are municipal employees who are not contributing to pension plans contributing to plans held by trust companies, or plans held by insurance companies? I suggest there are several categories into which all these pension plans could fall. Some of the categories would include municipal employees, private company employees, private individuals contributing to both trust and insurance company pension plans, as well as civil servants, municipal, provincial and federal. Consideration should be given to all of these pension categories in order that they may be integrated with this plan. Surely these individuals who are contributing at this time to various pension plans should be given consideration in respect of integration. If we do not provide some means by which these various plans can be worked into this plan, this parliament will be in effect increasing the tax burden already being carried by the taxpayers of Canada.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has suggested that her department will make information available. I suggest that that is not enough, but that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue must devise some sort of arrangement which will provide pension guarantees to school teachers, railway employees and members of labour unions across Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The united mine workers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, the united mine workers and all the rest of the people who are now paying into pension plans. Surely most members of parliament will agree with me that this is the crux of the problem. As I see it, the whole crux of the problem is the coverage. How many persons are going to be covered by the plan and how many people are going to benefit from it?
I have said that the plan is going to cover very few of the farmers of Canada, and this has not been denied by either minister. 1 have said it is going to impose an extra burden on people already paying into pension plans of one type or another all across Canada. The minister has said she has made this information available. This is not enough. As the minister said, this plan is not entirely actuarially sound. We know that. The Min-
Canada Pension Plan
ister of National Revenue admitted a couple of days ago that there is a windfall for persons 55 years of age or over who will be collecting a pension within the next 10 years. We know there is a windfall involved.
We know what happens if a person does not have any income in a given year. I used the example a couple of days ago of a farmer who is hailed out. The minister said that he could not take the money out of his pocket and make his payment into the plan. Even if he is hailed out and has no income he still cannot take the money out of his pocket and pay into the plan. I say to the minister: Why do you prohibit a farmer who is hailed out in a given year from making a payment into the plan on the basis of his average payment over the past few years? The only conclusion I can come to is that the plan is not actuarially sound.
I accept that fact and I know that most people across Canada accept it; but the question in my mind is, why can the two ministers involved not set out some sort of special plan to cover the five categories to which I referred, labour unions, municipal employees, civil servants and so on? Why can you not set out rules by which special provision will be made so that their plans can be integrated? I should like to hear from the Minister of National Revenue in this regard. I do not think the mere giving of information is good enough. In my opinion we must go further if the plan is to be a truly Canadian pension plan. If it is to be an allinclusive Canadian pension plan we must go further than giving information. I know the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare will agree with me because he is a serious-minded young Canadian who is trying to help the Canadian people.


Mr. Munro:: Are you dealing with clause 91?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am dealing with clause 91. I have it before me and I am particularly interested in it. I think the giving of information is not enough. We must go further. I should like to hear particularly from the Minister of National Revenue and I ask him this question. Has he studied the various categories to be found in the 5,000 different pension plans across Canada to which these people have already subscribed and into which they must pay? Has he studied the problem? Has he tried to categorize these 5,000 different pension plans? Has he tried to arrive at some special pro-

Canada Pension Plan
vision to cover them? I dealt with five categories. There may be six, seven, eight or nine. Have the minister and the department taken a serious look at this situation? Surely to goodness he could take these 5,000 different plans, categorize them and make provision for five or six categories for the purpose of integrating them with the Canada pension plan.
A far greater effort should be made by the government than just providing information. This is not good enough. I hope other members of parliament are not satisfied with this answer because all those already paying into pension plans are concerned about the matter. They are pleased to see the Canada pension plan, a portable pension plan that will allow them to move from one job to another, from one province to another, but they do not want to see an added burden placed on their backs. I know that employers do not want to see an added burden placed on their backs, and the taxpayers are the employers in the case of municipalities.
I know that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is deeply interested in this subject. If the Minister of National Revenue has not given this matter consideration, surely the parliamentary secretary has given some consideration to this problem. I know that the problem of covering members of the R.C.M.P. and the armed services has meant a bit of a headache for the government, but surely their thinking should have gone further than just federal employees.
I know that the federal civil servants are already integrated into the plan, but if the plan is to be all-inclusive surely the thinking of the government should have gone further. Federal servants were worked into the plan. Let us proceed on the same basis to cover the 5,000 outstanding plans into which people are already paying. This is the crux of the problem as I see it. Let us not put a double tax burden upon those people who are already paying into pension plans. As legislators, as people concerned with the development of this young and enterprising country, we know that it takes capital for such development. Let us not drain away any more capital than is absolutely necessary to provide an adequate standard of living for people as they grow old. Let us not create a parasite upon the economy of Canada. This is the point I am trying to make. Let us not create another parasite upon the economy of Canada. Let us provide adequately for the citizens of this country who have helped so much in
IMr. Homer (Acadia).]
developing it, but let us not overdo things. Let us not burden people unnecessarily.
I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of National Revenue and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I admire the work they have put into this plan. I appreciate the fact that they have already overcome many obstacles. We only have to look at the evidence before the committee and before the house to realize that. This is the sixth time the Canada pension plan has been submitted, but previously it has always been withdrawn. I am saying this as a compliment to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue. They have withdrawn the plan in the past because they said it was not quite right and they wanted to change it and make it right. I admire them for this. Nobody in this human race is perfect. I admire honesty-


