1965-03-02

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Si. Ann) presented the sixth and seventh reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the seventh report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce the appointment of Hon. N. T. Nemetz, judge of the supreme court of British Columbia, as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into and to investigate charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963. I will be in a position if the house agrees, Mr. Speaker, to table the order in council later this afternoon.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister respecting the terms of reference and the authority granted to the judicial inquiry which he announced today would be held by Mr. Justice Nemetz. Will an opportunity be afforded to all political parties to have representatives or counsel at this inquiry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not given consideration to this matter. The order in council establishing the commissioner has now been signed and will be tabled, as I said, later in the afternoon.
20220-751J


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cha-pleau.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I had wanted to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but due to his absence I shall let it stand until later.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1963-64 CROP YEAR

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in Winnipeg today the Canadian wheat board is announcing the final payment on wheat delivered to the board during the crop year 1963-64. Producers delivered a total of 563,875,208 bushels of wheat to the board in the 1963-64 crop year. This is the largest volume of wheat ever delivered by producers to the board in a single crop year. The amount of the final payment to be distributed to producers is approximately $272 million. This final payment is a record in the history of board operations.
This is not, I need hardly remind members of the house, a payment by the government of Canada; it represents the net returns of the Canadian wheat board in the marketing of western Canadian wheat for the 1963-64 crop year. Of the total payment approximately $18 million will be distributed to producers of Durum wheat.
The average final payment for wheat other than Durum is 48.725 cents per bushel, which is also a record. The average final payment for Durum wheat is 42.317 cents per bushel. These average payments compare with 40.181 cents per bushel for grades of wheat other than Durum, and 64.780 cents per bushel for Durum wheat delivered by producers in the 1962-63 crop year. The board will commence issuing final payment cheques to producers on March 8.
The final payment is being made on a grade basis, as prescribed in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The rates of final payment for the principal grades of wheat are as follows:
,11870

Grain Payments
Final payment
Red spring wheat grades	(cents per
bushel)
No. 1 Manitoba northern	'	46.9No. 2 Manitoba	northern	47.8No. 3 Manitoba	northern	49.3No. 4 Manitoba	northern	50.0No. 5 wheat	60.3No. 6 wheat	63.3Feed wheat	64.2
This announcement by the wheat board speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the government may I add our congratulations to all those concerned in the growing, handling, transportation and selling of the 1963 crop. It was a magnificent achievement from which all parts of Canada benefited enormously. Never before has so much wheat of such high quality been produced. Never before has so much wheat been , handled and moved and sold so quickly and at such high prices. In particular may I extend congratulations to the Canadian wheat board, who are entrusted by parliament with responsibility for the sale of the prairie wheat crop on behalf of western producers. The handling of the 1963 crop is not only another evidence of the soundness of the board system of marketing; it is a tribute to the competence of the board and its staff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I believe all Canadians can join with the minister in congratulating the Canadian wheat board for the tremendous job done last year. I think the business interests in this country realize now that when the grain of Canada sells not only in great volume but at good prices the whole country benefits.
I think we received an indication of the average amount in an answer to a question posed by the hon. member for Melville last week, in which he asked for average prices during the year. The average price for No. 1 northern at Fort William was approximately $2.05 which would indicate, if considered in the light of the amount of grain that is handled through Vancouver and Churchill, that the average received for grain sold out of all our ports last year must have been $2.08 approximately. This would mean that over and above the $1.50 already paid to the farmers in initial payments there was 58 cents left over. In relation to the 58 cents, let me state that the final payment for No. 1 wheat averaged 46.9 cents. So the next question in our minds, Mr. Speaker, is when was the pool closed off; because apparently in the last few
days of pool operations the returns were decreased.
I am not going to quarrel with the minister in respect of the final payment because I know the technique used by the board in settling the amount of this payment. Generally speaking it can be assumed to be quite satisfactory, but I should like to ask hon. members to consider the feelings of the minister next year when he rises to announce the final payments on the 1964-65 pool.
Mr. Speaker, the pool was closed off early this year so the full impact of the tremendous drop in price would not be felt in respect of this final payment. I suggest to the minister that he should fully enjoy this moment, because the minister who is in charge of the Canadian wheat board next year will have to face up to the fact that because of the lack of action in protecting the Canadian wheat board, and in view of the political decisions made before a price war started, the announcement then will not be so pleasurable.
This announcement by the minister does not involve just a question of pleasure. In my mind I see farmer after farmer in western Canada, having undertaken obligations with regard to land, machinery and other things he wants on the basis of $2 wheat, now having to face up to the fact that next year's final payment will be a price of approximately 20 cents less per bushel. This works out to $200 drop for every 1,000 bushels the farmer sells.
I congratulate the minister and join with him in the pleasure of this announcement today, but he is living the life of Riley. He is enjoying the policies of the previous government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -that were instrumental in finding these new markets, that started these long term agreements and slowly worked up the price by 50 cents a bushel. Whoever the minister may be next year, when he makes a similar announcement he will have to live the life of the Liberal party, or the opposite of the life of Riley.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement which has just been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the final price for the 1963-64 crop year will be welcomed by the wheat producers of Canada, I am sure. This happy situation results from a combination of two fortuitous circumstances, a good crop of high quality combined with a shortage of wheat in the world, particularly because of

poor crops in the Soviet union and in China, It is fortunate we were able to avail ourselves of this circumstance, and I am sure the government and members of the House of Commons generally are happy that the farmers are to have such a good return. The minister himself has pointed out, of course, that this is not a government gift to the farmers. This is merely the final payment from the money received by the wheat board, which has the task of selling the farmers' wheat.
However, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we cannot look to the present crop year with the same optimism. The president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool said recently, I believe, that the decline in the price of wheat which has already taken place means a reduction in the farmers' income this year of some $50 million to $75 million.
The reports at hand now indicate there are very large surpluses of wheat in Argentina and Australia together with an increase in the wheat crop in the European common market countries and an increase in the crop of the Soviet union of some 500 million bushels. This will mean that the problem of selling wheat at a price that will give the farmers a reasonable return in this crop year is going to be considerably more difficult than it was in the past crop year. Therefore I do hope that the minister, in conjunction with the wheat board, is taking cognizance of the change in the world situation with regard to both price and markets.
I would hope that in the very near future the minister will take the very first opportunity that presents itself to place before the house the government's wheat marketing policy, in order that we may know what it is and in order that the farmers may have some assurance that the loss in farm income is not going to be too great in the present crop year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we in this party join with the minister and the spokesmen for the other parties in welcoming this announcement today. I am not going to repeat many of the things that have been said, but certainly everyone must realize that an injection of $272 million into the economy of the country through the producers of wheat in western Canada is going to be beneficial to all Canadians no matter where they live. We are very happy to receive the news that this is the highest payment on record. We had some indications a few days ago that this was going to be so,
Grain Payments
and now that the final payment has been confirmed at an average of 48.75 cents we know it is not only the highest such payment per bushel but also the highest total payment in Canadian history.
We are apprehensive about the future, Mr. Speaker, because it is no secret that there has been some decline in the international wheat market recently. I know the minister has expressed concern about this very matter. I hope they are successful in negotiating with the other partners to the international wheat agreement so the situation will not deteriorate to the point where there will be open warfare, and that some kind of agreement can be reached to perhaps get the price back where it was.
Another thing that happened during the selling of wheat during the last crop year was that some 30 million bushels extra were milled into flour before being exported from Canada. This in fact provided a 24 hour, 7 day week production for all the flour mills in Canada. I should like to congratulate the minister especially, or the wheat board, or whoever was responsible for getting this amount of flour into the total volume of wheat during that period, because it was certainly a boon to the flour milling industry.
To be fair, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said that wheat prices had declined something like 20 cents a bushel on the average but this, of course, is simply not true. This is the extreme. The average is perhaps down somewhere between 12 cents and 15 cents, or at about the same level it was before this large sale to the Soviet union. He suggested also that the pool had been closed early so it would not reflect some of the declines of recent days. This also is not the exact truth. I believe the wheat pool for the 1963-64 crop year was closed at approximately the same date as it was a year ago.
At a time when every Canadian in the country should have welcomed this announcement and given credit where it belongs, I had hoped that for once the previous minister of agriculture could have given the credit to those to whom it belonged. As I say, all through those years his government was in office they attempted to transfer credit for any grain sales to the policies of the government; in fact we know that he held up the announcement of the sale to red China for three days so he could get over there and make the announcement. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, we are never going to get that degree of modesty for which I was hoping on this auspicious occasion.

Grain Payments
We certainly welcome this announcement. We in this party give full credit where the credit belongs, and that is to the Canadian wheat board and all those other agencies who so effectively delivered the grain on time so that we had a completely satisfactory marketing year.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, one has but to listen to the comments of the leaders of the two main parties in this house to realize what can happen when one of them is in office and the other in the opposition.
We are proud of the success achieved by western farmers in their wheat production for 1963-64. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is certainly to be congratulated for the splendid job he has done in the sale of our wheat. Our congratulations should also go especially to the Canadian wheat board, an agency which is mainly responsible for the success of our western farmers.
I hope with all my heart that my province can finally have such a body, which could be called the Canadian farm products board or by any other name. But we would be glad if there were such a board in the province of Quebec. It would then be in a position to deal with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in order to sell our products.
Following the announcement made a little earlier, I realize that it is essential for a province to have such an agency to obtain a reasonable price for its products.
The minister told us that Canada has never known such an era of prosperity. It is necessary of course to restrain the minister and the opposition feels that he goes too far. We, in the province of Quebec, did not benefit from that prosperity to a great extent, especially if we consider the prices now paid for feed grain. If that abundance of wheat had resulted in somewhat lower prices for feed grain in Quebec, I would agree that our province would have felt some measure of prosperity; but no, that abundance of wheat has no influence on prices in the province of Quebec.
The statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes me feel very happy for our western people. But here again I am not prepared to believe that the minister alone is responsible for the bumper crop of the western provinces in 1963-64. I will never believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has come to the point where he thinks he is the good Lord himself.

Such bountiful crop is due, in the first place, to perfect weather conditions, the work of the farmers, and also of the Canadian wheat board; it is the combination of these factors which has resulted in that situation and made it possible to take advantage of that wonderful opportunity for the marketing of our wheat, in short, the year just had to be favourable.
I come to the conclusion that the successful crop in the west was simply caused by wonderful weather conditions.
What would happen should a disaster occur in 1965? The westerners have had such an experience in the past.
Consequently, I ask the minister to stop making announcements of this kind; besides, he should bring out the true facts and, above all, think not only in terms of wheat, but also in terms of everything that is produced in each province of Canada.



On the orders of the day:


Mrs. Margaret Konantz (Winnipeg South):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of earlier comments that were made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, will the minister give the final wheat payments that were made for each year since 1958?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: No doubt this is a very interesting question, but it will be even more interesting when it is answered in detail on the order paper.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table, in English and French, the white paper respecting the amendment to the constitution of Canada.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice whether the white paper that was tabled today by the Minister of Justice will be referred to a committee of this house for study.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we first wanted to make the white paper available as early as possible to all members of the house and all those outside the house who have a genuine interest in this matter of formally amending the constitution. As the Prime Minister has stated already in this house, the final procedure to be followed in dealing with the matter in the house has not been definitely determined. As the Prime Minister has said, it will depend upon certain factors relating to the procedure which will have been adopted, inter alia, by the provincial governments.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister of Justice would say if the government would take into account, amongst other factors in considering the procedure, the desirability of letting members of parliament hear the comments of qualified experts on constitutional law in respect of the contents of the white paper, in a committee.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interpret the words of the Prime Minister, but I took it that this was implied in the statement he made the other day.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Does the government intend to set up a special committee of the house to consider that matter?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this last question is contained in the answers I gave to the two previous questions.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that I have laid on the table today copies in English of the report of the trustees of the maritime transportation unions. The report in French will be available just as soon as the translation is completed.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the
Increase in Steel Price hon. member for Port Arthur, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the unjustified and inflationary increase in the price of steel announced recently by the Steel Company of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -which will have the effect of raising the price of a wide range of commodities purchased by the Canadian people and will result in a substantial increase in the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the new standing order 26 the proper procedure is to file this motion with you, and if Your Honour has any doubt about the matter of urgency you will permit me, I trust, to make some comments in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the new rule as accepted by the house for this session, the Speaker is entitled to ask any hon. member to explain why there is special urgency, and at this time I would call upon the hon. member to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the house I am not permitted to present any argument, but I do wish to apply myself to the matter of urgency respecting the subject matter of this motion. As the motion points out, the Steel Company of Canada has announced an increase in the price of steel of some 4 per cent, increasing steel prices by some $5 to $7 per ton, depending on grade. Other steel companies have announced that it is their intention to follow suit.
I would argue that it is most urgent that this matter be dealt with immediately and that opportunity for debate should be given this afternoon, because in my opinion a rise in steel prices will set off a chain reaction that will result in a very substantial increase in the cost of living. The increase in the price of steel will reflect itself in the cost of cars, trucks, tractors, farm implements, appliances such as washing machines and refrigerators, building materials, machines, machine tools. All these will be affected. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, eventually every housewife in Canada will feel the impact of this increase. This will affect the budgets of municipalities, provincial governments and departments of the federal government; therefore it will reflect itself in increased taxes all across this country. People who are desirous of building homes, office buildings,

Increase in Steel Price factories, will all feel the effect of an increase in the price of structural steel and building rod.
This concern is shared by many people. Yesterday the national farmers union, in presenting their brief to the federal government, drew attention to this fact. They said:
We express our concern at the announcement on February 23, 1965, by the Steel Company of Canada Limited that it intends to increase the prices of bar mill products from $5 to $7 a ton.
They went on to point out that the inflationary implications in the rise of basic steel products are certain to have widespread repercussions.
They pointed out that they are particularly concerned about the effect this will have upon farm machinery, Upon repairs for that machinery, and the wide range of equipment which is required on the average farm. They also point out in their brief that they see no justification for this increase; and they gave to the government of Canada, on the second page of their brief, a summary of the steady rise in profits which the steel companies have enjoyed right from 1956 up to the present time.
My second reason, Mr. Speaker, for stressing the urgency of having a discussion of this matter at once is that it is urgent that the public have all the facts as to whether this price increase is justified. This has been called in question by a number of people. Last week the Prime Minister told the house that he had received a wire from Mr. William Mahoney, the Canadian director of the united steelworkers of Canada, in which Mr. Mahoney pointed out that in his opinion there was no justification whatsoever for this increase. He pointed out that the Steel Company of Canada had increased its profits from some $21,158,000 in 1957 to $43,630,000 in 1964. Mr. Mahoney felt that the government should take immediate action to suspend any increase in price until the matter had been investigated with a view to seeing whether these increases were justified.
Last Friday, Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, wrote the Prime Minister-I have a copy of the letter here-which he again asked the Prime Minister to take steps to suspend this increase in price until the whole justification for it had been investigated. He pointed out to the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister's statement in the house, to the effect that there had been no recent increases in price, was completely unsound and that there have

been adjustments which have had the effect of pushing up the price of steel.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could raise a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member is arguing in justification of his motion and is not addressing himself to the point which is before the house, namely the urgency of debate. I would ask that his argument be confined to that point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in your hands, but I am trying to confine myself to the matter of urgency. I would prefer to accept your judgment on the matter rather than that of the President of the Privy Council, who may be somewhat sensitive on this subject. I was pointing out that here are the national farmers union, the head of the steelworkers union and the president of the Canadian Labour Congress who have all expressed their concern. This surely underlines the urgency of debate, in order that this matter may be discussed at once. I point out that both Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Jodoin are members of the Canada economic council, whose recent report states that one of our objectives for the next five years is to keep some price stability. The action of the Steel Company of Canada in raising their prices by 4 per cent is destroying that stability and is setting in motion a chain reaction that could bring about further inflation and further increases in the cost of living.
There are two other points I want to make, Mr. Speaker. The first, very briefly, is that the people of Canada have a right to know who is responsible for this increase in the cost of living. I think it is urgent that the people know this. The companies have tried to give the impression that this is due to increased wages. In his wire to the Prime Minister, Mr. Mahoney pointed out that today the labour cost in a ton of steel is actually $5.36 less than it was in 1957. We think the public have a right to know who is guilty, who is responsible for this unjustified increase in price which can have such an inflationary effect upon our economy.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Moreau:: Is this more important than the Canada pension plan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member asks whether this is more important than the Canada pension plan. There is plenty of time to dispose of the Canada pension plan, but if steps are not taken by the government to stop this

spiral of inflation it will take away all the gains that the consumers of this country hope to get from the Canada pension plan.
The final reason for urgency, Mr. Speaker, is that I submit to Your Honour there is no other opportunity in this session for discussing this very important matter. There are no supply motions left. There are no departmental estimates on which this question can be raised. Therefore there is no opportunity available to the members of the house to discuss this matter, and there is no opportunity for the government to tell parliament and the people of Canada what they intend to do. We say that action now is vital, that any further delay would be fatal. We say that the government must act, and act in the next few days, or the repercussions from this increase in the price of steel will be reflected throughout our entire economy.
I point out that faced with a similar situation a few years ago the late President Kennedy acted, and acted promptly, and he received the support of the American people in so doing. We say the time has come to discuss this matter, so the government of Canada can tell the people of this country what action it intends to take under these serious circumstances.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I submit that Your Honour should not entertain this proposed motion, on two grounds. One is that the motion deals with the increase in the price of steel and is critical of that increase. Any motion moved under standing order 26 must relate to a matter which is within the jurisdiction of this house; and price control, which apparently is what the hon. member has in mind, is of course a matter which is under the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is this government policy?


Mr. Pickersgill:: It is the law.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker; it is an attempt to have the leader of the New Democratic party conform with the rules of the house instead of taking advantage of their abuse in order to get political speeches on the record. This practice is not permitted under the rules of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, is the President of the Privy Council allowed to impute motives? I am sure if I abuse the rules Your Honour is perfectly capable of drawing this fact to my attention. The fact that you have not done so means,
Increase in Steel Price therefore, that the remarks of the President of the Privy Council are a reflection on Your Honour, not on me.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my remarks as to why this motion is out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Just to clear up one little matter of doubt, I assure the hon. member that the Chair is quite able to look after itself, and I consider no reflection has been cast.


George James McIlraith: The motion is also out of order on the basis that it is the type of motion which contemplates legislation. Under the practice here, that type of motion cannot be made under standing order 26. In support of that argument I refer Your Honour to citation 100(8), which appears at page 91 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, where reference is made to the British rule. I shall only read the relevant part, although the whole paragraph is applicable. The Speaker said:
I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the house will allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house, because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject.
Then he went on to say that is not the purpose of the standing order.
It is not a question of the importance of the subject matter, which I think was acknowledged by the Minister of Finance the other day. It is the fact that the hon. member has no right to use standing order 26 in the way in which he contemplates using it; because he is seeking to demand or invite legislation by the government, whereas standing order 26 was never intended for that purpose. Therefore I respectfully submit that the hon. member's proposal is out of order.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, after the discussion which took place yesterday the views being expressed today would seem to be more or less surplusage. Your Honour took the stand yesterday that the motion I moved for the adjournment of the house to discuss

Increase in Steel Price a certain subject matter was not in order. It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who started out by saying that he was not going to argue his case. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything he left unargued I do not know what it is.
As a matter of fact, as I listened to him I could not help but recall that when he was premier of Saskatchewan he brought in legislation in that province-which was, of course, within the jurisdiction of the province-to control all prices in Saskatchewan. The legislation was passed and it was to be brought into effect by proclamation, but it was never proclaimed. The legislation provided a heavy penalty for anyone who broke the price level. If it had ever been brought in, Mr. Speaker, there would have been only three classes in Saskatchewan; those in jail, those waiting to get into jail, and those waiting to be tried.
In starting off in this way, Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to believe that I do not think the problem is a serious one. I think the government has been totally negligent in not taking the Canadian people into its confidence in this regard. The Prime Minister has not found it necessary to make any statement on the question. The Minister of Justice has not found it necessary to make one of his press announcements as to whether or not what is being done in any way constitutes a contravention of the Combines Investigation Act.
Personally I believe that the increase in the steel price will have tremendous inflationary results. At the same time I would point out that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials has also had such effect. If the government had acted in accordance with the request of the opposition, that increase would not have been put into effect. Each day hon. members opposite rise in their place and say it has had no effect at all, yet the average housebuilder in Canada today has to pay another $2,000 over the previous price. Certainly inflation has been going on and on. ft is not yet a galloping inflation, but it is very close to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. gentlemen over on that side laugh, and that is an indication of their reaction to this very serious problem.
The President of the Privy Council spoke with that authority which we admire, though sometimes his logic is not as good as his authority. If what he suggests is correct and


Your Honour so rules, then I think the course open to the Prime Minister is one which would make available to this house an opportunity to discuss this subject tomorrow, so that every member of this house may give full consideration to an inflationary matter which is today eroding the earnings of Canadians, and particularly those who are receiving pensions. If the suggestion is not regular, and Your Honour so holds, will the Prime Minister state that he will make available at once an opportunity for this house to discuss a matter serious in its import, dangerous to the economy of this country, and involving a problem that has not been faced in any way by this government, but indeed has been accelerated by the 11 per cent sales tax?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that the increase of from 4 per cent to 5 per cent in the price of steel in Canada is an important matter to all Canadians, but the question we as members of this house are required to address ourselves to at this time is whether there is urgency of debate.


An hon. Member:: Move over to the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Have you got another trip coming up to the Congo?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the cackling by the Conservative party stops so that other hon. members of this house can hear, perhaps we can get on with this matter very quickly.
As has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, I think we must consider what will be the result of an adjournment of the house for the purpose of a debate in respect of this subject, and what such a debate would achieve. According to the President of the Privy Council we do not possess the power to impose price control. Therefore we would not have the legislative authority to order the steel companies to roll back their prices, even if parliament wanted them to do so, and that is questionable. In view of that fact, what useful purpose could such a debate achieve?
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we are going to continually have to deal with these kinds of attempts to move motions under the provisions of standing order 26, and then listen to extended argument under the new temporary rule which allows Your Honour to seek advice from

members of this house, this would be an abuse of the intention of that new rule and perhaps we will have to review and revise the rule to hand back to Your Honour the exclusive right to make a decision without this kind of debate in presenting motions of this kind.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) expressed doubts as to the advisability of having the federal government set the price of steel. However, I should like to remind him that the Combines Investigation Act is a federal statute. Considering that, first, one company, and then all the other firms announced a similar increase in the price of steel, it may be that they have formed a combine.
One wonders about the reason for a price boost at this time and many people doubt that such an increase is justified. Perhaps the steel companies are taking this step to recover the money they put at the disposal of the Liberal party at the last federal election. That would certainly explain the government's tolerance toward them.
Mr. Speaker, if this increase is not justified, the government should make it its duty to protect the people. It is urgent and important, since the inflation of prices and the devaluation of currency must be prevented. The first concerned should still be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), because he is the one who should protect the value of Canadian currency and he will be responsible should this currency lose some of its value.
Coming hardly a few months after an 11 per cent increase in the sales tax on building materials, an additional 4 per cent increase in the price of steel will raise still further construction costs, at a time when our country seems to hope for a greater activity in this field.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this problem is one of the most important we must deal with, since it involves:
First, the protection of the value of our currency; second, the production of one of the basic materials of the whole secondary industry of our country, that is steel; third, an urgent matter, under the circumstances, because under standing orders of the house no other period of time has been provided before the end of this session to permit a debate on this question.
If we wait until the increases are effective to discuss this matter any discussion will then be useless because it would be practi-
Increase in Steel Price cally impossible to reverse the decision taken.
Therefore, we should not wait until steel prices have been increased. Besides, as we will have no other opportunity later on, I think that the time we should have the general debate on this matter is when the problem is first raised, especially in view of its importance.
Mr. Speaker, the matter is urgent because the Canadian people cannot shoulder at this time another increase in building material prices.
I think the government should willingly accept the discussion of this matter in order to enlighten the people on what is going on and let them realize that if the increase is necessary it will be made, but if it is not necessary, the members of the House of Commons will assume their responsibilities to prevent such an increase.


Mr. Speaker:: As has been pointed out by many hon. members, there is no doubt that this is an important matter, but that is not the position in which the Chair finds itself. As I said yesterday, what the Speaker has to decide is whether there is a prima facie case. As pointed out in Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, fourth edition, citation 100, paragraph 3, "urgency" within rule 26 does not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate. As I also suggested yesterday, the matter should be so pressing that public interest would suffer if it was not given immediate action. This principle is, of course, drawn from Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100 again, paragraph 2.
Citation 100, paragraph 8 of Beauchesne's fourth edition states:
What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs.
Perhaps I should stress at this time those two words "sudden emergency". Is the matter which has been proposed for discussion something which occurred so suddenly that it is in the nature of a national emergency, almost in the category of a catastrophe, which has taken place very quickly? Has it occurred so recently or so suddenly that the important business now before the house should be set aside to discuss it, and in this case the subject is the increase in steel prices? Yesterday I said:
It seems to me that any such sudden emergency should be sufficient to justify the setting aside of the important business of the house.

Increase in Steel Price
There is very important business on the order paper of the house and it does not seem to me that this matter, which has been under discussion for weeks, if not months, is so sudden and of such emergency proportions that the ordinary important business of the house should be set aside at this time to discuss it.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the decision of the Speaker not to allow the adjournment of the house to debate the question of increased steel prices, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether he is prepared within the next few days to make some provision whereby there can be a full discussion of this very serious matter that is causing a good deal of concern in many parts of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern, just as I appreciate the importance of this matter, and contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago I have made a statement in the house on the matter. If he will refer to Hansard for February 24 he will see it.


John George Diefenbaker: Most uninformative.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as an opportunity for debate is concerned, if we can dispose of the very urgent and important pension legislation, important subsequent legislation and then continue into the new session, we will have a speech from the throne in a matter of a few days when there will be an opportunity to debate this and other matters, and shortly after that we will be having a budget.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to make any statement of policy on this matter? The only statement the Prime Minister has made is one which I think leaves a very wrong impression, in that it indicates that hourly earnings in the steel industry rose by 26-J per cent when as a matter of fact the labour cost per ton of steel has actually gone down in the past seven years. "Will the Prime Minister make some statement and provide an opportunity for debate at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not propose to debate this matter now, but I will be glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion that I should make a further statement.
[Mr. Speaker.!


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that the house has been refused the opportunity to debate the increase in the price of steel, would the Prime Minister use his very important office to stop the increase in price, in the same way President Kennedy did in the United States about two years ago, which was the act of a statesman? I would ask the Prime Minister to act accordingly without delay.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the suggestion that I act in accordance with the action of the President of the United States; but the constitutional situation, among other things, is a little different in this country.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet passed any order in council extending the terms of reference of the Dorion commission. I ask him that in light of the reference in the press that it is expected he may be a witness before that commission. Will he say to the house whether he intends to be a witness, and does he intend to ask for the authority of the House of Commons in order to be such a witness?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last part of the question, if I am summoned to appear before the Dorion inquiry under their terms of reference I will, of course, appear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not know that would be irregular under the practice and procedure of parliament; that regardless of whether or not he is subpoenaed he must get leave from the House of Commons? I ask him, is he going to appear or is he going to allow the testimony of Deputy Commissioner Lemieux to remain in the records undenied except by a document issued by the Minister of Justice which was totally irregular?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, apparently the right hon. gentleman was inviting me to commit an irregularity, and I am grateful to him for informing me of the regularity of this situation. So far as the latter part of his question is concerned, I do not intend to

interfere with the proceedings of the Dorion commission.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very glad to have that said now, but why did the Prime Minister have the Minister of Justice interfere in the way he did by issuing a press release?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with yesterday, if not to the satisfaction of my right hon. friend. There was no interference.


John George Diefenbaker: Wasn't there? Ex parte interference. The way the minister administers the law is a disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



PROSECUTIONS FOR MISAPPLICATION OF INDIAN AGENCY FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Are the two men, William E. Grant and Joseph Armishaw, now being prosecuted by the government under the Criminal Code, the same two men referred to in the Auditor General's report for 1964, section 47, page 19, and recently dismissed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for gross misapplication of public funds at certain Indian agencies in the Yukon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me this is a question that can usefully be put on the order paper.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-USE IN COURT OF NONEXISTENT FEDERAL ACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is one which I believe to be of absolute urgency and of significant importance because it involves what I consider an abuse of parliament and an alleged forgery of the name of the Governor General of Canada.
Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a report in the Vancouver Province of February 27 indicating that in a court proceeding there it was disclosed that two alleged but non-existent acts of parliament had been used to circumvent the law of Canada, one being a bill for the annulment of a marriage and one a bill to marry certain people? Both these bills are alleged to have been passed by the House of Commons.
I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that according to this report both
Inquiries of the Ministry these documents, allegedly acts of the House of Commons and submitted in a court in British Columbia, bear the signature of George Vanier and under the signature "George Vanier" these words appear: "George Vanier, Governor General of Canada for Her Most Gracious Majesty, Elizabeth II, Regina, by the Grace of God".
May I ask the Prime Minister, recognizing the significance and importance of this report, whether it has been brought to his attention and whether an immediate full scale investigation will be undertaken to ascertain if there has been a forgery of the name of the Governor General. Will appropriate action be taken by his government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter has not been brought to my attention, but I will look into it at once.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF TRUSTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask a brief question of the Minister of Justice. Is the minister yet prepared to table the reports to the superintendent of bankruptcy, to which I have referred so many times?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table them, but I still have to decide whether I can table them.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REFERENCE BY QUEBEC MINISTER TO CULTURAL EXCHANGE WITH FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, that question is before the two present chairmen of the commission. The report exists, but we are waiting for their decision.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Did the federal government make rep-presentations to the government of the province of Quebec because Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, the minister of education for Quebec, used the words "international agreement" to describe the agreement on co-operation and exchange in the educational area passed recently between the French government and the government of the province of Quebec?
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house if the federal government made such representations and what was the nature of those representations?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a statement on this matter, possibly tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one I directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a while ago.
In his statement tomorrow, will the minister tell us whether such representations were made to the government of the province of Quebec, by whom and to whom they were made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will see tomorrow that there were no representations, but rather an arrangement agreed between the government of the province of Quebec, the French government and the government of this country.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a question asked me last Friday by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle as to Canada's intentions with regard to the serious wheat shortage in India. In reply I should like to point out that last fall the government announced that Canadian wheat valued at $7 million would be shipped to India under our normal Colombo plan procedures. This was done last autumn. The government also indicated at that time that the wheat situation would be kept under review to determine what, if anything, further Canada could do to help.
Because of the United States dock strike, shipments of the United States wheat contribution to India this year have been delayed and as a consequence particularly serious wheat shortages have developed in India and are likely to be critical over the next few months. India has therefore been seeking on an urgent basis alternate sources of supplies.
To help with this situation the Canadian government, in addition to the wheat grant mentioned above, has now decided to make a further grant of 100,000 tons of wheat. The shipment of this new gift will begin about mid-March and will go from Atlantic ports.


About one half of the amount involved will be Ontario wheat, with the remainder coming from western Canadian production. The total cost will be approximately $7 million, and a supplementary appropriation in this amount will be sought in the current fiscal year. I am sure the house will approve of this gift to India.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Will the minority report of Canada respecting the dual international control commission be made public and, if so, when?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that question is before the two present chairmen of the commission. The report exists, but we are waiting for their decision.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works?
Did the minister receive any representations from the city of Ottawa or other public bodies against the expropriation methods used by the national capital commission, particularly concerning a building located at the corner of Sparks and Bronson streets in Ottawa? What action does the minister intend to take in that respect?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such representations but I shall make an inquiry and reply to my hon. friend.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of

National Health and Welfare or to her parliamentary secretary?
Following the answer she gave on February 24 concerning bilingualism within the federal civil service, does the minister feel that bilingualism is necessary only when the province of Quebec is directly concerned and, second, what does she think of the rights of thousands of French Canadians who live outside the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me, with great respect to the hon. member, that this question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning that ruling.
Even if the reply was given in the house on orders of the day by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would explanations concerning the minister's thinking not be entirely called for? Even if questions on precisely the same subject are asked in the house during the question period, the minister made that statement publicly in the house and that is why we would like to have some explanation of your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not propose to give a ruling, but I will give a short explanation. It does seem to me that the duty of the Chair is to try to keep things under control. It seems to me that the question asked was in the nature of a question which would create a great deal of bad feeling between two ethnic races. On that ground alone it should not be pursued. If, on the other hand, the hon. member has any question to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, within a few minutes there will be an opportunity to do so.



PRINTING BUREAU-APPOINTMENT OF STAFF TO FILL VACANCIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West inquired whether the printing bureau was now employing staffs such as compositors and linotype operators on the English and French Hansard to fill vacancies occasioned by the retirement of employees. The answer is no. At present vacancies occasioned by the retirement of employees such as compositors and linotypists are not filled because the development of new and improved methods and processes of production has so
Inquiries of the Ministry far compensated for reduction of staff in that area.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Addison (York North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Forestry. I should like to ask the minister his reasons for moving the Department of Forestry's laboratories from Maple and Richmond Hill to Sault Ste. Marie, especially in view of the fact that the Glassco commission underlined the danger of isolating scientific staff if these laboratories are not located at or near research and academic institutions.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear all the question and therefore did not get the full import of it, but I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.