An hon. Member:: Particularly on the government side?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not believe it applies any more to that party than any other. I think it applies to everybody. I admire honesty. The government has withdrawn a plan a number of times saying, this is not right; we have to adjust it so it will cover all Canadians and all Canadians will benefit.
Now, I plead with the ministers-I use the plural because there are two ministers involved-to take a long, hard look at the question of whether or not private plans can be integrated with this plan. Ask yourselves this question: Is information enough? We have municipalities all across Canada. They are all paying into pension plans. I use teachers as an example because there are teachers all across Canada and we know we need more of them. Here is a municipality with a small legislative body duly elected to represent those persons who are paying taxes in that area. They are not experienced with pension plans and have not the knowledge required to give them a careful examination. However they are concerned about the tax load on the citizens they are elected to represent. This is a question that is bothering all municipalities across Canada. Taxes are high all across Canada, and I know that in Alberta taxes are very high.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone hollers
"Order". Well, if the members of the party

opposite are not concerned about taxes, I should like them to stand up and call me to order. I am referring to the problem of integrating this plan with the existing plans. I am using the municipalities as an example. A municipality may have some form of pension plan already in existence. I am using teachers as an example.
Now, the question I ask the two ministers -I see the Minister of Finance sitting on the front benches and perhaps he can let us have his wisdom on this subject, because it Is one concerning high finance. I ask the ministers concerned, is there a possibility of integrating this plan with the many others in existence? Is the government giving thought to this question:	Is information
enough? I do not think it is. I believe the two ministers should say no, it is not enough. We should categorize the 5,000 odd plans. We should make special provisions for those plans just as we did for the civil servants in Ottawa, and just as we are studying the question in relation to the R.C.M.P. and the armed services. The study should be extended to cover all persons in Canada already paying into pension plans. Have the ministers studied the question of why they cannot categorize the 5,000 odd plans? That is the second question. The third question is, why they cannot make a special provision for the categories already set up or which would have been set up under my second question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, no; I want to proceed with this pension legislation-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have listened at some length and with great interest to a collection of remarks by my hon. friend. The chairman then called the clause, and the hon. member rose to speak again. I suggest we have listened to him and we have answered so far as possible the questions put forward. I would ask the Chair at this point to put the question on the clause.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it certainly is not. While the minister may have been quite patient in listening to me, there are no rules which prohibit me from rising again.


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the rules specify that when a debate is proceeding in committee no member can succeed himself.
Canada Pension Plan


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be very glad to intercede between the hon. member's speeches. One of the ministers or the parliamentary secretary to whom the hon. member for Acadia has referred so often should attempt to answer the hon. member's questions.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The standing
orders, of course, of this chamber give to each member in committee a limited time of 30 minutes for a speech. If this part of the debate is going to continue in this way, I shall have to ask hon. members to confine themselves as closely as possible to the material contained in clause 91.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Perth intervened and of course I have the floor again. I have not much more to say than I have already said. If the minister did not hear me, I think the parliamentary secretary did because he was listening very intently. I wish the minister would give him permission to answer. However, I will repeat what I said word for word if that is necessary. I do not want to do that. I do not believe it is necessary because the Minister of National Health and Welfare is an intelligent person. I think she understands the problem. I want to ask her this question: Is there machinery set up or are there regulations set up that will assist in the integration of all types of plans under the Canada pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would be happy to
answer that question. It would be a real affront to parliament if my department prepared regulations under a piece of legislation that had yet to be passed by the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a nice bit of verbiage, but I do not buy it. I have been around here six years.


David Orlikow: Six too long.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The constituents of Acadia will tell me whether it was six years too long, but since coming here I have tried to do my duty. I am trying to find out whether any provision has been made for the integration of existing pension plans with the Canada pension plan. The minister said it would be an affront to parliament to suggest that regulations have been drawn up for a piece of legislation not yet passed by parliament. How naive does she think we are? The regulations may not be printed, but we know that the government expects to pass any bill it introduces. It is as simple as that.

Canada Pension Plan
It has a majority in the house, and that is why it is the government.
I am not asking the minister to itemize specific regulations. All I ask is, have the regulations been drawn up? Are there any special provisions that will assist the integration of existing plans? She may say there are no regulations drawn up, but in doing so she is saying we are a bunch of naive boys, that we have not been in parliament very long and do not know how its wheels grind. Let her assume that, but she must answer the second part of my question. Is the government considering regulations which will make special provision for existing plans, of which there are 5,000 odd across Canada?
To put it in a nutshell, I am not satisfied to have the department, the government and parliament send out information. This is not enough. What I want to know is whether the government is considering regulations which will make provision for the integration of existing pension plans. If the answer is in the negative, then we will know the government has turned a cold shoulder to these people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If my hon. friend really wants the answer in a nutshell, the answers to questions one, two, three and four are no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, I am not satisfied because that is the answer I was afraid of getting. I will ask the parliamentary secretary, a person I have admired for a number of years. He is a young fellow like myself. He is seriously concerned with the problems confronting Canadians.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Does my hon. friend realize how much he is jeopardizing the career of my parliamentary secretary?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In no way do I want to jeopardize the career of the parliamentary secretary. I know his career has no limits. I say advisedly he may have a promising future and I do not want to jeopardize it in any way at all. The minister has said no; let that be heard across the country. My concern, whether as a government supporter or member of the opposition, has been that of a legislator concerned with all problems confronting Canadians.
People paying into existing plans have asked me, "How will our plans integrate with this?" I could not really reply. I said I hoped they would, and they said they hoped they would. There are many such people. I have mentioned teachers and municipal workers. There are also the labour unions
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
and many more Canadians, with the possible exception of day labourers and farmers, paying into private pension plans, and in some cases farmers are too.
It is not good enough for me to tell them, "We have sent out information. Didn't you get it?" Out of 100 people 99 will say they never saw that information, they were told their plans could not be integrated and therefore are faced with an added burden on their shoulders. I am trying to get to the core of the problem. I asked the minister a simple question: Is she considering special regulations which will provide for the integration of existing plans?


An hon. Member:: Repetition.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That does not bother me at all. I have learned that in order to be heard one must repeat things. The minister's "no" means the government is not making special provision for private pension plans: If they can integrate, fine and dandy; if they cannot, then let them go jump into the lake.
People will be paying into two plans or else will forfeit the rights they have already established in a private plan. This is not something to be brushed lightly aside. The Department of National Revenue should be considering this matter.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would like answers to some of the questions he has been raising, perhaps I could read him a little bit from the script of a T.V. program in which appeared Premier Robarts of Ontario and Mr. Coward of the Ontario pension commission. In this program very similar questions were asked. Premier Robarts said on that T.V. program:
Well then the second question that I know-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue has stood in his place to answer the hon. member for Acadia, who wants answers to the questions he has asked. He has already got the answers from the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she said, "No, no, no, no". Now the Minister of National Revenue rises in his place to speak about Premier Robarts, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what is before the committee at the present time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would have to listen to what is going to be said by the Minister of National Revenue before I could decide whether it is in order.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has been raising some questions here, and

these are questions that have been raised by a great many people in the country. The problem of integration is one of them. Premier Robarts, in this television program, felt that this was one of the questions many people had written to him about, and all I was going to do was read into the record what Premier Robarts and Mr. Coward, his pension adviser, said in this regard:
Premier Robarts: Well then the second question that I know is of great interest to many, many people is simply this: What happens to my pension plan to which I have been contributing for years when the Canada pension plan comes into operation? What happens to the money that I have paid into a company pension plan?
This was one of the questions raised by my hon. friend.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Precisely.


Edgar John Benson: The answer from Mr. Coward was this:
The first thing to make clear is that the money will not be confiscated or taken over by the government in any way. Your pension plan will remain and the money that's already been paid into the trust fund, or to the insurance company or the government annuities branch or wherever it may be, will remain to provide the benefits that you have earned for your service up to the date that the Canada pension plan comes in. It is true of course that some pension plans will want to make changes applicable to the future benefits in order to dovetail with the Canada pension plan, but you can be assured that the benefits that already stand to your credit will not be forfeited or taken away.
Premier Robarts then asked the following question:
Well I think that it follows from this answer then, and you may give me your opinion or comments on this, that it would be wise for anyone who presently is in a pension plan to maintain that plan, because it really will be imposed on top of the basic plan which is the Canada pension plan.


Mr. Coward:: Oh yes, it would be very imprudent to pull out of a pension plan just because we will have a new government plan. Most people will want more than the government plans will provide. The government plan provides a basic floor and pensions in addition through pension plans and through private saving will be very necessary; and I would strongly recommend that you should consider very carefully before you consider discontinuing a plan or pulling out your money.
There has been a good deal said in the House of Commons on the problem of integration of the Canada pension plan with other pension plans, over a long period of time. I can remember back as far as November 4, when the resolution was introduced into the house and I made comments in this regard. It is not within the legislative power of the federal government to tell individual firms in this country how they and their employees
Canada Pension Plan
will work in integrating their pension plans with the Canada pension plan. It may be that where no pension plan exists, or where the pension benefits are small, the Canada pension plan will be simply decked on top of the existing benefits in the pension plans that exist.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is this term similar to
"dialogue"? Is it a new government term?


Edgar John Benson: In cases to which my hon, friend referred in regard to provincial governments and whether they will come into the Canada pension plan and their employees will be covered by this plan, this has to be decided by the provincial governments before the plan is proceeded with. There are measures in the bill to provide for this. Whether the provinces decide that provincial employees will come into the plan, whether there will be a decking of the provincial plan, or whether part of the provincial employer-employee contributions will be put into this plan is a matter for the provincial governments to decide.
Similarly the provincial governments will aid in deciding this question with regard to provincially employed school teachers and various other people who are in these categories throughout the country. The federal government just has not the power to tell people how they are going to integrate with the Canada pension plan. What we are trying to do here is this: The Canada pension plan is aiming at providing a basic pension plan which is applicable to as many people in the labour force in Canada as is possible.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think I should interject at this point to remind the committee that we are discussing clause 91 dealing with regulations. While there may be some part of the discussion on regulations themselves, any question as to what these regulations are is completely out of order since the regulations themselves cannot be drawn until the bill is passed. I would therefore request hon. members to confine themselves very closely to the material contained in clause 91.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, you have by your ruling in fact prohibited us from enlarging on some of the statements which the Minister of National Revenue has just made. It is true that if we stick very closely to the spirit of clause 91, then we are not allowed to elaborate on what the minister has said.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might just interject here and

Canada Pension Plan
say that the only reason I got into these wide fields was that the hon. member was insisting that he get answers before we continued. That is why I did it.


Mr. More:: All the minister sponsoring the bill could say was "No, no, no".


William Skoreyko: I quite agree that the minister had to stray far afield in order to cover some of the questions posed by the hon. member for Acadia. Nevertheless, in his argument he did raise questions of very, very urgent importance, one of which was with regard to provincial governments. As I understood the minister, provincial governments are in a position to decide whether provincial employees can or cannot participate in the federal scheme. The minister also made reference to school teachers. All I want to know is this. Is the provincial government entitled to ask the employees of a given province to participate in a provincial scheme and withdraw from the federal scheme? Is this the case? If I have misunderstood the minister, then I apologize most sincerely; but I understood that the provincial governments had the right to ask their employees to participate in the provincial scheme and have nothing to do with the federal scheme as such.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 91 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I posed a question that I think is of some importance. I am only dealing with the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue, and I wish he would answer. I think he can.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, this question was dealt with under clause 6 (2) (i) of the bill, which was passed some time ago.


William Skoreyko: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman; but the comments of the Minister of National Revenue were-and I have written them down-that this is-


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Halifax.


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


William Skoreyko: There is no point of order here, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: That is not for you to decide.


John Edward Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing my claim to a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: You are not recognized yet, Jack.


John Edward Lloyd: I wish to draw attention-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order-


John Edward Lloyd: I am on a point of order, Mr Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Halifax has the floor. The Chair can listen to only one point of order at a time.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then, Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South, on a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Halifax rose and interrupted an hon. member on this side, saying he was raising a point of order. Then he went on to thank the Chair for recognizing him, when the Chair did not give him recognition until I stood up on a point of order. It is my privilege in this house-


Herman Maxwell Batten: If I could have the attention of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I would ask him to accept the fact that the hon. member for Halifax was recognized by the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: To continue with my point of privilege, or if necessary I will raise a second point of privilege, you, sir, did not give recognition to the hon. member for Halifax until I got up on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Absolutely right.


Malcolm MacInnis: I say again, Mr. Chairman, you did not give recognition to the hon. member for Halifax till I raised a point of order. Hon. members opposite can holler and squawk for as long as they wish but I will stand here and defend my privileges in this house. I do not want anyone in this house, including the Chair, to tell me I did something which I did not do.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has raised his point of privilege. I now recognize the hon. member for Halifax on a point of order.