John Hollings Addison: I should like to give notice that I intend to raise this question at ten o'clock.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the subject matter of my question is now almost a year old, and will be that old on April 9, 1965, can the minister now, after all the study that has been given by his officials, advise whether any decision has been made to repeal section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act, as requested by the value stabilization council of Canada last year?


Guy Favreau: This of course, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course, and as early as I can I will do so.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: In the
absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Is he aware of the fact that as the result of a lack of government policy for turkey producers, a policy I re-

Inquiries of the Ministry quested last fall, one of the major turkey producers in Ontario in the county of Peel has ceased operations? Does the parliamentary secretary know whether any appropriate action will be taken this year on behalf of these agricultural producers?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if action is taken it will be announced by the minister.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does he intend to remedy the existing shortcomings so that the use of French be on an equal footing with the use of English within all the departments of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the general policy of the government on bilingualism matters is well known, and all departments and services of the administration, of course, will come under the general policy.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Justice states that the present policy of the government concerning bilingualism within the R.C.M.P. is well known, are we to understand that the actions of that police force reflect the policy of the Department of Justice and of this government?


Mr. Choquetle:: That does not apply to prisoners.


Guy Favreau: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, inasmuch as there are no special acts or circumstances. I have already given a reply and I repeat that as far as I am concerned personally and as Minister of Justice, I agree with the government's policy in that respect.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Justice approve of the fact that R.C.M.P. regulations are written in English only? Does he intend to take up the matter with the R.C.M.P. commissioner so that those regulations will also be translated into the other official language of the country?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is unfair to ask the Minister of Justice, or any other minister of the crown, to account for his daily actions respecting internal management and which often involve communications dealing with the administration of his department. However, the hon. member can be sure that my views on bilingualism are at least as strong and sincere as his.



VILLE LA SALLE-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING EXPLOSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the tragic disaster which took place yesterday in Ville La Salle in the province of Quebec, and is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any request for assistance or has the federal government made any offer of assistance relating to this tragedy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already sent, as was my duty, the sympathy of the Canadian government-and I think I could include all members of parliament-on the occasion of this shocking disaster. Naturally the federal government will act in this matter and, of course, with the normal procedures; and if the provincial government, which has the initial responsibility, feels that there is a need for further assistance from the federal government we will be glad to consider any request that is made to us.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi a few moments ago, with the permission of the Prime Minister I would like to supplement the right hon. gentleman's remarks. Approximately 100 families were left homeless as a result of this explosion and fire. With regard to the buildings that were destroyed, they were mortgaged to central mortgage and housing. The corporation has in the greater Montreal area approximately 60 vacant housing units, and the corporation's manager in Montreal has offered these units to the relief organization operating at the site. The manager has visited the site and has offered these units rent free until the early part of May. The corporation has also offered to as-

sist with the moving expenses of these families up to $50 per family. This action was initiated yesterday.



REQUEST FOR FRENCH COPY OF PENSION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, following the statement made a moment ago by the Minister of Justice in connection with his convictions about bilingualism within the Department of Justice, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether there is any special reason why the French version of the report of the special joint committee which studied Bill No. C-136 during 51 sittings is not yet distributed, when we are almost through with that measure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this comes within my responsibilities, but I will be glad to look into the matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and it relates to the legislation regarding occupational safety which was to have been included in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code but which the minister later said would be the subject of a separate bill. Can he say when that legislation is going to be introduced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it will not be introduced this session, and I do not intend to get involved with my hon. friend in further deadlines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister carry out the commitment he made earlier about this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as superintendent general of Indian affairs. I raise this question because of the recent death of a great citizen of our country, the late Chief Billy Assu, who from the 1920's was the hereditary chief of the Kwakiutl nation and who, at the age of 97 or 98, died as the last hereditary chief of those people.
I raise my question in part in the light of some of the views concerning him which were expressed by his own people at his funeral last Saturday. Charlie Peters, on behalf of the Cape Mudge villagers, said:
This great man lived two lives, first in the old customs in which he was trained.
Then, when these were outlawed, instead of putting on a grim face, he learned a new way of life.
Mr. Robert Clifton, a former president of the native brotherhood of B.C., said Chief Billy:
-came out of the woods in cedar bark, took with him the young men of his tribes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -and met the challenge of the world.
That's why Chief Billy lived so long.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the desire of the hon. member to have a permanent record of this important matter, but this is the question period and I am wondering if he could come to the point of his question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am very close to the point of my question if Your Honour and the house would permit me to finish the very brief quotation which I desire to read as background for my question.


Some hon. Members:: Not allowed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when I rose in my place I said I rose to address this question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because it stems from the death of a great citizen of this country. In all deference, Mr. Speaker, I feel that hon. members of this house should be a little more courteous in a situation of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: To continue the quotation:
Mr. Clifton said Chief Billy came out of the woods in cedar bark, took with him the young men of his tribes and met the challenge of the world.
That's Why Chief Billy lived so long. He was head and shoulders above other men, like a lighthouse to the village and to the whole coast.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate my desire to lay some groundwork for this question, because I trust that members of this house from all parts of Canada will appreciate the point when I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether, under these circumstances, he will take into consideration, with the Prime Minister and his other colleagues, the rendering of some form of national tribute on behalf of the government and this house to the memory of this great Canadian.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to take this matter up with the Prime Minister and my other colleagues, and will also discuss it with the national historic sites and monuments board. I might say that when I went to British Columbia 40 or more years ago Chief Billy Assu was already recognized as a great leader, not only by the people of his own race but by the fishing industry and others in British Columbia. The suggestion of the hon. member merits very serious consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Does the Canadian government intend, through the Bank of Canada or the exchange fund, to convert into gold a substantial part of its sterling and U.S. dollar holdings in anticipation of a possible devaluation of those currencies?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is a matter of policy; when and if any action is taken in this regard the minister will announce it in due course.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister inform the house whether his


department is now considering extending to inland fisheries the insurance benefits available to ocean fisheries?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisler of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under discussion and negotiations are taking place with the provinces concerned.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question there is a small grievance I should like to raise because, right from the start of the question period, I have repeatedly stood up, and yet you have only seen fit to recognize me just this minute. I do not know if I have failed to show you proper respect, but I do not think so and I would appreciate it if you were to recognize me from time to time in this chamber.
Now, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Last Thursday I asked if the American government had made representations to or brought pressure to bear on the Canadian government to prevent the Denison company from signing its agreement with Euratom and France to sell them $250 million worth of uranium, a question to which the Prime Minister categorically replied no.
Would the Prime Minister also be in a position to state that his government has received no protest whatever from Hon. Robert Winters, a former member of the Liberal cabinet, or any of his associates in a similar undertaking in South Africa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is not one of objection by any other company. The government has received no objection from any other company in regard to these negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government would ensure that the uranium is not to be used for military purposes, and whether the Canadian government, in order to ensure that uranium should not be so used, has made any arrangements for the inspection of atomic plants in France in the event that the deal goes through?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker. When all the facts are known and when the negotiations by the two parties concerned are completed, they will be studied in the light of Canada's responsibilities both international and domestic. When that time comes I will be able to make a statement on this point. But I would like to reassure my right hon. friend that we accept certain international obligations in this matter, and we have discharged those obligations in the past in respect of treaties we have agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that any sale of this kind-and the alleged sale is of 100 million pounds-would require, before it would be ratified by the Canadian government, the assurance that no part thereof would be used for military purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are certain international commitments, to which we are a party, to ensure that sales of this kind are not used for military purposes. We propose to observe those commitments.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he must secure the agreement of the United States to authorize the Denison company to make such a deal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Prime Minister. If my memory serves me correctly, the right hon. gentleman made a statement about mid-February that the appointment of parliamentary secretaries would be announced. Is he ready to make such an announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I did not hear my hon. friend's question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will repeat it. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe the right hon. gentleman made a statement about mid-February-I am told it was February 17- that the appointment of parliamentary secretaries would be announced to the house. I
Canada Pension Plan
wonder whether he is ready to make such an announcement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of the present parliamentary secretaries was continued before the expiry of the year's change.


John George Diefenbaker: No change.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 1, 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.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program for old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada to and in respect of contributors. When the committee rose yesterday clause 103 of the bill was being considered. Clauses 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 26, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 69, 71, 77, 78, 79 and 91 were allowed to stand.
On clause 103-Agreement respecting assignment of social insurance numbers.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 103 carry?


Mr. Vinceni:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Yesterday the minister told us that if arrangements were made between the province of Quebec and the federal government, federal civil servants in the province of Quebec would contribute to the Quebec pension plan while if arrangements were not made between the two governments, those civil servants would have to contribute to the federal government plan.
A little later the Minister of National Revenue stated that Quebec members of parliament would be considered as being from Ontario and would therefore contribute to the federal pension plan.
Would the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) tell us if it would not be advisable to include in the same category as federal civil servants the Quebec members of parliament who would be able to contribute immediately to the provincial government pension plan?

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned yesterday, if there is an agreement reached under clause 4 of the bill a federal civil servant in the province of Quebec will contribute to the Quebec pension plan. Ottawa is where members of parliament obtain their remuneration and do their work. Under the bill a member of parliament is treated as an employee in Ottawa and would contribute to the Canada pension plan.
However, I do not think that this is a very important matter for a member of parliament in the long run, because if there is an exactly similar pension plan to the Canada pension plan in the province of Quebec, then supposing a member of parliament spent his time here for a number of years and then went back to Quebec, the benefits which he would ultimately receive would be from the Quebec plan, and there is a financial arrangement whereby the Canada pension plan would make a reimbursement. Similarly if a civil servant stationed in Ottawa went to Quebec to work, then if such an agreement was entered into under clause 4 he would contribute to the Quebec pension plan. Then if he came back to spend the last few years of his contributory period in Ontario or to retire in Ontario, he would receive his payment entirely from the Canada pension plan, there being an arrangement for reimbursement back and forth so that a person gets one cheque only. So it really would not make any difference in the long run.


Mr. Vincent:: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman.
The Minister of National Revenue always uses the conditional when referring to clause 4 or to that agreement between the province of Quebec and the federal government. Could the minister tell us if, at present, he believes such an agreement will be reached between the two governments or what are the odds that it will not come about?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would say that there would be such agreement, but one must speak in conditional terms. First of all, we have not yet got a Canada pension plan because this legislation has not been passed. The province of Quebec has not got a pension plan either because it has not been approved yet by the legislature of the province of Quebec. So you must speak in conditional terms and say "if" such an agreement is

made. But I can assure my hon. friend that consequent upon the legislation being passed and a plan in substantially similar terms coming into effect, such an agreement will in all probability be made.


Mr. Pugh:: Just supplementary to that, I take it that in any pension plan, either the Canada pension plan or a provincial pension plan, the portability sections will cover all that we have just been speaking about?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Mr. Chatlerion:: I take the minister to be even more correct about the conditional aspect of this than he was. He said that he felt quite sure that an agreement would be entered into, and I agree with him that such an agreement will most likely be entered into. But I think the minister should have gone one step further and said that that agreement will be effective, so to speak, only as long as Quebec does not in the future change its own plan, which of course it has the constitutional right to do.


Edgar John Benson: I think that is quite true. The interchange of benefits between the two plans continues into the future only if the Canada pension plan is not changed and the Quebec pension plan stays as it is. They must keep in step or else there is not the portability which my hon. friend has mentioned before.


George Louis Chatterton: I think we all hope that there will be complete portability, but the economic conditions of any province which has opted out could be such as to require the government of the day in that province substantially to change its plan. If that happened there would be serious consequences as far as portability is concerned, but these serious consequences might not be as important a consideration as the economic conditions which prompted the change. I do not think we should kid ourselves that we have a national plan under all circumstances.


Edgar John Benson: I think we can say that in light of the present intentions indicated by the resolution which is before the Quebec legislature and the bill which is before this House of Commons we will have a portable plan, a national plan, at this point.


George Louis Chatterton: True, at this point.


Edgar John Benson: One cannot foresee what will happen in the future as years go by, but one would assume that for the benefit of both parties-and there are benefits for both sides in keeping the plans similar-it is likely that the plans would continue to be very similar

in nature, and in effect we would have a national plan.


Mr. Stenson:: Mr. Chairman, will this house be able to see the Quebec plan before we are asked to pass the Canada pension plan?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to the members of the committee that we seem to be getting rather far beyond the terms of the clause presently before the committee, namely clause 103 which deals with the assignment of social insurance numbers. The type of question now asked by the hon. member is so far reaching that I would suggest to all hon. members that we are now going beyond the terms of the matter we are considering.


Fred Frise Stenson: Mr. Chairman, I thought that this was what we were discussing, the Quebec plan and the Canada pension plan. That is why I put that question at this time.


George Louis Chatterton: We are taking our cue from the minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps this is what we have been discussing, but I suggest that we should not have been discussing that matter. We should be limiting our consideration, as all hon. members know, according to the rules to the clause at issue, which is clause 103 dealing with social insurance numbers.


George Louis Chatterton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, although I said that we took our cue from the minister I think the discussion which we have had in the last few minutes is quite pertinent to clause 103 because it refers to an agreement between the federal government and a provincial government which is opting out regarding social insurance numbers. Those social insurance numbers will apply to the categories we have been discussing in the last few minutes. Perhaps it could be more relevant on another clause, but I think it is relevant here too.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, referring to clause 103 which deals with numbers to be assigned under Bill No. C-136, I remember that yesterday a question was asked about this matter after the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) asked what departments would have access to those files. It was stated that four departments would have access to them, namely: the Department of Labour, as concerns the numbers, the Department of National Revenue, as concerns the collection of income taxes, the Department of Finance, as concerns administration, and the Department of
Canada Pension Plan
National Health and Welfare, as concerns the payment of benefits.
I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that Quebec will have a parallel system; therefore, those files will be open to three or four federal departments, which means five, six or seven departments, since the same files which are used by the federal departments would, under the so-called agreements-and I use the conditional -be open to Quebec officials as well as Ottawa officials.
What is our position? We must carry a number under Bill No. C-136, and we just learned that a pension plan similar to the one contained in Bill No. C-136 was introduced in the Quebec legislature in January. Furthermore, as I pointed out, we do not have the French version of the report dealing with the study made by the committee where some of us brought forth our suggestions. We do not know, either, what went on at the meetings which preceded those agreements, under co-operative federalism, as regards this bill. We know nothing about that.
That is why we are inclined to think in the province of Quebec, and rightly so, that co-operative federalism is nothing but disguised hypocrisy brought to a legislative system. We ask direct questions but we receive no answer. I can understand the minister being anxious to have this bill passed; after all, it is the plan drafted by the provincial technocrats, the Quebec socialists, which Ottawa is putting into law now, according to the information we got yesterday.
This is my question. Those who drafted Bill No. C-136 and who will look after the administration of the act have recognized that four departments will have access to these records. I would like to know whether they will give access to the records to others than to officials of the federal departments of national health and welfare, labour, national revenue and finance.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the outset that I do not understand the hon. gentleman's reference to arrogance, although it is so customary for hon. members in that corner to use that expression that they do so, regardless of what the facts may be.
We have been asked to confine our remarks to the clause under discussion, but perhaps I should indicate that I have a rather long statement to make in connection with that

Canada Pension Plan
general subject when we are considering the appropriate clause, which is subsequent to the one now under discussion.
I should like to say, however, that if the report of the pension committee, to which my hon. friend has referred, is the report of the special committee on the Canada pension plan, it has been reported in both French and in English and circulated to all hon. members. If he is referring to this bill, then I should state that it has been tabled and he can obtain a copy by simply sending a messenger for one. If the hon. member is referring to a report of the Quebec pension plan committee, perhaps I should state that he is a citizen of Quebec and I am not, and that he should be able to obtain a copy of it in the regular way.
The legislation to which he refers is certainly not a piece of federal legislation, and no request has been made to table any report of a committee in respect thereof in this house. I suggest it would be perfectly improper to table in this house a report on a piece of anticipated provincial legislation. I would ask the hon. member to obtain that report from whatever source is available to him in the province of Quebec in order that he may compare it with this bill.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, this does not answer my question. I wanted to know whether other departments, besides the four federal departments, will have access to the records, as regards the people in Quebec.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I know that my hon. friend does not wish to hold up the proceedings of this committee needlessly, but I should perhaps remind him that we are considering clause 103 and have been asked to confine our remarks to that clause. May I say that if he will read clause 108 he may find that in respect of dual contributors- individuals contributing to both plans-there is an opportunity provided for the exchange between appropriate authorities of information necessary for the administration of the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan.