John Edward Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to draw to your attention a rule with which I am sure you are familiar. Standing order 34 requires members in committee in their comments and observations to maintain at least a degree of relevance to the subject matter under debate. I also draw to your attention clause 91, which begins:
The governor in council may make regulations-
And then it goes on to state the various kinds of regulations which may be made.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, in view of the extensive examination of the general principles of this bill which has pervaded the debate on each clause from the time we started, that we must insist that the rules be observed, and it is certainly reasonable to request at this time strict relevancy and nothing else.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising on the question of privilege or on the point of order; I am rising to pursue the question I raised originally.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I should like to
make a comment on the point of order before the hon. member proceeds. I would remind members of the committee of standing order 59(2), which says:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Again I remind hon. members we are discussing clause 91, which deals with regulations.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your remarks. With all due deference I want only to deal with some remarks which were made by the Minister of National Revenue. I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Halifax, knowing full well-


Mr. Caouetie:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
At the present time, the hon. member is not speaking to a point of order. A while ago, the hon. member for Halifax raised a point of order, and referred to standing order 34. You yourself referred to standing order 59(2) to point out that we should confine ourselves
Canada Pension Plan
to the clause we are discussing, that is, clause 91 of Bill No. C-136.
Now, since eight o'clock, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) and others are apparently discussing clause 1 and even the general principle of the bill which is before us.
I wish that you would give a ruling on this point of order raised by the hon. member for Halifax, or that you apply standing order 59(2) which you mentioned, so we may know if we can discuss other matters than those included in clause 91.
We would like to know if we have the right, the privilege, the opportunity or the chance to discuss any matter with respect to clause 91, and I would ask you to give a ruling on this point.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must quote standing order 59(2) once more:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
At the moment the question before the committee is clause 91, dealing with regulations. I should again point out that there is no information to be had regarding regulations, which cannot be drawn until the bill itself is passed. I think the main question before the house is: Does or does not the governor in council have authority to make regulations, as set out in paragraphs (a) to (i) in this clause? I would request the indulgence of the members of the committee to confine themselves to the exact meaning of clause 91.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I would go along with your ruling to this extent, that surely anything which can be done by regulation is relevant. If the government have left so much out of the bill with respect to private pensions, pensions which would affect the unions of the country, the teachers' organizations, pensions which come under provincial jurisdiction, and if they can make deals by order in council, surely those matters are relevant. I am sure the minister can bear with me because I have not said one word on any clause of this bill, but I do say with the greatest respect and with all sincerity that anything which can be done by regulation is debatable on this clause. I say again that anything which can be done by regulation affecting any one of the private pension schemes, particularly those of the teachers and the unions

Canada Pension Plan
and those under provincial jurisdiction, is relevant in this debate.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, with respect to what the hon. member for Bow River has just said, I am quite aware of the fact that he is a lawyer. It reminds me of the old saw about being unable to judge necessity because necessity knows no law. The hon. member has pointed out to the committee that this clause deals with regulations. He has made remarks about things we have left out of the bill and which might be left out of the regulations. If my hon. friend really pretends to be a lawyer he should be quite aware that it is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to deal with the matter he listed.
We have listened to a number of hon. members for an hour and 20 minutes talking about something they well know is not within the jurisdiction of this parliament and not within the confines of this clause. We have spent virtually three weeks in the committee of the whole on this bill following upon 51 meetings of a special joint committee. We have dealt with all but one general clause of the bill, and that is clause 1 which is still to come. It seems to me that if hon. members do have a desire for knowledge they will put pertinent questions and we will do the best we can to answer those questions. If hon. members mean only to filibuster or to delay the bill, then surely they can even do that by keeping within the confines of a particular clause. Since the chair and the committee have given all kinds of latitude to hon. members from all corners of the house to this point, I would ask that finally my hon. friends now confine themselves to what is within the bill, unless they propose to move an amendment, and we have had no notice in the last three weeks that the opposition does intend to move an amendment to the clause. I would ask that the amended clause be put to the committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, may I intimate to the minister that certainly we on this side of the house do not intend to receive lectures from the hon. lady. She said that we have spent almost three weeks on this bill. I have been in this house for close on 12 years and have never known a more complex piece of legislation than this. This particular piece of legislation demands the closest of scrutiny. It is one of the most important as well as complex pieces of legislation that has ever been put on the books

in this country or that ever will be put on the books in this country.
All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that it ill behooves the hon. lady to lecture members of the opposition who have in the past, as they still are doing, tried to point out weaknesses in the bill. All we want to do is straighten it out and make it more effective for the people of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I do not intend to answer the hon. lady in the same language she used in reference to myself, pertaining to being a lawyer. I will leave the record to speak for itself in that regard. It is not my intention to lecture the hon. lady, but I think, if she were a little more hospitable, had a little more knowledge of psychology and was a little less legalistic she might be able to pilot this bill through without the assistance of another minister and her parliamentary secretary. This minister has always been most disrespectful. She thinks she can get away with that attitude by travelling under the auspices of being a lady, and therein lies her shame.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a matter of personal privilege. I wish to state simply one fact. The former minister of health and welfare was a member of the special committee and is a member of this committee. He is one of the few who have been here most of the time. I have never objected throughout our discussions, and certainly will not, to the most detailed scrutiny of this legislation; but I do most heartily object to the taking up of the time of all members on all sides of this house with discussions which are not in any form connected with the scrutiny of this legislation, and are not pertinent to it, but are discussions of matters wholly outside the constitutional jurisdiction of this house and of this government. As a matter of fact, I welcome any pertinent discussion in respect of this legislation. Indeed in the past two years it has been a real joy to me to learn as much as I have had the opportunity to learn about the way in which pension plans operate.


An hon. Member:: You have not learned much.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was a short-lived pleasure.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I appeared before the joint committee for approximately three and a half hours and answered, to the best of my ability, all the questions that were put to me at that

time. I was also available at any time that committee decided to call me. I do not intend to give quarter to anyone in an elected position in respect of my information and knowledge of this bill.
I have spoken in this house and outside this house without notes, without assistance from my colleagues and without the assistance of my parliamentary secretary. However it should be known that this government is one which acts in a collective fashion. It should also be known that my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, at least to anyone who is capable of reading the bill, is constitutionally responsible for about one third of it. My parliamentary secretary, unlike those in this house under the preceding administration, has been given-and deservedly so-a great deal of work to do on this legislation which has involved trust, honour and intelligence, and I am glad to have colleagues of that kind.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think this committee has spent enough time discussing this point of order. I am sure it would be advantageous to the committee to now return to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton East, which were interrupted, following which I shall recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is improper for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make a political speech at this time, as she just did when she said that some members are preventing the passage of the legislation she introduced.
Why does the minister herself, and the Minister of National Revenue, introduce legislation that other members can hardly accept, when the Minister of Finance or any other minister now sitting on the front benches should be responsible for it?
I feel that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has no right to impute motives to any member.
If we have questions, we have every right to ask them under the rules of the house without having to hear the political complaints we have just heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We have the right to ask any questions we want and to insist on logical and intelligent answers which will inform parliament and the Canadian people as a whole.
Canada Pension Plan
The Minister of National Health and Welfare does not have the right to indulge in party politics as she did a few minutes ago.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, to return to the question I posed earlier, which was interrupted by the hon. member for Halifax, let me state that that hon. member seems to be an authority on everything which takes place in this house, except parliamentary conduct. I have heard all I want to hear from that hon. member and I hope that he does not persist in pursuing these facetious points of order.
Mr. Chairman, you referred to the question of relevancy. I suggest there was nothing relevant in the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue when he quoted certain statements from the record of this House of Commons in connection with the evidence given by Mr. Robarts, premier of the province of Ontario, before the joint committee.
In reference to the question posed by the hon. member for Acadia as to what will happen to our existing plans in Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the member for Niagara Falls, answered the question very simply by saying: No, no, no.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was not the member for Niagara Falls.


William Skoreyko: I might say this to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that her conduct in this house since this bill came before it could be likened to that of someone in a rogues gallery and would not be tolerated if she were not a lady.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member rose on this last occasion he has done nothing but attack one member after another on this side in a partisan fashion, and he is the hon. member who condemns this party on political partisan grounds.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, if the junior embryo would listen to the facts-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


William Skoreyko: Perhaps if the hon. member for Hamilton West would restrain himself he might-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, for goodness sakes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.

Canada Pension Plan


William Skoreyko: I know what your responsibility is in this House of Commons. It is nothing more than to-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, order. There is so much noise in this committee the Chair is not able to hear sufficiently well to appreciate the finer points of the arguments which are being advanced. Perhaps we can now get back to a consideration of clause 91.


William Skoreyko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should now like to return to the question posed earlier during this debate in respect of that which will happen to existing pension plans in so far as provincial government employees and school teachers are concerned. I wrote down the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of this matter of provincial government employees. He said that this was a matter for provincial government decision. I should like to know whether provincial governments have the authority or the right to refuse to participate in the Canada pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, the provincial governments have the right to refuse in respect of their own employees. This was dealt with during our consideration of clause 6(l)(ii).


William Skoreyko: I appreciate that answer, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify the situation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be only a couple of minutes and I know that the ministers will bear with me. Both ministers have tried to be very clear as to the government's position with regard to the feasibility of regulations for the integration of the 5,000 plans. Are there regulations which will enable a private plan to be integrated with the Canada pension plan? I ask that question of the Minister of National Revenue, and perhaps he could answer because the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in her seat. Are there regulations set out which will enable a private plan to be integrated with this one?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, as I explained earlier, it is not within the power of the federal government to force private plans to integrate in any particular way with the federal plan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I quite realize that the persons who are appointed to manage the private plan have a choice with regard to whether or not they wish their plan to be
[The Deputy Chairman.]
integrated. I am also well aware of the fact that the Canada pension plan is compulsory and people have no choice with regard to whether or not they pay into it. What do you want them to do?-forget about the money they have already paid into a company plan, a union plan or whatever type of plan it may be? Surely the minister does not expect them to do that.
First of all, the Canada pension plan is compulsory. That is the first step. Let us face facts. Let us put everything on the table. The fact is that these other plans will be subjected to compulsion. On the basis of these two facts I say to the ministers, are they drawing up regulations? Will regulations be made which will make provision for the integration of a pension plan? I say "a pension plan" because apparently the government has not categorized the 5,000 plans.


John Carr Munro: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Would the parliamentary secretary allow the hon. member for Acadia to finish his point? I gather he was just reaching the end and perhaps he should be allowed to finish it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the co-operation you have shown me. I appreciate it. I was almost finished the point I was trying to make. I want to make it abundantly clear. This is the regulations section we are dealing with, and before I was interrupted the question I was trying to pose was, has the government studied the feasibility of making any regulations to permit the integration of a private pension plan? I say "a private pension plan" because I am not going to pursue further the categorization of the 5,000 pension plans already in existence. We know that the federal civil servants are already included and in that regard I mean also the armed services and the R.C.M.P. But outside of the scope of federal jurisdiction has the government given any consideration to regulations that would facilitate the integration of a private pension plan? It is a simple question. I wonder whether the minister would care to answer at this time.


Edgar John Benson: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The minister
obviously feels that he has answered the question before. I realize the hon. member may not be satisfied with the answer-would the hon. member kindly resume his seat- but he must know that he cannot go on ask-