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question relating to scholarships and earnings. I appreciate that people who receive teaching scholarships will be performing services, however-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Would the hon. member indicate how this question is related to clause 103, as it is not readily apparent to the Chair.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I think it is relevant, sir, because these individuals may or may not have numbers, since they will only be starting out in life.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that the connection is not close enough to make his remarks relevant to a consideration of clause 103, which has to do with the assignment of social insurance numbers. Perhaps the discussion he wishes to pursue could more appropriately take place during our consideration of clause 104.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question for purposes of clarification. Do I understand that the individuals who are excluded, such as provincial government employees, will not be required to have a social insurance number, but that when and if there is an agreement reached between the federal and provincial government they will then be required to have a number?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. For all I know-and I am not sure of this-many Ontario government employees already have numbers.


George Louis Chatterton: These provincial government employees will not require social insurance numbers for the purposes of this act until an agreement has been reached, is that right?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is right.


Mr. Monleilh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a short question which relates to the discussion which took place last night in respect of this clause. The government has made available-which is a term they use- social insurance numbers to the province of Quebec and every other province across Canada. Even though a province may eventually opt out and adopt its own plan, does the federal government intend to maintain the numbering of individuals in various provinces across Canada? Does the government intend to keep this numbering current?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. It was my understanding, when I discussed this subject early last year with my colleague the Minister of Labour, that there was a problem in respect of the numbering system generally in use by the unemployment insurance commission, and that it needed to be thrown out and replaced by a new numbering system. Ap-

parently there were many duplications and there was a necessity for periodic re-issues of booklets and re-assignations of numbers.
There are many numbering systems in existence, one of which is used extensively in Britain. That system relates certain symbols, numbers and letters to individuals' names, birthdates and many other statistics, and if one is aware of the system he can ascertain all this information by reading the number. The system we envisage is not as detailed as that, and one will not be able to ascertain that degree of information by reading the number; but it is the best practical kind of modern system available. It is our intention that this system will be maintained in the future. This was found to be necessary in respect of members of the insured labour force and, furthermore, it is very expensive. A great deal of advertising is required in order that individuals will realize that a pension plan cannot be operated efficiently without a numbering system. In order to save time and money the social insurance numbering system was instituted last year replacing the unemployment insurance numbers. In this manner it will serve a dual purpose, if as and when the Canada pension plan is adopted.
These numbers will be available first of all to the unemployment insurance commission, and second to the Canada pension plan administration: I refer of course to the numbers already issued on a compulsory or voluntary basis. It is our intention that this numbering system will continue on into the future so that, as was pointed out last night by my colleague, if an individual moves from Perth to Quebec city he will continue to have the same number. If an agreement is in force, he would have a number under the Canada pension plan and he would continue to bear this number when he went into the Quebec pension plan. If there was no agreement or, indeed, if any other province opted out and there was no agreement with it, then for Canada pension plan purposes this same individual would continue to bear his number because when he reached 65 he would benefit under this plan for the years he contributed to it. But as he left the Canada pension plan and went into the Quebec pension plan jurisdiction he would be assigned a number, a different number, so he would get benefits from the Quebec pension plan. In fact he would be a dual contributor and he would have two numbers under two different systems. But as long as the systems are meshed, as is contemplated now, by virtue of an agreement it will not be necessary to have more
Canada Pension Plan
than one number in order to get benefits, regardless of where the contributions are made.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have just one further question. I am not quarrelling with the idea but I understand it is the government's intention to maintain this numbering system on into the future and keep it up to date in all provinces of Canada. These numbers are going to be held by many people who actually are not covered by unemployment insurance. Is the government going to bear the full cost of keeping this numbering system up to date for years and years into the future even though certain provinces may have opted out and may be running their own schemes?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that once a number is given there will be no further cost.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am really concerned about the future, five, ten or 15 years from now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They may not be covered by unemployment insurance. I have not been covered by unemployment insurance since I was a first year law student, but under the Canada pension plan I have a social insurance number card for Canada pension plan purposes. It may be that my hon. friends opposite have them too. I recall some number being referred to by someone across the chamber down the way last night. The expense as such is not very great, but it is contemplated it will continue on into the future. I was going to say that my hon. friend is a bookkeeper, but he is an accountant.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Chartered accountant.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid my colleague is one also. I am not very good at numbers but I am told by people in the unemployment insurance commission and the Department of Labour that this system is one that can go on into infinity, that it has enough numbers and that we do not need to worry about running out of numbers.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not worried about that; I am just asking a simple question. There are going to be new people coming under the Canada pension plan in the future and the government is going to continue to maintain this numbering system on into the future. I am not quarrelling with that. I am simply asking whether all the cost of keeping the numbering system up to date on into the future in provinces which have their own separate plans is going to continue to be borne by the federal government?

Canada Pension Plan


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let us take somebody in Quebec, for example, who becomes a member of the labour force. Let us say he is now 16 and moves into the labour force at the age of 18. He is going to have to have an unemployment insurance number which will be issued in the regular way if he is in insurable employment. Suppose at 18 he is a student and is not in insurable employment. If he is to begin to make contributions to the Canada pension plan he goes and gets a number voluntarily if he is self-employed; otherwise he gets it through his employer. It is the same card so far as social insurance numbers are concerned, no matter whether he becomes a member of the labour force in insurable employment or whether he is in uninsurable employment but has to begin making his contributions to the plan. So this numbering system will be maintained on into the future.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Will the total cost of keeping this numbering system up to date in the future in those provinces which do not participate in the Canada pension plan be borne entirely by the federal government, or how is the cost going to be allocated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am told that the cost of the central index maintained by the U.I.C. and not having to do with the pension plan as such will, it is anticipated, continue to be borne by the central government on into the future. I do not know exactly what the issuance of a card will cost but I saw something the other day indicating they might cost as much as 3 cents each.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But you have already issued six million and you are likely to issue many more millions in the future.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Oh, yes. I have no idea how many will be issued, but the cost of issuing these cards is one which will be borne under each plan.


George Louis Chatterton: Would survivors and
orphans carry the social insurance number of the contributor?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No. They may themselves be part of the labour force.


George Louis Chatterton: But what happens if they are not? Let us take orphans, as an example.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Once the contributor has a number and then dies or becomes disabled the rights of his widow crystallize at the time he dies and the rights of his dependants crystallize at the time he becomes disabled.

In one sense the file carries the number, but the number does not pass on down like a surname.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just given us a typical example of what is happening in the province of Quebec by saying: Suppose that at age 16 someone arrives on the labour market; that person has no unemployment insurance number. But the minister has not dealt, for instance, with those whose jobs do not enable them to be insured under the unemployment insurance regulations, such as provincial and municipal civil servants, school teachers and farmers, who are hundreds of thousands in the province of Quebec.
I would like to know if there has been any agreement to make it compulsory, because in her previous remarks the minister said: "Whether the numbering is voluntary or compulsory". Now, we do not know exactly whether it is compulsory or not.
It seems to me that last night it was admitted that it was compulsory under Bill No. C-136 and that all those who would contribute to the pension plan would need a social security number. That implies of course the obligation for an employer to register his employee, even if he has only one, under Bill No. C-136.
How can we reconcile what is voluntary and what is compulsory in the statements of the minister a while ago?
Is there an agreement to the effect that the province of Quebec will accept the numbering which the federal Department of Labour will have to make, to continue that which was on a voluntary basis last year?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hope I am getting the translation correctly. With regard to a person who is not covered in insurable employment, let us take an example such as a teacher, municipal employee, provincial employee or self-employed farmer. Under the Quebec pension plan legislation, which we believe will shortly be placed before the Quebec legislature, these individuals will go to a Quebec pension plan office to make application for their numbers. That is not this legislation. It' is under Quebec's legislation that they will make application for their numbers. The pension number given will be one of a block, say from 1 to 10 or 1,000 to
10.000.	Let us say, for instance, that we give Quebec all the numbers between 9,000 and
10.000.	Those are given to the Quebec of-

flee. Anyone who comes in and applies for a number will be given a number. The first one will be 9,000; the next number will be 9,001, and so on. These numbers fit within the block of 1 to 10, and they are Canadawide. It is a number which may be used anywhere in Canada, but it is specifically a Quebec number because all the numbers 9,000 to 10,000 are issued in Quebec. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


Gérard Perron: Yes, that answers my question, but leads me to ask a supplementary question.
Those numbers will be used by the managers of the federal pension plan or those of the Quebec pension plan. Will it be necessary, the moment employees are registered, to ask for a number and to pass on that number to the federal minister or to the various departments concerned with the administration of Bill No. C-136 in Ottawa? Will it be necessary to send immediately part of this record to the federal government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I understand it, there will be no exchange of information unless a man dies, has some benefits or there is some other reason. If a man spends all of his life working in Quebec, and all of his life making contributions to the Quebec plan, why would there be any necessity for an exchange of information? This man would be entirely within the Quebec pension plan all during his labouring lifetime.
However, suppose some person makes application under the name of Jean Paquette, and makes it through Quebec but he has moved to Saskatchewan and died in Saskatchewan, there may be some question as to whether Jean Paquette's contributions belong to the Jean Paquette who lived part of his life in Quebec and part of his life in Saskatchewan, or to another Jean Paquette who lived all of his life in Quebec or New Brunswick. There may be some question about determining his contributions. But in the ordinary course there is no reason for an exchange of information between Quebec and Ottawa with respect to the ordinary contributor.


Gérard Perron: Consequently, it can be argued that the use of the social security number will be compulsory at both the federal and provincial levels but that it will become necessary only when the contributor moves to a province other than Quebec. At such 20220-752
Canada Pension Plan
time he will have to fulfil all conditions to be entitled to the benefits paid under Bill No. C-136?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think that is correct.


Mr. Mandziuk:: I take it that the social security card which-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Social insurance card.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -social insurance card will contain an indication of the province or region?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The number is so coded as to indicate the province in which the number was given initially. It does not mean it indicates anything about where the person lives now.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I have a second question and it is for the Minister of National Revenue. We have received forms for making out our 1964 income tax returns, on which there is a number. Is there any relationship between the number on this income tax return and the number that is going to be assigned to us? I am one of those who did not apply for a social insurance number. Is there any relationship between those numbers?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Last night the Minister of National Revenue indicated he was going to make a statement to the committee today on the handling of this. Was it to be at this stage?


Edgar John Benson: No, the statement will deal with some earlier clauses upon which I had made some statements, such as clause 97. Perhaps I could deal with this a little later on.


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder if it would not be advisable to adopt clause 103 before the minister is allowed to make his general statement?


David Vaughan Pugh: I have a question for the minister relating to clause 103. Has this clause been put to the provinces, and have they all agreed as to its tenor and purport?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No. I think my hon. friend should realize that the clauses in this legislation are, in the first instance, for the House of Commons; that is what this legislation is for, not for the provinces. Do you mean, was the purport of it given to them? I do not know whether specifically it was ever discussed. The officials from the department who

Canada Pension Plan
are here are well aware you need a numbering system. I think, aside from the officials in Quebec, the question probably never arose.


David Vaughan Pugh: I do feel that whatever numbering system is adopted it will be of extreme importance to the success of the plan throughout Canada. However, some provinces are touchy, as we have found out from time to time. The minister referred to the purport of this clause. I am wondering if that has been put to the provinces and if they have agreed that this is what they are going to do, that this is the numbering plan they intend to put into effect? Has the exact numbering plan been put to each and every province, and have they agreed to it?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The provinces are well aware that the U.I.C. adopted this last year. The numbering system of course operates through all the provinces. I do not believe there was any discussion. There has been no public outcry, or no private one of which I am aware. They know a numbering system is necessary. Bill No. C-75 contained this provision. They had that for virtually a year, and we have had a number of meetings since. This legislation has been exposed for two or three months now, and we have heard nothing from any of the provinces about it.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has the minister actually put it to the provinces?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, I never sat down and discussed this with them. I have not had a personal meeting with the elected representatives from the time this was exposed. I could not discuss in any event with my opposite number in any province the details of this legislation until it was before parliament. I would consider that to be contempt of parliament. So there has been no opportunity and no reason to discuss it.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am just thinking of its importance. The provinces are touchy. This measure has been before a committee and we have discussed it for months. It would seem to me to be only common sense for the minister to see her opposite number in the various provinces and discuss the whole matter, not only this clause but the other many important clauses. The Minister of National Revenue has suggested that it would be in the best interest of all concerned throughout Canada, those who are opting out and those who are part of the Canada pension plan, that they should see eye to eye all along the line. We are putting our legisla-

tion forward at the moment. Incidentally we expect any province that does opt out will introduce a bill almost equivalent to this one.
If we adopt this measure and say it is going to be done this way, it is quite conceivable that a province may not agree that it should be done this way. I was wondering if, in common sense, the minister should not consult the provinces and say, this is what we intend to do. The measure has been under discussion for two or three months and we are still discussing it. Has any province expressed any disagreement in any way, shape or form?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think my friend should realize this piece of legislation has probably been discussed more with the provinces than any legislation in the last hundred years. The principle behind it and Bill No. C-75 has been discussed. Only one province has indicated it intends to go along its own path with comparable legislation. We cannot expect to see the bill before it is produced in the Quebec legislature, and we have not seen it.
You will recall that a clause which we passed long since contains a provision whereby 30 days after this legislation is given royal assent the cabinet has to decide whether or not any other province has elected to pass comparable legislation. So far as we have that information, one province is prepared to do that, and we have discussed the numbering system with it in detail. Because all provinces have indicated they want a synchronized national scheme to operate smoothly, that is why we have the numbering system.


David Vaughan Pugh: You have discussed it with Quebec in detail?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. We have now been considering this clause for at least three hours, last night and today, and this agreement about the numbering system arises out of the arrangements for the meshing of the plan with that of another province.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has this question been discussed with any other provinces and, if so, which
ones?


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman-


David Vaughan Pugh: What about my question?


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair recognized the hon. member for Beauce.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that there had been previous consultation and that information had been obtained. However, we would need more information on agreements and assignment of numbers, as we found out yesterday.
I wonder, therefore, if the committee would not consider allowing clause 103 to stand, just like other clauses, so that we may, in a relatively short time, perhaps tomorrow or the day after, obtain the necessary information with respect to numbering, about which it appears agreements have been reached after consultations or subsequent meetings, and we know nothing about this.
As legislators, it is normal that we should know a little about the kind of agreements which were entered into, in order that the other provinces which have already accepted this numbering system may not be faced with problems.
Therefore, I would ask that clause 103 stand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry? [Translation]


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, shall clause 103 stand?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair asks the house if the clause is carried.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 104-Regulations.
George Louis Chatterton: Did the minister say she was going to make a statement on this clause?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, on a subsequent one.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a question related to clause 104(d). In previous provisions dealing with social insurance numbers an employer is required to give an application form to an employee, and the employee is required to take a number. If that is not done within 30 days then the contributions paid before that are not counted toward pensionable earnings, but in clause 104(d) the governor in council may make regulations whereby those in self-employment, who do not conform to the time limit, may still have their wages or earnings considered. Why is there not a similar provision in the case of employees?


Edgar John Benson: This is covered in clause 102(2), line 40 which provides that except as provided
Canada Pension Plan
by the regulations self-employed earnings will not be taken into consideration if there is no number.


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, but clause 104(d) gives power for a regulation to be made, and under such a regulation a self-employed person who did not conform to the time limit in applying for a social insurance number can still have his previous earnings counted for the purpose of calculating his pension. Why do you give power for regulations dealing with self-employed but not with employed people?


Edgar John Benson: In the case of employed people the employer has the responsibility of asking for the number.


George Louis Chatterton: But take the case of a small farmer away up in the sticks who may employ a man and it takes him 30 days to get to a post office. I such a case you penalize the employee.


Edgar John Benson: There is also an obligation on the employee to get a number and he must have the number when he goes to seek the employment. If he has not got it, then the employer must see he obtains it.


George Louis Chatterton: I am only quoting clause 100 because it refers to clause 104. In clause 100 it states that the employer shall "require the employee to produce to him his social insurance number card," and it further states, "Every employee who is required by subsection (5) to produce a social insurance number card to his employer shall produce such card..." The way I interpret this is that the employee must first of all be required to do so by the employer.
If the employer fails to do that, not intentionally, then that employee's wages which he may have earned before finally getting his number are not counted toward his pension. He finally gets his number but this may go on for years.


Edgar John Benson: Once he has applied for a number, then from the time he applies any deductions which are made are credited to his account.


George Louis Chatterton: But he may not apply for a year or more after the expiry of the due date, and therefore all his wages after the due date are not counted toward his pensionable earnings.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the minister not have more flexibility if he simply struck out the word "self-employed", and then she could make allowances or regulations governing any

Canada Pension Plan
person, employee or employer, who did not comply with the requirement within 30 days?


George Louis Chatterton: If my interpretation of the previous clause was correct, then this is the suggestion I was going to make, providing for regulations governing employees in special circumstances, in the same way as self-employed people are covered by regulations.