ing the same question all evening. If the hon. member is not satisfied with the answer given, his recourse is to vote against the section whenever it comes to a vote, but I would urge him to co-operate with the other members of the committee, who are apparently satisfied with the clause or in any event are not asking questions, and to accept the answers given up until now by the minister although the hon. member may not be satisfied with them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to thank you for your counsel, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to hold up the passage of the clause in any way. I have not been in the house when we have been dealing with every clause but I am sure you and the minister will agree that I have been here for the discussion of every clause in which I am specifically interested. I have tried to facilitate the passage of this legislation by staying out of any arguments over other clauses.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member is not relevant. He should direct his comments to clause 91.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am just coming to it. I do not mean to be unduly lengthy. I was simply pointing out that I have tried to facilitate the passage of this legislation and I simply ask this question. Do both ministers want me to accept that their answer to the question I have posed is a flat "no", that they have given no consideration to the matter, that they have made no study of the setting up of regulations which would provide for the integration of a private pension plan? That is the question. Have they considered such regulations? Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not want me to let this matter drop, firmly convinced that she has not looked at this problem. I know she must have. I know the thoroughness of the minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. These remarks are entirely out of order. The hon. member for Churchill.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question of the hon. member for Acadia may I say I think this is a very important point and I too should like to know the answers. As I understood the answers to the questions posed by the hon. member for Acadia, the Minister of National Health and Welfare answered "no" to this specific question, but when the Minister of National Revenue was asked whether con-
Canada Pension Plan
sideration had been given to providing facilities whereby these plans could be integrated his answer-I am not quoting him exactly- was to the effect that he did not feel the government should be able to force these plans into integration with the Canada pension plan. This is not the question at all. One of the ministers has said "no" and the other has said that the government does not feel it should be able to force these plans to integrate. Far be it from me to think that the government should be able to do that, but along with the hon. member for Acadia I should like to know what consideration has been given to the provision of regulations to facilitate the integration of such plans. This is a very important question because I am sure all members of the house have had inquiries from many workers across Canada who belong to these other plans, wanting to know whether their plan can be integrated with the Canada pension plan if they should desire to do so.
I hope you will not say I am straying away from the clause, Mr. Chairman, but while I am on my feet I should like to say that it has been mentioned two or three times tonight and has been brought to the attention of the house that this debate has been carried on too long.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I know it has been said two or three times before but it is out of order. I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to clause 91.


Robert Simpson: I am posing the question the hon. member for Acadia posed because it is not that we are not satisfied with the answer, but that I do not think we have an answer. I should like to know whether or not consideration has been given or will be given, or if the minister can assure us that regulations will be set up whereby pension plans can integrate with this plan if they so desire? Personally, I may say most people I know belonging to private plans are not desirous of integrating with the Canada pension plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I say once again, Mr. Chairman, no consideration has been given under clause 91 to regulations dealing with integration of private plans because the federal government has no jurisdiction to do so.


Robert Simpson: Then, throughout the discussion of this Canada pension plan, throughout the discussion of the first version, the second version and the third version, it has always been my understanding, although I

Canada Pension Plan
cannot say I have heard either minister say so, there will be a provision for the integration of these plans. People have been led to believe that it will be possible to have integration of these plans.
Now, the minister says that the government does not have jurisdiction to force other plans to come into the Canada pension plan. We ask, will they not consider providing facilities so that these plans can come in if they wish to do so?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I just add one thing about the Canada pension plan? The white paper, dated August, 1965, reads in part as follows, page 22:
The adjustment of private pension plans cannot be prescribed through the Canada pension plan. Those responsible for each private pension plan, will be free to decide whether or not they wish to make some modification in their plan.
This has been the government's position from the beginning to the end, since it knows its constitutional position. No person has misled the house or the country as to what it is we are legislating upon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a question? If that statement in the white paper is correct, does it mean that if the minister or the government is unable to come to an agreement with these private pension plans, whether they are union plans or other private plans, the people concerned will be paying double for their pension?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am glad to give my hon. friend the lecture in law which he needs. The federal government has nothing to do with private pension plans. It is not possible for the federal government to deal with employers or employees regarding their private contractual rights.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have no doubt that hon. members agree we have one of the most distinguished counsel in the Minister of National Health and Welfare and we realize we are able to take lectures in jurisprudence from the minister, but we realize also she is not always the best witness. I am going to ask her this question again: Are these people exempt, that is the people who pay into private pension plans, or do they pay double, not only under the federal plan but under their union or provincial plan or any other plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am going to give my hon. friend credit for asking a legitimate question to which he wants an answer. Unless any province, by 30 days after the proclamation

of this act declares that it intends to pass comparable legislation to the Canada pension plan-I should say, in the absence of such action by any province or provinces, the Canada pension plan will apply to all individuals who are in pensionable employment as described earlier in the bill and referred to many times in the past two or three weeks. This means that it applies to individuals who may very well already have private pension plans. I think we have mentioned a figure of about 5,000 pension plans. I have used this figure which I heard the premier of Ontario use many times. Pension plans are of a dozen different kinds; almost every one is different. As I understand it, most pension plans have come into being by the joint action of the employer and the employee, with either insurance companies, trust companies or in some cases the annuities branch of the federal government as the third party, that is the carrier or in some cases the trustee.
In other instances there are private pension plans where the employer alone holds the funds. There are other plans, such as I think some teachers plans, in which there is really just a bookkeeping entry. There is no fund anywhere. It is by bookkeeping alone that certain moneys are set aside for the superannuation of some employees. Almost every plan in every province is different from the next one. Each of these is a private contractual right which is the business of the people who are covered by the plan and their employer. It is just as if the provision related to the wages of an individual employee. The federal government cannot and does not propose to step between employer and employee to dictate, to persuade or otherwise attempt to influence what they do with respect to those plans. In many cases there will be, as my colleague explained, decking-that is, the Canada pension plan, as a basis, will move in and there will remain in existence without any change the private pension plan which is already in existence.
However, some very poor pension plans may, in some instances, be dropped and possibly other pension plans may be changed in that the provision of benefits to individual workers will be enriched by the Canada pension plan. Some pension plans will be integrated as the federal superannuation scheme will be with the Canada pension plan, so that the individual who gets his pension will get it all in one bunch, as it were, without being aware that there are two different schemes. The federal government's business is not to say what should happen in any individual