Edgar John Benson: The employer has to get the employee's number because in making his annual return to the Department of National Revenue he must indicate that number. It could not go on for a year because at the time a report is made on a T-4 form the employee's number must be indicated by the employer. What happens in practice with regard to wages is that payments are made on a monthly basis and submitted to the Department of National Revenue, but these are not allocated at that time. They are allocated at the time the T-4's come in, and the employee's social insurance number would be quoted on a T-4.
Even if there were a period of several months in which he did not have his number, by the end of the year when the T-4 information is sent in and the deductions and contributions are allocated, the social insurance number would be there and the employee would be credited.


George Louis Chatterton: It seems to me the minister is being rather naive. In the case of income tax and the T-4 slip there is a possible penalty provided for the employee, but in this case there is a loss of benefits for him. I know of cases in the backwoods where small farmers and small fishermen do not even report to the revenue department. In the case of the Canada pension plan it is the employee who stands to lose by not reporting, whereas under the Income Tax Act the employee stands to lose by reporting.
Mr. Chairman, those people from the backwoods can probably talk better about this than I can, but I think you will find that with regard to the small employers, the employees will be penalized. All I am saying is that there should be a regulation to allow the minister to adjudicate in those cases, so that the employee is not penalized. If you find this is not so, then the regulation need not apply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is there not a clause somewhere else in the bill-I cannot remember all 125 of them-


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: -that protects employees against failure on the part of the employer to do something that he should have done?


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not the clause you are looking for?


Edgar John Benson: There is a clause in the bill that says that if the employee has a deduction made from his wages, and the employer fails to do what is required under the bill and the employee is not credited with that deduction, the employee will get a credit for the amount involved.


George Louis Chatterton: Even though he has not a social insurance number?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman; he has to have a social insurance number.


George Louis Chatterton: What if he has not a
number?


Edgar John Benson: It is up to him to get one.


George Louis Chatterton: You are putting the onus on the employee.


Edgar John Benson: If the employee is concerned about this, he can apply for a social insurance number.


George Louis Chatterton: But he will not even know.


Edgar John Benson: He will know if he has not a social insurance number.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, this thing is so complicated that many of us here do not understand it fully, and some of these people will not know about it for years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member said that he thinks the clause means that before there is any obligation on the employee to get a number, the employer must make a demand for it.


George Louis Chatterton: That is my interpretation, Mr. Chairman.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is an obligation on the employee, or anybody falling under the Canada pension plan, to get a number. We discussed this matter for some hours last night. Before anybody makes a contribution, he must have a number. We discussed clause 100, which deals with this question, ad nauseam last night. An employee has an obligation, when he goes to a new employer, to produce that card on demand.


George Louis Chatterton: If he has one.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If he does not have one, he has to go and get one and comply with the demand.


George Louis Chatterton: I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman, but that is not my interpretation. If I may go back to clause 100, subclause (5) says, "Every employer who employs an employee in pensionable employment shall" -then going to the end of the subclause- "require the employee to produce to him his social insurance number card", and so on. Then subclause (6) says, "Every employee who is required by subsection (5) to produce . . . shall produce".


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


George Louis Chatterton: So he must be required by the employer, first of all, to produce.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 100 requires him to get his number.


George Louis Chatterton: I quoted clause 100.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Subclauses (1) and (2) of
clause 100 require an employee to get a number, and subsequent subclauses put an onus on the employer to demand that the number be shown to him for his records, so that the employee will not lose his benefits. So if he does not have his number and has not complied with clause 100, and therefore cannot comply with the later requirement and give it to the employer, he has to go out and get a number.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may just say a word or two on this matter. This is exactly the same requirement as is laid down in connection with unemployment insurance, in order to obtain benefits. This requirement has been in effect for years in connection with unemployment insurance, except there the requirement is that within three days they must get a number. This system has worked really well and they have not had any particular problem.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I think there will be a problem, in spite of what the minister said, with regard to an employee being required to produce his social insurance number. I am not suggesting that provisions be put in the bill to cover those cases where for some reason or another the employee did not get a social insurance number. I am quite satisfied that in many cases employees will not get it, usually because of ignorance. However, I am suggesting that the minister consider extending clause 104 so as to allow the governor in council to make regulations deal-
Canada Pension Plan
ing with those cases. Surely that is not too much to ask.
We are not saying that this should be covered in the bill, but just that a regulation be brought in to cover these cases; in other words, as suggested, if the word "self-employed" were changed, or the word "employed", it would be covered.


Edgar John Benson: I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that the system just will not work with regard to an employee, unless he has a number. If a contribution comes in from someone, and we do not know who it is and it cannot be allocated to anybody, we have no way of keeping track from that point on. If you have 6| million people making contributions, and you do not insist upon the number being attached to them, there is just no way to keep track of them at all. Therefore you have to put in conditions that make it very important, and indeed essential, that the employee gets a number if deductions are being made from his wages. It is to his benefit to get it, and the employee will know this.
I have dealt with enough employees to know that if something is being deducted from the payroll for a particular purpose, the employee makes sure that he is credited with that amount; and he will make sure he is credited for the purposes of this scheme. Under the Income Tax Act the employer might have gone bankrupt, or something of that sort, and the employee might never have been credited with it. We have made specific provision in this bill so that if a contribution is deducted from the employee's salary and is recorded against his number-and he has an obligation to see that his number is given -and a report comes in to the effect that he has not been credited with his contributions, we can give him credit. The employee can be given this credit, if we have the number, even if we cannot collect his contributions from the employer.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, under other clauses of the bill there is provision whereby, if the employer does not deduct contributions from the employee, restitution can be made. This is in the case where the employer fails to deduct the employee's contributions. But as I see it, if the employer for some reason or another fails to deduct an employee's contributions, and the employee does not have a social insurance number, there is no way in which the contributions of that employee can be credited to his account. I concede that, as the minister has said, you must have a social insurance number before contributions can be credited; but what the

Canada Pension Plan
minister is allowing, under clause 104 (d), is that in the case of self-employed persons they are given credit after they are in default, so to speak, by not having a social insurance number. You then give such a person a number and back credit him with the contributions he may have made. I am suggesting that the minister should do the same thing with regard to employees. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to be under the impression-and I may be wrong in this-that in the case of an employer who does not deduct from the employee there could always be restitution; but I say there cannot be restitution if that employee does not have a social insurance number.


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


George Louis Chatterton: Why not treat him in exactly the same way as the self-employed?


Edgar John Benson: Because the method of collection is different for the two people. The method for the employed person is that his contribution is deducted and remitted by his employer. There are provisions to this effect in the bill. You must have an incentive to urge people to get their number, if this system is to be workable. Otherwise, if you just say, "It doesn't matter whether you get a number or not"-and a deduction is made from salary-"and when it comes along to the end of the year we will try to sort the whole thing out and go back and credit you after you get a number", maybe three or four years hence, it becomes an impossible problem to handle; because you are dealing with millions of employees in the country and you must make provision so that people will get the number; otherwise they will not get any credit.


George Louis Chatterton: I am not suggesting that the minister should change any of the requirements of the bill in this respect; I am merely suggesting that in connection with clause 104 there be a regulation to cover cases where for some reason or another an employee, unintentionally, did not get a social insurance number. It may involve the last few years before retirement, when the earnings in that period will make a great deal of difference to the pension he will receive.
As sure as I am sitting here there will be some cases where, for some unforeseen reason, unintentionally an employee does not get a social insurance number. If he writes to me I am going to quote to him what the minister said today, that he would not even

make provision in the bill for regulations to cover these cases.


Mr. Lloyd:: It is in the bill now.


George Louis Chatterton: Where? Show me.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member is ignoring what is commercial practice. Employers today are exposed to all sorts of other statutes with respect to payroll examinations and have got into the habit of complying with the various statutes that impose that responsibility upon them. Clause 100 (5) says:
-every employer who employs an employee in pensionable employment shall-
-do so and so. The administrative procedure on the part of an employee will cover the situation of which the hon. member speaks.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I think the senior member for Halifax must have missed what I said, that in the case of income tax if an employer does not report his employees do not suffer. But here the employees can suffer.


John Edward Lloyd: He certainly does suffer.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I have two brief questions. My understanding of an answer given while discussing the previous clause was that districts will be assigned and that the numbering system will indicate in general the issuing province or territory. I should like to know whether it is the intention at this point under the regulation that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon be districts for the purpose of numbering and administration.


Edgar John Benson: Actually there is not a separate district in the numbering system. The numbering system is not vitally important. If I were my hon. friend I would much rather have the office up there than a district under the numbering system. There are approximately 10 million numbers assigned to each district; to provide for future needs. Canada is broken down into five districts. A person who is issued a number in a particular district might move to another district, so all these numbers will inevitably become mixed up. The only thing which will be ascertainable from the number is the district in which it was originally issued. Particularly in the Yukon and Northwest Territories where people are moving in and out, there will be people with numbers from all over Canada, and the same will happen in Ontario. Therefore I do not think there is any vital im-

portance in assigning a particular number in a given district.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Well, Mr. Chairman, there certainly is if you look at paragraph (b). That is what I was hoping the minister would say, but my little trap did not work. Under paragraph (b) it would be mandatory for the minister to establish an office in the Northwest Territories. The last part of the paragraph says-
-having regard to the public convenience the place or places within each such district at which such persons may apply-
I was hoping that a special district would be assigned, in which case it would be essential that there be an office in the district to which people could apply; but I have been foiled.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, when I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question yesterday he answered it in what I thought was a rather negative way. He said that if students who received scholarships were employed in pensionable employment or exceeded their exemptions, then they must pay. However I was concerning myself with scholarships. The province of Ontario offers what it calls teaching fellowships, nothing being required from the person benefiting thereunder. I think they offer something like 1,000 of these every year. There are no strings attached; as far as I know the student is not required to pay anything as far as income tax is concerned, the fellowship being considered a gift. Would the same conditions apply in this case?


Edgar John Benson: It is a question of whether or not it is income from an office or employment. If it is, contributions will be made on that particular income. I do not think I should like to deal with the whole area of scholarships, fellowships and bursaries en bloc and say that they would all be income for purposes of computing pensions, or they would not be income. I think I would have to have a specific instance. Therefore I would be pleased to discuss particular instances with my hon. friend if he wishes to bring them up privately.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 105-Offence and punishment.
Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, subclause (3) of this clause concerns me. I should like to hear the minister say that an offence under this clause would not be in respect of each employee on the employer's payroll. In other words, if he had 200 employees I would hate
Canada Pension Plan
to hear the minister tell us that the employer would have to pay 200 fines if an offence were committed. Could the minister clarify this situation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member is correct. The employer would be liable to a fine of $100 for the 200 employees. It is one offence.


Mr. Langlois:: I should like to know whether this clause concerns employers in the province of Quebec as well, since the federal government is giving them a number.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of course not.


Raymond Langlois: Then I should like to go back to subclause (1) which concerns those who are requesting a number. I see that they have to furnish at the same time all necessary information. Last night I asked the Minister of National Revenue about the lumbermen who are obliged to reveal their earnings to the Minister of National Revenue. Under this clause do they also have to give their earnings and submit their statements, since the way things are going they have no right to any benefits? For taxation purposes, anyone working in the United States part time has to state all his earnings. Under this clause they still have to give all their earnings regardless of the fact they have no right to benefit. Are they also subject to a penalty under this clause?


Edgar John Benson: The penalties which apply under this clause apply only to applicants for numbers as required by the bill. We cannot legislate penalties for statutes of the province of Quebec. They would have to levy their own penalties regarding numbers and so on. We cannot do it for them and have no intention of doing so.
The second point raised by my hon. friend, which he also raised last night, concerns contributions of employees who are employed outside Canada although perhaps resident in Canada. If these people are in the province of Quebec they could in no circumstances contribute to the Canada pension- plan in any case. The contributions to the Canada pension plan, in respect of someone from Ontario working in the United States, depend on the place of employment. This is an earnings related plan, so that someone who was working in the United States and then came back to Canada would not be covered by the Canada pension plan because his earnings would not have been made in Canada. There is a very logical reason for this, in that we

Canada Pension Plan
could not hope to collect the employer's contribution. We have no power to go into the United States and collect contributions to the Canada pension plan.
In relation to the situation outlined by my hon. friend regarding some of his constituents who work across the border, they would not in any case be covered by the Canada pension plan but rather by the Quebec pension plan, so this clause would not apply to them.


Raymond Langlois: I thank the hon. minister for his explanation, but I should like to point out that there are quite a number of individuals from the province of New Brunswick who work in the United States, although the circumstances might be quite different from those to which I referred. Would it be possible to consider these individuals as private businessmen operating one-man businesses?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was decided that that would not be the case. My hon. friend was not here earlier when we were discussing this situation, but may I now refer him to clause 109. In the case of lumbermen, many of whom live in the province of New Brunswick-and I remember mentioning this at an earlier time-it is hoped that we can arrange a reciprocal agreement in respect of a pension scheme such as the social security system of the United States. In this way we hope that we will be able to provide for these people so they can make contributions under a reciprocal arrangement. This is one of the first situations we hope to look at; but it should be pointed out that the hon. member is talking about someone who ordinarily lives in Quebec and has contributed to the Quebec pension plan, but now works in the United States. Ordinarily the federal government acts in relation to other governments for the whole of Canada, and upon request we could negotiate with the United States federal government in respect of some kind of reciprocal provision between the Quebec pension plan and the United States social security system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That falls within clause 109 (3).


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, that is right. We cannot say for sure at this stage that we will be able to do that within three months, six months or at all. However, because so many people in all provinces of Canada often spend some of their employment period in the United States we hope to approach the United States authorities and work out a reciprocal arrangement.


Raymond Langlois: Does the minister hope to reach such an agreement faster than has been the case in respect of the unemployment insurance commission, which has been working on this for 20 years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is a very different situation. One of the reasons we have not been able to make any arrangements in respect of pensions with West Germany, for instance, as well as with the United States, is that we have a flat rate system which is very different from their earnings related system.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
On clause 107-Communication of privileged information obtained under act.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would prefer to defer my remarks in this regard, Mr. Chairman, but I did promise the committee that I would make a statement on this clause at the appropriate stage. Perhaps this will teach me not to make promises.


An hon. Member:: Do not shorten it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Do not read too quickly.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This information was requested last night and it appears that the committee does require some information in this regard.
I may say that all information about an individual contributor or beneficiary which is obtained in the course of the administration of the act must be treated confidentially as set forth in subsection (1) of this section. Persons in the employ of the crown may not provide that information to other people or give others access to that information except in those cases specifically spelled out in the remaining subsections.
The first exception is indicated in subsection (2). This provides that a contributor or beneficiary, or his agent, may authorize the minister to divulge information about his earnings record or pension entitlement to some third person whom he names in his written request. In this way an employer will be able to obtain the necessary information about his employee or former employee to make it possible for him to integrate any benefits that are payable under a private pension plan with those payable under the Canada pension plan.
Subsection (3) provides that information obtained by an employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the course of administering this act can only be made

available to employees of the other departments named when it is necessary that this be done for the purposes of administration of the act. For example (a) national revenue employees may have to be notified that an individual contributor has applied for and been granted a pension and therefore is no longer required to contribute to the plan. National revenue employees would also have to be notified regarding failure of an employer to make contributions on behalf of an employee when this information has come to a local office of the Department of National Health and Welfare from the individual employee concerned.
And (b), Department of Finance employees in the office of the comptroller of the treasury will have to be notified that the payment of a benefit in a specified amount has been approved and authorized by the minister in order for the comptroller of the treasury to issue the pension cheque.
And (c), unemployment insurance commission officers will have to be notified when individual employees or self-employed people apply to the Department of National Health and Welfare for the issuance of a social insurance number. The application form for such a number will have to be passed to the unemployment insurance commission for checking against the master index to see if a number has already been issued to the individual concerned.
And (d), the chief actuary of the department of insurance is required by the act to conduct a review of the operations of the plan every five years; for such actuarial analyses he will naturally need data concerning contributions to and benefits paid out from the plan. The advisory committee will need to have both actuarial and statistical studies conducted in reviewing the operations of this act. The research and statistics division of this department will be carrying on special studies on the operations of the plan and may seek the co-operation of the dominion bureau of statistics in the conduct of some of these studies. Some information in connection with these studies will have to be passed to officers of the dominion bureau of statistics; but it is well known that the dominion bureau of statistics employees must observe the strictest secrecy in the handling of all information which they receive.
Subsection (4) provides that information about individual contributors or beneficiaries which is obtained by employees of the Department of National Revenue, the unemployment insurance commission or the Depart-20220-753
Canada Pension Plan
ment of Finance may be provided to officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the other departments concerned with the administration of the act. This does not mean that all the confidential information contained on an income tax return is going to be made available to officers of other departments. There will be no need for the officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare to have any information about an individual's tax exemptions, or his marital status, or the number of businesses which he conducts, or the bankruptcy of his business, or the size of his profits; none of these data are pertinent to this act. What the act does require is that information about an employee's or a self-employed person's pensionable earnings in a year up to $5,000, and contributions to the plan, be passed to the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Finance and the department of insurance in order for the act to be properly administered. This provision is necessary because the information will be forthcoming from the T-4 slips and the T-l general returns under the Income Tax Act, and the information on these forms is, of course, normally restricted to the authorized officials of the Department of National Revenue. Information about individual self-employed persons may have to be passed by the Department of National Revenue to the unemployment insurance commission in cases where the self-employed person has not yet been assigned a social insurance number. It should be borne in mind that the administration of this act will be carried out in part by the Department of National Revenue, in part by the Department of National Health and Welfare, in part by the office of the comptroller of the treasury and in part by the unemployment insurance commission. Each of these departments must be free to pass any necessary information to the appropriate officers of the other departments in order that they may carry out their responsibilities in connection with the administration of this act.
For example, any information about the numbering system will involve the unemployment insurance commission, and any information about the payment or non-payment of pension benefits will involve the office of the comptroller of the treasury. This is particularly so until the time when the Department of National Health and Welfare obtains its own computer.
Subparagraph (b) of subsection (4) provides that, where social insurance numbers have

Canada Pension Plan
been assigned to people under any other act of parliament, information about these numbers and the applications for such numbers may be passed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Similar information obtained under this act may be provided by the minister to the agency responsible for administering such other act. The application forms for social insurance numbers are designed to provide positive identification of the individual applicant. Since people may apply for numbers through the unemployment insurance offices or through the Department of National Health and Welfare offices, or in effect through the Department of National Revenue in the case of a self-employed person who submits a contribution without first having obtained a social insurance number, provision must be made for the information contained in the application form to be passed to the agency that is charged with maintaining the master index of social insurance numbers, namely the unemployment insurance commission.
In the course of the administration of this act questions may arise concerning the identification of individual contributors or beneficiaries. It must be possible for these people to be positively identified through comparison with the master index. There is also provision that the unemployment insurance commission can continue to make these numbers available to other agencies when they consider it to be in the public interest so to do, as section 98 of their act now provides.
Under subsection 5 of this section no employee of the crown may be required to give evidence in court relating to information of the sort referred to in subsection 1 or to produce any document or writing containing that information. One exception is provided for in subsection 6 and that is court proceedings which relate to the administration of the Canada pension plan.
Persons violating the prohibitions contained in section 107 are, by subsection 7 thereof, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction which means, as you appreciate, by a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment of up to six months or both. The severity of the penalty should indicate to all hon. members the importance attached by all departments and by the draftsmen to the necessity for keeping the information secret, for keeping it confined to the department which receives it, except for the purposes of this act. So that only such information as is necessary or conducive to the good operation of the Canada

pension plan will be exchanged from department to department.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I think that the statement the minister has made reassures us as much as is possible and I think this may also help to explain what she seemed to find incredible last night, that many members in the chamber were upset by the numbering system and all that it implies. Her statement today throws light on that matter. We can see the maze of government agencies that are involved. There is no question about whether or not the government would act viciously. The fact simply is that with regard to this kind of thing, which is so highly complex and is going to involve at least six or seven different agencies including the bureau of statistics if you take into account research material, many people resent the first step which seems to them to manifest somehow or other the kind of regimentation they feel will occur. Perhaps they are fighting a losing cause and this is what they have to accept.
I am not like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not approach my numbering ceremony with enthusiasm. I do not feel it is going to give me some sort of uniqueness that 1 could not get in a more healthy way. I do not take great pleasure in being numbered. However, the assurance that the minister has given us goes some way toward mollifying our fears. Under the system is there going to be one master file which various agencies will be able to draw, or will it be worked out in such a way that if a person from the unemployment insurance commission wants a piece of information he will only be able to draw that specific piece of information? Will that be the case or will there in fact be a transfer of the whole file with all the information in it? If that could be cleared up it might help.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am told that nobody can draw a file. These files are going to be in the memory of an electronic computer.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: And is the person who has the key to this electronic brain only going to be able to punch those sections that apply to his particular function, or is he going to be able to play it like a piano and get the whole sordid history?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I understand my colleagues, the computer operator will be able to punch something and get all the information out, but he will only be able to transmit what is necessary to the other offices for their

purposes and cannot transmit all the information that is on the brain.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, I was relieved by the minister's statement because the whole question of confidentiality is one of concern to many of us, especially in this day and age when not only through legislation but in our daily conduct we are subject to more and more scrutiny. This situation has been a subject of discussion in the public press and some current literature.
I was concerned about the number of departments that would have access to the information, but the minister's statement has covered in some detail the limitation with regard to how this information can be applied. Therefore some of the questions I had noted in regard to this section have already been answered and I am accordingly relieved. Perhaps the biggest relief arises from the fact that the evidence cannot be demanded in court. The production of files cannot be demanded except for purposes of the administration of the act.
I know that the wording of section 107 is most detailed but is the general principle of section 107, and also section 108 for that matter, very much at variance with the provision for confidentiality with regard to family allowances, old age security, blind persons allowances and so on? There are sections, of course, that govern the giving of this information.


Edgar John Benson: Actually this information will be much more confidential than other types of information such as that mentioned by my hon. friend. The essential information as to contributions and earnings will come into the Department of National Revenue and will, subject to the provisions of this act whereby we can give certain information to other departments, be held in the same confidence as are each person's individual tax affairs. In that regard I think in this country we have had an admirable record for keeping entirely confidential information obtained from people by the Department of National Revenue.


Siegfried John Enns: In recent correspondence with the Minister of National Health and Welfare I was advised that certain things were not available because of this kind of requirement, and I am relieved that the rights of the individual are thereby protected.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have taken very little part in the discussion of the bill but I was most interested in the comments
20220-753J
Canada Pension Plan
of members in recent minutes. Is it safe to say that the minister can assure us that no other department or agency of government has the right to examine these files?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the information as obtained by my department will be available to no one except as provided in this particular section of the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No one else?


Edgar John Benson: No one else, no more than your income tax return is available to anyone else. We will treat this information in the same confidential manner that we treat the tax returns of individuals in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
On clause 109-Reciprocal arrangements re administration, etc.
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one short question. There are many Canadians employed in quasi-defence jobs in Canada by United States corporations.
I am thinking, of course, of the men who man the distant early warning line. Is it the intention of this provision to allow the government to enter into an agreement whereby the people who are now employed by the Federal Electric Corporation on the distant early warning line, would be eligible to make the maximum contribution and get the maximum benefits from this scheme? Will provision be facilitated under this section to allow them to participate in the scheme?


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that it is the intention to try to make arrangements with foreign employers in Canada so that their employees in this country will be covered by the Canada pension plan, and they will agree to make contributions under the plan. It is the intention of clause 109 also to permit reciprocal agreements with other countries which would go even farther than this, where possible, and make the transfer of benefits between countries possible for someone moving out of the United States into Canada. Of course it will be some time before this is actually arranged. I would refer my hon. friend, for the arrangements to be made relating to other countries, to clause 7(1) and 7(2).


Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: There has been some discussion in the trucking industry with regard to truckers who go across

Canada Pension Plan
into the United States and who are being assessed tor social security benefits there. They are having a great deal of difficulty, and some large sums are involved. I was wondering if the minister could indicate whether, under these reciprocal arrangements, truckers would be covered who take Canadian products to Florida and come back with citrus fruit and things like that. The United States government insist that they pay social security tax and they are having considerable difficulty at the moment. Would they come under this particular clause?


Edgar John Benson: We will be making arrangements under clause 7(l)(a) and 7(2Ka), and I respectfully request members to hold questions on this subject until we get back to those clauses which were allowed to stand. It covers the particular arrangements. We would hope also to make arrangements with other countries, and these problems could be reviewed when this clause is under discussion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am just checking back to clause 7 to which the minister made reference. My understanding was that there were certain matters that could properly be discussed under clause 109. Two questions were raised last night, one by the hon. member for Megantic and the other by one of the members from Edmonton, relating to the covering of people who are employed by employers outside the country, or those who spend part of their working year out of the country.
For the sake of orderly discussion, I should like to raise first a question which is related to the question just asked over here. I was a bit puzzled by the remark that I thought I heard the Minister of National Revenue make, in which he said we are going to try to make arrangements with foreign employers to cover their employees under the Canada pension plan. Quite frankly, if I heard the minister correctly, I am rather astounded. I was always under the impression that employers in Canada, no matter whether they were Canadian or not, were subject to Canadian law. I thought that any employer in Canada, whether he was American, Chinese, Australian or English, if he employed people in Canada, would be required to comply with the terms of this measure.
If the minister inadvertently made an incorrect statement or if I did not hear him correctly, I wish he would explain this at once before I pursue an argument that might be unnecessary.
[Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron) .1


Edgar John Benson: A situation may exist where a foreign government, for example, employs a person in Canada and the law does not permit us to require that government to make contributions under a Canada pension plan. It is the intention of clause 7, to which we will be going back, and clause 109, to obtain power to make arrangements so these people can be covered in Canada, if this is to their advantage. There may on the other hand be people employed in Canada, civil servants, employed by foreign governments who may be covered by a pension plan in their own country and who may be returning there.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister just permit me to interrupt him for the sake of clarifying my own understanding? The minister was referring to the employees of foreign governments. I thought I heard him say foreign employers in the ordinary, commercial sense.


Edgar John Benson: There might be a situation where an employer located in the United States, with his office and his whole business in the United States, employed some people in Canada who lived in Canada. They would be employees in Canada. We would have a great deal of difficulty forcing an employer who is outside the country to make contributions to the Canada pension plan. The purpose of clause 7(2) (b) is to allow the government to enter into an arrangement with the employer to make the necessary contributions in order that they could be covered under the Canada pension plan. These are instances which may arise in regard to individuals employed in Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think this question, at least in my mind, relates directly to the situation that was raised last evening by one of the members from Edmonton, I believe, with particular reference to the practices in the oil industry in Alberta. Now, perhaps this is not a place where international agreements between governments are involved, although it seems to me they may be. I think it might be useful for us to get this point quite clear at the moment.
I must say I find it difficult to understand how an employer, even though he may have his main place of business in the United States, could operate in Canada and employ people resident in Canada without legally being an employer in Canada. If this is not the case, then I think the question of international agreement becomes of much more importance.


Edgar John Benson: The situation where an employer has employees in Canada and has no place of business in Canada is very rare indeed. These are the people for whom the agreement would be necessary. Ordinarily if a person from some other country is carrying on business in Canada, he has a place of business in Canada and makes out his payroll in Canada, and he would fall directly under the laws of Canada and we could require contributions from him. But it is only in the very rare instance where a person is employed in Canada and his employer is resident outside the country, has no place of business in Canada, and simply sends the pay cheque to the employee. These are very rare situations which we would hope to cover under clause 7(l)(g).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Considering the remarks made last night about the practice in the oil industry in Alberta, this could also happen in my province of B.C. if the oil industry develops there, and it might involve quite an appreciable number of people working in Canada. I raise the question as to whether or not in the confines of this bill we could provide a clause which would make it quite clear that anyone employing a body of workmen in Canada would, for the purposes of this bill, be a Canadian employer and be required under the law to comply with the provisions of the Canada pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that under clauses 8 and 9 such a person is considered to be an employer in Canada and would be required to carry out the obligations of an employer under this bill. The case I mentioned last night concerned a person coming in to put out an oil well fire and employing people in Canada who would have pensionable earnings. Such a man would be required to pay, but we might have difficulty in collecting in such instances where people come into Canada and then go out again. Nevertheless the employee would be entitled to the Canada pension plan deductions.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, since reference has just been made to the case of a foreigner who could be considered as a Canadian employer because he employs Canadians, I feel that we should also consider the case that I mentioned yesterday and which could happen in Canada, that of a Canadian employer whose employees work in Canada part of the time, and in the neighbouring country once in a while but who are paid exclusively
Canada Pension Plan
by their Canadian employer. What will happen to those people who will have to contribute to the Canada pension plan during part of the year, and who will also have to contribute to the American social security scheme because they work in the United States for the same Canadian employer? How will the contribution be set in the case of such people who work for a Canadian employer?


Edgar John Benson: This is covered by clause 7 which deals specifically with such a situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there was one point under clause 109 which we dealt with in the joint committee. I may say at the outset that the answers we got were satisfactory, but I think it might be well to have the point on the record during the debate in this chamber.
I have in mind the position of railway workers who operate across the line, part of the time in the United States and part of the time in Canada. Representatives of the railway workers appeared before us in the committee and later we had a most interesting witness, Mr. Cuthbert Scott of this city, who appeared on behalf of a number of United States railroad companies. The point I raised with Mr. Scott was whether or not there would be consultation between employees and management before a recommendation was made leading to a regulation by order in council.
The point in connection with people who are working on both sides of the line is whether or not the plans will be decked or integrated; whether the employees will get one pension but not the other or whether they will get the full benefit of both plans. The railway workers made their position clear. They would prefer decking but, whether or not they get decking they at least would like to be assured of prior consultation.
As recorded at page 1872 of the joint committee's proceedings I asked Mr. Scott whether he would be in a position to say if his clients would agree to such consultation and his answer was quite clear. Mr. Scott's words were as follows:
I think I can certainly speak for my own clients when I say that I am sure they would. I understood, Mr. Knowles, that you had already spoken on behalf of the brotherhoods.
That was correct. I repeated the question in slightly different words and again the answer was clear, Mr. Scott saying:
I agree with you entirely.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Then Dr. Willard, the deputy minister of welfare said:
Mr. Chairman, I can assure Mr. Knowles that that is what was in mind in putting this in, that there would be representations from management and labour in regard to any of these employees that go across the border before the government makes its plan on how to deal with it.
So far as I am concerned Dr. Willard's word is good enough and it is on the record of the committee meetings, but it might be useful to have a statement from one of the ministers that this is the intention of the government-that before any regulation is made respecting these employees who go back and forth across the line the government will receive representations from both management and labour.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be very happy to back up anything my deputy minister said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I understand there was an agreement to provide an opportunity to table an order in council and so, with the consent of the committee, shall we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Progress reported.



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

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a copy of order No. 1965-372, being an order in council appointing Hon. Nathaniel Theodore Nemetz, judge of the supreme court of British Columbia, a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act, to inquire into and investigate charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are the following: the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz)-grain

wheat, request for statement on final payments from 1958; the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison) -

forestry-inquiry as to removal of departmental laboratories to Sault Ste. Marie.
It being six o'clock the house will now resume the business interrupted a moment ago.



PENSIONS


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 109-Reciprocal arrangements re administration, etc.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 109 carry?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, on this clause 109, which provides for agreements with other countries, I should like to know whether the province of Quebec-


Mr. Lambert:: Has the province of Quebec become a new country?


Raymond Langlois: Well, it is a state.
Perhaps the minister has given the information without my noticing it, but could he provide further explanations concerning federal employees who are Quebec residents or other Quebec citizens who work in Ontario?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that the point he is raising has already been discussed under another clause which has been carried. His question has nothing to do with clause 109, which deals with reciprocal agreements with other countries and not with agreements between provinces.


Raymond Langlois: One moment, Mr. Chairman. Clause 109 (3) refers to the provincial plan, since it states:
Where the government of a province providing a comprehensive pension plan requests the government of Canada to enter into an agreement under this section with the government of a country

under any law of which provision is made for the payment of old age or other benefits including survivors' or disability benefits-
In my opinion, that paragraph concerns the provinces.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I point out to the hon. member that this concerns agreements between a province and foreign countries and not between the various provinces.
I do not mind the hon. member asking a question, but the matter raised by the hon. member has been debated extensively this afternoon, and following that discussion some clauses of the bill were carried.
I think that it would not be appropriate to open up a discussion which was concluded earlier.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I refer to the same clause and I am asking a specific question: Would a province have the right and privilege to enter into an agreement with a foreign state? For instance, could the province of Quebec enter into an agreement with the state of Maine for the purposes of its pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just before this clause carries, Mr. Chairman, do I understand that according to subclause (3) if, for the sake of argument, the province of Quebec, which is having its own plan, wished to enter into an agreement with, we will say some foreign country, on a reciprocal basis, the federal government must automatically enter into this agreement on their behalf?


Edgar John Benson: Upon request.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is upon request of the province; of the opting out province, if I may put it that way. But then the federal government must undertake to enter into an agreement with the foreign country on behalf of that province?


Edgar John Benson: The federal government must not undertake to do this, but the federal government, if requested by a province, may do this; because the agreement must be between sovereign states. Therefore the province of Quebec might ask the federal government to enter into an agreement with France, for example, and the federal government could then either do this or not do it. The federal government would enter into an agreement with France so that the Quebec pension
Canada Pension Plan
plan benefits might be interchangeable with France.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister says "might or might not", Mr. Chairman, and I am wondering what that means. For the sake of argument, let us say the province of Quebec did wish to enter into a reciprocal agreement with France, and the federal government decided against it. Where would the provincial government stand then?