case. This is up to the people concerned. Everyone in the insurance field, everyone in the trust field, all actuaries, all provincial governments, all individuals who have to deal with provincially operated plans, such as teachers, municipal employees, understand this perfectly. There is no question at all from the people who are dealing with these employers. They understand it and at least the employees in the larger unions understand it. I believe the federation of agriculture, the farm unions and the congress of labour, and I believe the professional associations have considered it and understood it. I really do not believe, Mr. Chairman, it is too much to ask the hon. member for Bow River finally also to understand it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one further question? No one has questioned the fact that these people may understand it, because I know they always have at their elbow the best advice, whether it is a union or a private enterprise. They may understand it, but do they endorse the double charge? Do the united mine workers of America, for example, understand and endorse that situation, where you have a dual collection from those employees? They may have submitted a brief, but if they have endorsed it I should like to know.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot really answer that because it depends upon the unions to which my hon. friend is referring. Many of them made representations to the joint committee. I would think that most employees would endorse decking, that is having them both, if they did not have to pay for the whole thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they did so before the joint committee.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It really depends on how much money is going into it. The total contribution is 3.6 per cent of wages from $600 to $5,000. I am speaking now of employer-employee contributions. It will depend on whether people have 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 per cent of their wages already going into a private pension plan. In many cases it may be that employees and employers would prefer integration to decking-rather than having to pay in a total of 13 or 14 per cent-and this might mean a cut-back in the percentage going into a private scheme. If the total contribution was only one half or 1J per cent they might decide it would be a good thing to deck the plans and have the double benefit.
Canada Pension Plan
For instance, with regard to one of the schemes I mentioned earlier, a large automotive company has a plan for which the employers pay all the contributions, and it may very well be in negotiations that unions will press for decking. There are so many plans that we cannot say for each one. It will depend on the people concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the civil service organization of Canada endorse this plan, or does the minister say that in future they will work out something for the integration of both plans?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I have said many times, integration has been worked out between the Canada pension plan and civil service superannuation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked if their organization endorsed this plan? Do the civil servants want to be covered by the government plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The whole method of integration was worked out in consultation with their association.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe the minister did not understand me. She said she was a real student of jurisprudence. I have never questioned that, and she is also a lady. Does the civil service organization endorse this legislation? Did it ask for it?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister has pretty well answered the questions I had in mind, but I have been speaking to union people who assume they will integrate themselves by paying the 1.8 per cent, with the employers paying the other 1.8 per cent, so that their over-all pension scheme will remain at the same level. But there are other unions which have negotiated plans with employers, and the executive officers of these unions have received a mandate from their members to assure that their present plans remain in effect. The minister has gone over this ground fairly well by saying this will be a matter of decking the plans, but in such a decking quite a burden will be placed on companies and individual workers.
A lot of individuals may want to go along with the idea of decking, and possibly some companies could afford to do that. But is the government contemplating anything to alleviate a situation in which a union has given its executive officers a mandate to assure that their present plans will stay in effect? In some cases neither the company nor the individual

Canada Pension Plan
employee could afford decking and will require legislation which will permit integration.
The hon. member for Bow River mentioned the united mine workers, and I am quite sure the Minister of Labour has brought it to the attention of both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue that the united mine workers in my area do not have a negotiated pension plan and receive only a gratuity.
Based on the last pension plan which the minister introduced, this would have meant we would have voted a pension based on $5 per month but at the risk of losing the $75 gratuity which the Dominion Coal Company pays its retired workers. That company has always refused to negotiate a pension plan, arguing that it is paying 2 or 3 per cent to old age security funds. The Minister of Labour also knows that the company lops $35 off the gratuity they pay a miner whenever he qualifies for the old age pension.
There is a risk that we will adopt a pension program which will result in every united mine worker in Cape Breton losing the gratuity he receives from the Dominion Coal Company. I hope the Minister of Labour has made his colleagues aware of this situation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: I ask one simple question. I am not going to engage in a harangue about it. Decking could take place quite easily but in many cases individuals will not be able to afford decking, and possibly certain companies could not afford it either. Is the government contemplating such a situation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This, of course, can happen because it is the business of the employer and employee to decide what percentage of wages they want to go into future security. If it is 10 per cent that the total comes to, and if that is too much, they will cut back on their private plan. But this does not mean that anyone in the private plan will lose any benefits or any of the funds presently there, because these are all contractual obligations.
As my hon. friend knows, the federal government has always permitted income tax exemptions with respect to pension contributions. That is going to be continued, and perhaps my colleague in national revenue may be able to explain this in greater detail. It will still provide an incentive to people to provide for their old age.

The Canada pension plan deals with 25 per cent of average lifetime earnings, which leaves plenty of room for other things. It will be recalled that in the first Canada pension plan the figure was scaled from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. In the next one it was 20 per cent and now it is 25 per cent, exactly in the middle of the original proposal. Therefore there is still 75 per cent of income during a working man's life which he will want to try and compensate for some way when he reaches retirement, and he may well do this by decking or integration.
For instance, to give an example there is the federal civil service plan which, in the upper echelons, represents something like 70 per cent of the last 10 years of earnings. If the Canada pension plan were added to that you would have civil servants retiring with 95 per cent of their salaries. It is a wonderful thing, I think, from the civil servant's point of view, but I am not so sure that the rest of the country will be prepared to support it. And this is without any other provision they might make, of course, with bonds, annuities, savings, real estate, and things of that kind. Nor, I am informed, would civil servants want to pay the additional contribution that would be necessary. All this, be it remembered, is in addition to the $75 a month which is paid in connection with old age security.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the minister will realize that when I mention this decking procedure I am speaking of the individuals and companies that are at the maximum now, and also tying in with them a union which may have given its executive officers a mandate to hold fast on the negotiated pension plan which they now have. Assuming both the individuals and the company are at the maximum amount they can claim-I realize that any such plan is the business of both the union and the company-and they have negotiated to the extent of their ability to pay on both sides, and the union officials have a mandate to stick with the company plan which they have arranged and negotiated, then the decking procedure is going to be above and beyond their ability to pay. All I ask is, will the government contemplate such a situation and possibly prepare itself for integration at a later date?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder if we could allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's