Edgar John Benson: It could not require the government of Canada to enter into the agreement with the foreign country.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I appreciate that, but I am trying to get to the nub of the problem. What obligation, if any, does the federal government have to undertake this agreement with the foreign country on behalf of the province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: The federal government would naturally try to do anything necessary to make the entire scheme work. Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend is trying to work up a situation which probably would not occur. If we were going to have an agreement with a foreign country such as the United States or France, the most likely thing to happen would be that the federal government would enter into such an agreement and the province of Quebec would ask to have it apply to their plan as well. Agreements with foreign countries so that benefits are interchangeable is not something that I should think would happen in the very near future. It is something that could happen a long way off. But the federal government, of course, has not an obligation to go out and do this alone on the part of the province.
I think that from a practical point of view what would happen would be that one would be thinking of interchanging benefits with, say, France, and the situation would arise whereby it might be deemed advisable to enter into such an agreement. The French, Canadian and Quebec governments might be interested in doing this; so the federal government would enter into such an agreement and the province of Quebec would agree that the agreement would apply to the Quebec pension plan as well as to the Canada pension plan.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, either body might initiate the thought. In other words, if the federal government wished to enter into a reciprocal agreement with France, and as a consequence of that agreement the province of Quebec also wished to negotiate a recip-

Canada Pension Plan
rocal agreement, I am just wondering what obligation there might be on behalf of the federal government to institute this reciprocal agreement.


Edgar John Benson: Basically, Mr. Chairman, subclause (3) gives the minister power to enter into reciprocal agreements with other countries and to make these same arrangements on behalf of a province which has its own comprehensive pension plan if such province so requests and agrees to be bound by all the provisions of such agreement. So that the government of Canada might enter into such an agreement, and if the province of Quebec in its own wisdom did not wish to enter into the agreement it would not have to. But this gives the minister the power to enter into these agreements on behalf of provinces if requested to do so, as well as on behalf of the federal government.
As I explained to my hon. friend earlier, if one were considering entering into an agreement with France or the United States, it would be probable that the province would say: "Well, you are going to enter into this agreement; would you also include us?" This provision gives the minister power to do that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That works both ways
though. Either government operating a plan might institute the thought although both would act through the federal government.


Edgar John Benson: I agree with that; the idea could originate from either source.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that it would not be probable that this would happen in the near future or that he could not foresee at the moment any possibility of negotiations with France. But I think that the province of Quebec might wish to do so pretty soon in view of the lumbermen situation. I do not think that the province would dare wait as long as the federal government has waited, which is almost 20 years. In this instance would the federal government move in as soon as possible and negotiate on behalf of the provinces, which cannot do so now?


Edgar John Benson: The federal government can negotiate on behalf of the government of Quebec outside of the country. I disagree with my hon. friend when he says that the province of Quebec would probably move faster than the federal government; but if the province of Quebec came to the federal government and asked the federal government to negotiate with the United States so that this sort of arrangement could be made, the fed-
[Mr. Monteith.l
eral government, as always, would be very willing to undertake such negotiations.


Raymond Langlois: Is there any special reason why a province cannot negotiate its own needs with foreign countries? The minister said it has to go through the federal government. They can do it together, but a province cannot do it by itself. Is there any special reason for that?


John Edward Lloyd: It should be obvious to any member of this house that that cannot be done.


Edgar John Benson: It is a well known and agreed principle that agreements between countries are generally made by the government of the country rather than by state or provincial governments. Negotiations are usually conducted between the two central governments of the countries.


Raymond Langlois: Then in that case I am afraid it might take too long, since there will be another government which will be on the spot. Right now we have an unsolved problem in the unemployment insurance in connection with those workers who go across the border and with which the federal government is directly implicated. Nothing has been done in that direction to help these workers. Now it appears that only when the federal government has the time will it do something. It will not do anything unless it has the time, and the comeback will be on the provincial governments. I want the assurance that this will be done as soon as the other plan is in force, and done as soon as possible so that we do not have to wait 20 years as in the case of unemployment.


Edgar John Benson: I can assure my hon. friend that with the present government in office such negotiations under the Canada pension plan would move ahead fairly quickly.


George Louis Chatterton: Within 60 days.


Edgar John Benson: However, it takes two parties to complete an agreement. Therefore once you agree to enter into negotiations with the United States you would have to reach agreement with the United States, and they in turn, of course, must also be willing to devote the time and effort toward arriving at such agreement.


Raymond Langlois: This point might not be directly related to this clause, but I think it is indirectly. Supposing negotiations or

transfers between provinces take place, would the federal government have to have its nose in there too?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as I recall it, in the discussion of this clause prior to the supper recess the minister made some suggestion that the subject matter which is of particular concern to the hon. member for Megantic might be considered under clause 7(1) (a). I have been endeavouring to consider the particular problem as it relates to the provisions of 7(1) (a), which is one of the clauses which has been stood, and the provisions for reciprocal agreements which are provided for in clause 109.
Clause 7(1) (a) says:
The governor in council may make regulations for including in pensionable employment
(a) any employment outside Canada or partly outside Canada, being employment that would he pensionable employment if it were in Canada.
That, I assume, would give the governor in council power to declare that the employment of the bushworkers who move across the line for part of the year to obtain work could be considered as pensionable employment. The question which arises in my mind is, on what basis would their contribution to the pension fund be fixed?
It seems to me that this matter relates to the provisions of clause 109, which provides for the making of agreements between Canada and other countries-in this case it would be with the United States. As I read clause 109 as it is presently drafted, all of its provisions envisage some sort of integrating or interrelationship between a pension plan in the United States and a pension plan in Canada. Two or three times the minister has indicated that he would anticipate that it would be a matter of some years before any kind of reciprocal agreement between two countries in relation to the pension plans of each would come into effect.
The question that arises in my mind, Mr. Chairman, is: Where in clause 109 as it is drafted is there any provision which would make it possible for an agreement to be negotiated whereby the employers of these people in the United States whose homes are in Canada would make a contribution to the pension plan, as do the employers in Canada? Would it be possible by some modification of the present provisions in clause 109 for such an arrangement to be entered into which did not necessarily involve direct integration of any United States pension plan with our Canadian plan, or the
Canada Pension Plan
comparable plan of any particular province within Canada?
To round out my question, if that is not possible, on what basis is it envisaged under the clause in respect of employment outside Canada these workers will occupy positions of pensionable employment for the purposes of this act? Will this mean that they will have to be classified as self-employed individuals as far as their earnings from outside Canada are concerned, or will there be some arrangement whereby the normal employer's share will be picked up by the fund, such as I understand the minister suggested would be done in the case of an employer in Canada not paying what he is supposed to pay, so that the beneficiary under the pension plan would not lose his contributions? I hope I did not try to cover too much in the one question, but I attempted to relate all the circumstances to one situation.


Edgar John Benson: First of all, any agreement under the terms of clause 109 will be a reciprocal agreement whether it is made with the United States, France or some other country; and West Germany is a good example. The other agreements will be such as would allow an employer outside of Canada, who employs Canadians, to be considered as taking part in the Canada pension plan under clause 7(l)(a) or 7(2)(b), because we would have to reach an agreement with the employer outside of Canada in order that the employees would be covered and deductions made and remitted to the government of Canada in compliance with the regulations made under the legislation, as well as in regard to the employer's share. However, I do not think it is contemplated anywhere in this bill that that type of individual should be considered or treated as a self-employed person.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, we must consider the fact that many of these people do not earn their livings at home in Canada but must go to the United States. If we do not consider them as self-employed individuals our monkey-plans here will close the door to Canadians on many openings in the United States. Many people in Canada are now complaining that the government is interfering too much, and I am sure that if we create a great deal more paperwork for employers, particularly employers in the United States employing Canadians, the United States people are not going to put up with it. We want to know why these individuals who work at least part of their time as Canadian citizens in the United States cannot be considered as self-employed individuals for the purposes of

Canada Pension Plan
the Canada pension plan. If such an arrangement cannot be made, a great number of individuals will lose the opportunity of contributing toward a pension. In view of the time it takes in this house to get things done, particularly with the cabinet as it is set up, these reciprocal agreements will not be reached within a short period of time following the adoption of this bill, as a result of which many individuals will not have the opportunity of contributing toward pensions for a considerable period of time.


George Louis Chatterton: You are referring to this government.


Raymond Langlois: I do not wish to cast any reflections on this government, but at the same time I cannot agree entirely with the suggestion of the minister that the government is conducting its business efficiently. That is his opinion, not mine. I trust this government, but not to the extent that I believe this pension plan will be applicable to the people to whom I have called attention immediately following the adoption of provincial legislation. That is particularly so if it takes the government as long to move in this direction of negotiating agreements as it has taken other departments to negotiate similar agreements in other fields, such as unemployment insurance. If it takes this department that long all I can say is, I sympathize with the poor lumberman.
I should like the minister to inform the committee why it is not possible to consider these individuals as self-employed persons, at least until satisfactory negotiations have taken place with the other countries involved. The minister has suggested that there is difficulty in regard to the collection of contributions, but let me remind him that in the case of earnings outside Canada the revenue department is quick to tax them. Why does the department not increase the taxes in that regard so as to cover contributions to the pension plan, and treat these individuals as self-employed persons until these negotiations have been completed?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us whether the income on investments derived in another country will be included in the income of an individual Canadian for the purposes of this pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman. This is an earnings related plan and the earnings do not include investment income.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, can the minister advise us whether or not in anticipation of the passage of this bill any preliminary discussions have been carried on with any other countries which would lead to reciprocal arrangements?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, before I came into office, when the member for Perth was the minister, the associations in this country which represent the former nationals of West Germany had been in touch with the department requesting the government of Canada to negotiate with the government of West Germany, because of peculiar provisions in their legislation to the effect that anyone who contributed to the pension plan in West Germany, and who emigrated from Germany to Canada and became a Canadian citizen, lost any claim to benefits. At about the time I took office, or shortly after, in August of 1963, I had discussions with the minister of labour for West Germany regarding this situation. Those discussions were subsequently followed up through the Department of External Affairs.
As I explained earlier this afternoon, one of the difficulties we face in respect of these reciprocal agreements arises because we base our legislation on flat rate pensions, quite unlike the earnings related basis of the West German pension scheme which was negotiated by Bismarck, and was the first pension scheme to be established in the western world. For this reason it is virtually impossible to integrate them.
During that same time when I was abroad I had discussions with the then minister of finance for the United Kingdom regarding the meshing of, or reciprocal agreements for, United Kingdom legislation and any potential Canadian legislation. This has been the subject of an exchange of correspondence over a lengthy period of time. The difficulty involved is that one cannot initiate detailed discussions-and they have to be detailed because these are very complicated plans and require a great deal of discussion before they can be integrated-until legislation is enacted. The idea is not that we should have part of one plan and part of another plan, but that participants should receive benefits from either one or the other depending upon where the individuals spend most of their productive lives and make the greater portion of their contributions. Until such legislation is enacted it really is not possible to go into these negotiations, except in a very general way. It is possible to obtain, as I just indicated we

have obtained, general expressions of approval and desire.
The hon. member for Megantic has been very concerned that such an agreement should be put into effect immediately. Without attempting to minimize the desirability in this regard, I think it is childish to believe that this could happen in a matter of weeks or even months. It depends upon the then legislation in the other countries, and each one of these agreements is going to have to be negotiated on the technical level first with respect to the Canada pension plan, and then with respect to the legislation of any province which will have to request of us that we enter such negotiations. I cannot indicate, supposing this legislation were enacted by the first of April, that by the first of May we might have entered into such agreements. I cannot give any indication of how long it will take, because each agreement will have to be negotiated separately.


Mr.   Paiierson@: A supplementary question. The minister has mentioned tonight that some preliminary discussions have been held with officials of West Germany and Great Britain. Are we to assume there have been no preliminary discussions whatsoever with the United States authorities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not think that is true at all. My hon. friend may know that the chief actuary of the American plan was here and appeared before the joint committee. My deputy and I and many other officials, I am sure, took advantage of the occasion to discuss this matter at length with him. I can say, however, that on the elective level, or on the appointive level so far as the American cabinet is concerned, there has been no rapprochement to my knowledge with respect to these two plans, but certainly on the technical level there has been the necessary preliminary skirmishing.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister misunderstood what I said a few minutes ago to some extent when she replied it would be childish to believe that in a few weeks or even months this could be accomplished. I know that, but that is not my concern. My concern is that the federal government will move into action and start to study the situation. I should like to get some sort of assurance that the federal government will not wait until a province needs assistance. Someone may say I am thinking about Quebec. I am not thinking about Quebec. New Brunswick is faced with this situation. Some people who live in New Bruns-
Canada Pension Plan
wick work across the border and until the government moves in to get some agreement these people are caught between two chairs. They have a number but they do not have an insurance plan in effect for them.
The minister also said that this matter might take many months, in fact even years, before final agreement is reached. What are these people going to do in the meantime? I come back to the province of Quebec. Suppose the province of Quebec wishes to consider these men working across the border as self-employed under their plan? Will that come into conflict with any of the clauses in the federal pension plan bill or will the province have the right to do so? Will the minister give the assurance to the house that as soon as this bill comes into effect the federal government will start negotiating with other countries wherever it is necessary to do so?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot give that assurance. I have a limited number of people in my department who will be working on the Canada pension plan, and so have other departments. The plan is not primarily for some workers in the constituency of the hon. member for Megantic who are working in the United States. It is primarily for the six and a half million people of Canada who are going to be a part of it.
I should like my hon. friend to think of this. We are going to have to write the regulations, we are going to have to start an advertising program, we are going to have to notify the 2.5 per cent, not 35 per cent as the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested the other day, of the adult population who are employers. We are going to have to notify all employers and self-employed people. This information must be got across to them. The staff has to be geared up, the forms have to be designed. All this cannot be done until the legislation is passed. Work has to be done with respect to the integration of all the private pension plans in which the federal government is the employer. We will have to give advice and assistance to provinces that are in the plan, particularly with respect to groups such as teachers, firemen, policemen and other municipal employees as well as provincial civil servants. This legislation will cover a great many people and they have to be the focus of our initial attention.
We have included section 109 and the provisions of section 7, which has been stood, for the very reason that we knew there were situations such as that to which my hon. friend

Canada Pension Plan
has referred, because we knew of the fact that there are many people who are moving back and forth across the border. My own constituency is a border one and a great many people there are in this situation. Again, there are many people who have lived for most of their adult life in England and then have come here as well as the very many and very welcome new Canadians who have come here from western Europe.
I cannot give the assurance that the first thing we will do is drop everything else and start these negotiations. It is one of the things that will have our early attention, but I must say in all honesty that there are a great many other things which will keep our officials and the officials of the other departments working as hard as or harder than they have been for the past two years in order to bring this opportunity to the Canadian people. I hope my hon. friend's constituents, who until this time have had no help, will hold themselves content knowing that we will get to them as quickly as we can, the burdens on a limited number of people being what they are, so that they will have this opportunity like other Canadians.