II, 1965

[Stage Direction]
question? It was a very interesting question and I am sure it deserves an answer.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It is an interesting and important question, Mr. Chairman, and probably the minister would like to think it over overnight. It is ten o'clock.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the committee would be willing to attempt to finish this clause and maybe another clause-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. There is no possibility of even considering it; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has called it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, my question concerned the disturbing report in yesterday's Chronicle-Herald, that three men had testified under oath before the public accounts committee of the province of Nova Scotia legislature that they had been required to kick back to certain contact men a portion of the money that their trucks earned in highway construction work on the trans-Canada highway in Pictou county; that they had to do this as a condition of having their trucks work on the project.
The testimony of these three men suggests that there have been very highly irregular practices of the meanest sort in the administration of a shared cost program. The federal government is paying 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway projects in Nova Scotia, and therefore this parliament must concern itself with the investigation being carried on in the public accounts committee in the Nova Scotia legislature and being spearheaded by Peter Nicholson, the leader of the opposition. It is true that contracts are let by the provincial government and the expenditures are administered by the provincial government. It is my understanding, however, that in these shared cost programs the basis of agreement between the federal
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion government and the province is to the effect that patronage practices shall not be used and that all citizens shall have an equal opportunity to obtain employment in the construction work.
Last year we heard reports from Nova Scotia that shared cost programs were being endangered by premature announcements of projects by one or other of the governments, and it was established that joint announcements should occur on all projects. This present situation which provides evidence of a type of patronage practice that one would have expected to have disappeared from this country many years ago, appears to me to constitute a much greater threat to the system of shared cost programs. To require hard working truckers to pay part of their meagre income with which they must support their families to a political party or its agents is the most despicable practice of which I have ever heard. If as the evidence suggests this has been happening, I would ask the Minister of Public Works to consult with the Minister of Labour as to the desirability of creating a stipulation in all shared cost programs with the provinces that all hiring done by construction companies on the project, both of labour and of trucks, shall be done through the national employment service. Such a provision would bar the possibility of any government using these shared cost programs as a corrupt source of party funds.
The investigation is continuing before the Nova Scotia public accounts committee, and I would be quick to admit that it would be premature for the federal government to take action before these hearings are concluded, even though the testimony that these payments were made has already been given. It may be that a judicial inquiry will be the outcome of these hearings. If, however, no inquiry is ordered by the provincial government, then the federal government has a responsibility to approach the government of Nova Scotia to suggest a judicial commission to investigate the administration of joint cost programs in that province. This is because of the fact that we have much to come in the future. We have commitments to further expenditure on trans-Canada highway development in Nova Scotia. There are developments through the Atlantic development board of a joint cost sharing nature, and others, and for that reason it is quite important.
I would ask that the Minister of Public Works, in the event I have mentioned, contact the premier of Nova Scotia and attempt
12274	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to reach agreement on having a judicial inquiry established. I am quick to say, Mr. Speaker, that the premier of Nova Scotia may not have known that this type of political collection was going on; but certainly as leader of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia he is now in a position, the matter having been raised in committee, to find out very quickly whether misguided members of his party have been enforcing such collections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Find out about what has been going on at Ottawa, let alone Nova Scotia.


Gerald Augustine Regan: If he finds that this is the case, knowing as we all do that shared cost programs depend on mutual trust between governments, I call on the premier not to wait until all the details are dragged out in committee. Let him state now whether he condones the practice or condemns it. If he does not approve of what has been done let him show it by acting now so that his action will yet appear to be voluntary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Let him show that he is not the sort of man who would sit back in the hope that the facts will not be uncovered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rise on a point of order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -I did not get the floor until 10.05, and I had my hon. friend from St. John's East check the time. I have seven minutes and, as I say, I did not get the floor until 10.05.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are two points of order to consider at the moment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, surely this is a direct abuse of the rules which were established for this house. The hon. member has been attacking a provincial premier in the House of Commons. It is out of order and unheard of.


Howard Russell MacEwan: He could not get into the Nova Scotia legislature so he had to do it here.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would remind you and the hon. member for Halifax-he may get around to asking about snowblowers tomorrow-that Your Honour has already called the hon. member's allotted time and I am now awaiting the answer from the responsible minister, who is not even in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to hon. members that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is, in my opinion, quite valid.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member said he had a timekeeper. I would remind him that the Chair also has a timekeeper. There appears to be a discrepancy between the timekeepers. The hon. member said he rose at 10.05 and the Chair called him at 10.11 or thereabouts. I do not think the hon. member should quarrel about a few seconds one way or another. The hon. member's time having expired, the minister or his representative should now be allowed to reply.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Order. Sit down.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege and I should be allowed-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to speak on the point of order. If you were to rule in that regard then I would now speak on that ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that there is no question of privilege. The point of order has been settled and I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, you have not yet given me the opportunity of speaking on the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that he must resume his seat when the Chair has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has made a ruling. If the hon. member wishes to appeal that ruling it is his privilege to do so, but the question has been settled. The parliamen-

tary secretary to the Minister of Public Works will now be given the opportunity-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Throw him out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to be heard on the point of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To what point of privilege does the hon. member for Halifax refer?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege because I am entitled under the provisional standing order to seven minutes from the time I am given the floor.


An hon. Member:: You have had seven minutes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I have been given exactly five minutes, and not one second more. I need 45 seconds to complete what I wish to say. I do not need the two minutes to which I am entitled. I have only been given five minutes but I only require 45 seconds. I suggest that Mr. Speaker check with his timekeeper, because I am sure he will find that what I state is the case. The debate that was under way before the hour of adjournment continued until five minutes after ten, and then-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I can only suggest to the hon. member that the Chair is not infallible in the keeping of time. Perhaps the hon. member is infallible in this regard, but in any event a decision has been reached by the Chair. I suggest to the hon.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion member that it is a rather childish suggestion that he should be given further time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I rule against that suggestion and there is no question of privilege.
I now recognize the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few brief remarks to make. In the matter of payment of claims for trans-Canada highway contracts the federal Department of Public Works is tied in with the provincial departments of public works as this is a cost sharing program.
The procedure is that the province prepares a claim and the department's district engineer investigates the claim. If he is satisfied that the claim is in order-that it complies with the terms of the act and that the work has been completed in accordance with the standards set out in the regulations-the district engineer certifies the claim after an audit has been made, and the amounts specified have been spent by the province. The claim is then forwarded to Ottawa for a further audit and certification. If found in order, the claim is processed by the chief treasury officer for payment to the province.
The points raised in the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, who is unavoidably absent from this chamber due to a previous appointment in respect of departmental business.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10:15 p.m.



END OF VOLUME XI