Raymond Langlois: I should like to get an answer to my second point from the minister and I thank her for her explanation. I know where I am at now and I hope everybody else in this situation does. We will not rush things. Suppose the province of Quebec wishes to consider these individuals as selfemployed under their plan. Will that interfere with the federal plan in any way?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Quebec's legislation is
Quebec's legislation. I will not make any comment on that publicly. I might privately, but I am not going to do so publicly. We are going to work with them to make sure that so far as possible the legislation is comparable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not intend to imply, as one might have construed some of her recent remarks, that the particular Canadian citizens referred to by the hon. member for Megantic are not as important as all other Canadian citizens, and I am not going to try to read that into her remarks. She did indicate an interest in the matter. I feel that our immediate concern at the moment should be to ensure that the legislation we are passing gives the minister

the authority to put her hard working staff to work on this particular problem.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is why it is there.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am still not satisfied in my own mind that the legislation as drafted really does so. I think most members of the house will agree that the situation that has prevailed in respect of this particular group of workers in connection with the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act has been far from satisfactory and we share the hon. member's concern that a similar situation should not occur in respect of the operation of the Canada pension plan.
Earlier the Minister of National Revenue referred to the provisions of clause 7(2) (b) as having an application in this connection. That clause is really an excepting clause because its main purport is as follows:
2. The governor in council may make regulations for excepting from pensionable employment-
(4) any employment of a person by an employer resident outside Canada unless arrangements satisfactory to the minister have been made for the payment of the contributions required by this act to be made in respect of that employment.
This seems to me to be a rather negative approach to ensuring that steps are going to be taken to include these people within the act.
Now, who is going to make the arrangements satisfactory to the minister? This brings me back to the question of clause 109 which we have before us. I should like to point out again that, so far as I can read it, the clause deals entirely with making arrangements between the governments for the integration of pension plans. Who is going to make the arrangements, and under what circumstances, with United States employers to pay their contributions into the Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Chairman, we want to see that as many Canadian citizens are covered by this pension plan as possible. When the pension plan comes into effect, after it is approved by this house, we will work with management and labour, as a government, to try to bring in as many people as possible.
The reason this "unless" clause is put in in clause 7(2)(b) is simply to ensure that we get employers contributing before we take people into the Canada pension plan. We have to make arrangements for payment if these employers are outside the country and they want employees in Canada covered. We can enter arrangements. Presumably the employees will be interested in this as well as the

employers, and one or the other will make advances to the government in this regard. We will go ahead and make arrangements, provided we can protect the revenue of the Canada pension plan in this regard.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This is the reason I am raising the point before we pass clause 109. I want to know, can the minister make arrangements with an employer in the United States to pay into this plan without some kind of agreement with the United States government to that effect?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is no provision, as I read clause 109, for making an agreement with the United States authorities for anything else but the integration of a plan. There may be a provision in some other act or some other place under which this can be done. I do not see it in the bill.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, clause 109 deals with the relationship between two nationwide systems. Clause 7 gives the minister power to deal with individual employers outside of the country. The advantages provided by clause 7 are far greater than those in the Unemployment Insurance Act, for example, and allow the minister to make arrangements with individual employers outside the country, whether or not there is an arrangement with the government of that country in order to bring more Canadians into the Canada pension plan.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps I can clear this whole question up as far as I am concerned by asking this question. If other arrangements fail, could not the worker who was outside the country be classified as a selfemployed person? The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said the working out of some of these arrangements will take time. Why cannot a person who has earnings from outside the country, failing the kind of arrangement which I hope the minister will be able to make with the employers of such group, be classified as self-employed?


Edgar John Benson: There is danger in doing this. Some people who are employed in the United States, for example, but who are Canadians, are covered by the United States social security system. These people may be fully covered by this system. If we automatically said that they will be treated as self-employed persons in Canada, we would be imposing upon those individuals an obligation to contribute 3.6 per cent of their
Canada Pension Plan
pensionable earnings to the Canada pension plan, while they may be contributing to the United States social security system and may benefit from it on their retirement.
I think we have to deal with the situation with regard to each employer. Employees and employers have to come forward to the government and say, we would like to make such and such an arrangement. Then the minister has the power, under clause 7, to make such arrangements without an arrangement with the other government.


Raymond Langlois: The minister has mentioned that he does not want to make this compulsory. If we could have this arrangement until another plan were put into effect, it might help. If a man is already contributing, for example, to the United States plan, he would not have to contribute to this plan. He would have a choice of contributing to the plan or not. If he is not contributing to the United States plan, and he is not contributing to this plan, he may very well work for 30 years and still be at the same point he is today.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the hon. member for Megantic has made his point a number of times. Canadians for 97 years have not had a wage related contributory pension plan. We have been trying for seven days, indeed for two years, to get this house to accept such a plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In this way, a greater number of people will be covered. I have tried to assure my hon. friend that as fast as we can get to these people, we will get to them. I do not believe there are going to be too many people who work in the United States who fall into this category, and I do not believe they are less entitled to be looked after than any other individuals in the country. However, there are only a few people who are qualified to do this kind of work. They have to work on the pension plan for the larger groups, and as quickly as we can we will get to the other group. We often hear about this question of priority in other fields and the same holds true in this field. We have to worry about priority.
I have just noticed that the legislation with respect to the unemployment insurance commission has a much narrower provision than this provision. The reciprocal arrangements provision only gives the commission power, with cabinet approval, to enter into an agreement to establish reciprocal arrange-

Canada Pension Plan
ments. There are far more elaborate provisions here, including the provision to allow us to receive payments across the border, which does not appear to be the case with the U.I.C. When we discuss these labour and insurance problems with the United States, perhaps we will be able to attempt to incorporate the provisions of my colleague in the Department of Labour, and perhaps we will be able to cut the Gordian knot at the same time by covering not only the pension provisions but also unemployment insurance.


Raymond Langlois: I can see one solution to the problem and that is for the Department of Labour to try to find jobs for everybody at home.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My colleague in the Department of Labour is the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare and I am the Acting Minister of Labour, so perhaps one of us will get out of the country and the other can do the job.


Gérard Perron: Earlier in her remarks the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, when we were discussing reciprocity and possible agreements, that this legislation would be that of Quebec. That followed also what the Minister of National Revenue said, namely that two parties are needed for those agreements; but in this case there will be three, since Quebec claimed on several occasions that it will have its own plan, drawn up for Quebec and administered by Quebec. Therefore, it is necessary to think up an amendment under which the Quebec government, which will have its own plan, can negotiate agreements.
But here one gets the impression that my colleague from Megantic (Mr. Langlois) is talking about a few specific cases. In fact it is a matter concerning more than 6,000 people from two or three ridings-Megantic, Beauce and Dorchester-who work in the United States. They are workers we have in mind when we talk of possible agreements between the province of Quebec and the state of Maine about the application of reciprocity for that pension plan.
But if we bring up problems of constitutional law to the effect that the provinces are not authorized to negotiate agreements with other states or countries, it follows inevitably that we leave the Quebec pension plan at the mercy of negotiations which might have been undertaken, at the request of the province of Quebec, by the federal authorities

with the state of Maine or some other countries.


Edgar John Benson: There are all sorts of agreements which the federal government works out with other governments at the request of provinces in Canada. Under the Canada pension plan this will simply be an extension of the principle there, if we are asked to do something by a provincial government and it is reasonable, the federal government through its external affairs department will act as a conduit pipe in negotiations with the external affairs departments of other countries in an attempt to carry out what is requested, if it is at all reasonable and sensible.


Edward Nasserden: This whole question becomes more interesting as the debate continues. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she tried to draw in the unemployment insurance commission as an excuse for not taking any action at the present time with regard to these people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege, that is completely incorrect.


Edward Nasserden: The lovely lady may say that is incorrect but I can assure her that is what she said. We ought to remember these people who go outside the country to find employment, because they in a way are performing a public service at a time when unemployment is at its present high level.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about from 1958 to 1963?


Edward Nasserden: Never mind about 1958 to 1963. This is 1965; let us deal with the problems as we find them today and not go back 20 years.


Mr. Groos:: Seven years.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. gentleman knows a little bit about arithmetic but he does not know much about human need. They are trying to forget about these people who have been neglected over the years, and we on this side acknowledge the fact that they have been neglected. It is a lot easier to make provision for these people when this legislation is before the house rather than try to do it after it is passed. The Minister of National Revenue said this would be based on earnings and I point out that these are Canadian citizens. They make these earnings. Are they not entitled to the same kind of Canada

pension plan as other Canadian citizens? The minister shakes her head. I would like her to get up and tell us what difference there is between those who receive part of their income outside the country and those who receive all their income inside the country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot see how we have always to use the test of Canadian citizenship. We have lots of Canadian citizens living and working abroad, who have nothing to do with Canada but who still retain their citizenship, and they are perfectly happy with western European pensions plans which have been in existence for many years.
My hon. friend said I tried to draw in the Department of Labour and the U.I.C. to explain a slowdown. It is a most unhappy fact that during the last seven days when we have been discussing this, except for an hour now and then, we have not seen the hon. member for Rosthern. But during those odd hours he has drifted in and shown us his bright, shining face. He ought to have been here to listen to the explanation which has been going on since about 4.30 this afternoon on this and related clauses. It is now 9 p.m., and if the hon. member had been here he would have heard the hon. member for Me-gantic every five minutes on the very same point.
I have tried to explain this in a non-partisan, frank way. So has my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. If it is the intention of the hon. member for Rosthern simply to delay passage of this legislation he ought to make that clear. We could then all adjourn, go out and have a talk about something else and come back again. But if he wants to ask questions and obtain information, that is what we are here for, and we are doing our best to give information to all members of the committee. And we would like to do that without having slurs cast on us, to the effect that the information we are giving is a smokescreen and is trying to explain delays.


Edward Nasserden: I do not think I have to listen to any lecture from the hon. lady with respect to attendance in the House of Commons or my interest in this or any other measure that comes before the house. If I did not interrupt prior to this when other hon. members were taking an active part, then the hon. lady can be very thankful.
I can assure her that the only reason I raise the question at this time is that the remarks which she made a few moments ago were very cavalier treatment of the needs
Canada Pension Plan
of these particular people. I cannot understand that, coming from a minister of the crown charged with the responsibility for health and welfare.


George Louis Chatterton: I too wish to comment that the remarks made by the hon. lady are certainly not conducive to rapid progress of the bill through the house. People on this side trying to get information have a right to make comments. We never hear comments from the other side simply because they have been told to sit down and be quiet.


Edgar John Benson: Absolute nonsense.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 110 stands.
On clause 111-Canada pension plan investment fund established.
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief comments to both ministers who are piloting this bill through the house, and I shall try to keep strictly in order even though the next clause specifically exempts the Yukon and Northwest Territories from the definition of provinces.
Were the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories actively involved in the protracted negotiations between the federal government and the provinces? I do not mean through the minister of northern affairs but through the commissioners of the two territorial governments. The reason I ask is because I want to get some details about the kind of money which will be made available to these two territories out of the Canada pension plan fund.
I am distressed when I see these formulae being accepted, because what happens is that those provinces which are extremely wealthy will have the largest number of contributors at the highest per capita income level and they will get the most money to use for their development programs. This is particularly disturbing to my colleague from the Yukon and myself, because if any areas are in need of extra funds for development projects it is these two areas. I see no provision in here, but perhaps the minister can enlighten me on this. Are the Yukon and Northwest Territories only going to be eligible to get back under these sections, or to borrow, if you will, only as much as is put in by the handful of residents that they have who will be paying into this scheme; or is there some other formula?
I am worried when I see things like this happen, and I am sure members from other

Canada Pension Plan
parts of the country are worried, because whenever the ministry sits down and begins negotiating with the provinces and says, "All right, boys; let's sit around and divvy up this pie," the two areas of Canada that invariably get left out and do not even get a crumb are those two areas that are not sitting down at the bargaining table. The reason they are not sitting in on federal-provincial conferences is not because they do not have governments that manage their own affairs; it is not because they do not have tremendous potential resources, but it is merely because at this stage of the game they are not yet in confederation. If we keep treating this country as though it were 100 miles in width north of the American border, they are never going to be in confederation, and they are never going to have a chance to develop if we do not take them into complete confidence at every stage of the game.
The committee is probably interested in knowing that the commissioner and the four councillors of the Yukon territorial council happen to be in the chamber tonight. I am sure my colleague from the Yukon would have mentioned this. These two areas do have legislative councils; they do have a right to sit in. If the ministry is going to divide up the goodies, they have an absolute right to participate. I want to know from the minister what provisions were made for consultation with these two governments, not through another federal minister such as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources but directly with them. What provisions exist for the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to avail themselves of the kitty? What share of the kitty are they going to be allowed to dip into? Is it only going to be up to the amount that their residents themselves have contributed to this plan? I wonder whether the minister could bring me up to date on that.


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Chairman, there were representatives of the Northwest Territories at the technical discussions dealing with the financial arrangements under this bill. As I understand it, the deputy commissioner of the Northwest Territories was there. Second, the provisions of this bill allow provincial borrowings from the fund that is accumulated. This is based on a ten year moving average, and the provisions are that the provinces can borrow from the fund on terms determined by the Minister of Finance. This of course could not apply to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory

because the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory cannot borrow in their own right; the government of Canada is responsible for the financing of these territories.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Not entirely.


Edgar John Benson: As far as borrowing is concerned, the borrowing must be done through the federal government. The federal government must raise money for capital purposes in the Northwest Territories, on the credit of the government of Canada. So the conditions are quite different.
A point that I think should also be mentioned is this. The method of distribution of the funds will be, as I mentioned, based on a ten year moving average of contributions. This would not lead to large amounts of the fund being available for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. I am informed by my officials-and I must rely on them-that the investment of the government of Canada in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory is far higher than the annual investment, on a per capita basis, in any other part of Canada.
I personally believe that this is quite just and proper, because this is an area of Canada that must be developed and it is an area that the government of Canada must look forward to developing. If the position should change- this is a question that might be raised by my hon. friend-in such a way that either or both of these territories came under some different arrangement, became a province for example, I think there would have to be a change in this legislation through the parliament of Canada. But I do not think we can look forward to that result in this legislation; we have to deal with the situation as it exists at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, to follow up this point for a moment, I think the minister may have been misadvised or ill-advised when he says that the borrowing is done for the Yukon on the credit of the government of Canada. This is not always the case, because the government of the territory itself and their resources are often committed on federal fiscal arrangements. I can think of one particular instance, namely the installation of certain services in the city of Whitehorse. This old argument of the federal government investing, per capita, far more than is invested per capita in the south is not, in my opinion, a valid argument at all; because here you have the vastness of this rich real estate in the north, which belongs

to all Canadians, and it is only right and proper that the government of Canada should make this investment in its own real estate in order to discharge its responsibility to all Canadian citizens.


Edgar John Benson: I agree.


Erik Nielsen: The people of the north do not go along with this type of approach at all, and I certainly hope that we are not getting back to the pre-1957 era and are once again going to take this very narrow view of northern development.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to say that I agree wholeheartedly that there must be tremendous investment in this great and developing area of Canada. I was not in any way trying to constrict the argument. The point I was trying to make in connection with the councils of the territories is that they are not engaged in outside borrowing, as are the provinces. Certainly there is borrowing from the federal government and there are intergovernmental transfers; but as I understand the situation, they do not go on the market and borrow money as the provinces do.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure whether I understood the minister correctly. Were the commissioners of the Yukon and Northwest Territories participants in the general approach of the plan, in terms of its benefits and who would be eligible? Were they allowed in at these negotiations, to help the minister arrive at a plan that would be suitable?


Erik Nielsen: Were they consulted?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I have a note here that the deputy commissioner of the Northwest Territories sat in on some technical sessions, but my question is this: Were these two governments, through their commissioners, consulted in regard to the proposal of the federal government to implement this scheme? While I am making this point, Mr. Chairman, I would also add something else to the minister's statement about investment; and this is just to keep the record straight. While it is true that the federal government has already invested heavily in the north, let us once and for all disabuse ourselves of the myth that this is being done for the benefit of northern people exclusively. The bulk of the expenditures for defence and weather installations is not so that the people of Whitehorse and Yellowknife know whether or not it is going to snow; it is because we have international weather agreements, defence agree-
Canada Pension Plan
ments, and so on. In fact, it is to protect you birds in the south that we have most of them. Let that be abundantly clear. At any rate what I started to ask the minister was, were the commissioners consulted on the general approach?


Erik Nielsen: Before the minister, either he or she, answers that question from my colleague from the Northwest Territories, may I also ask whether or not any of these proposals were put before the councils of the two territories concerned in order to ascertain their views on behalf of the people who live there, and who are going to have to live under this scheme?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They were not put before the councils any more than they were put before the legislatures of the provinces. They were discussed at all the technical meetings with the representatives of the territories. There were no ministers meetings. There were dominion-provincial meetings comprised mainly of the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister, with some ministers present. It is my recollection that the commissioners were not present, although there were a number of meetings and it is possible they were present as observers at one meeting. But my understanding is that normally they are not present at dominion-provincial meetings of heads of provinces.


Erik Nielsen: Here is the difficulty with federal civil servants. Again I want to make it quite clear that I am not deprecating for a moment the excellent staff of the civil service who have to give technical assistance to the federal government when these plans are being evolved. But on cost sharing programs such as this one you have direct representation on behalf of the provinces, yet in the case of the two territories you have civil servants representing the views of the people in the two territories. This is a very undesirable situation, because quite apart from the technical excellence of the advice you get you simply do not get the true views, feelings and opinions of the people who will have to live with the scheme, which is another piece of evidence of failure on the part of the government to make it an all-Canada federal co-operative plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As my hon. friend knows, although this is perhaps no improvement it is certainly no slideback to the not very happy situation which existed between 1958 and 1963, when he was a member of the government party and might have expected to

Canada Pension Plan
have his representations greeted with some degree of acceptance. It seems to me that there is a greater degree of acceptance now than was the case when he was on the government side of the house.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He is a very acceptable member.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, he is accepted almost anywhere. Anyway, there was never any specific dominion-provincial meeting on pensions. These were dominion-provincial meetings which dealt with a whole range of topics. There was one in 1963 at which ministers were present, but only one premier. At other meetings there was a wide range of topics on the dominion-provincial plate. It is my recollection that there was not any particular occasion when the territories were represented.
However my hon. friend should remember that in this, as in most other cases, people from the territories are not segregated, as he and his hon. friend from the Northwest Territories have been trying to make out. They are Canadian citizens with identical rights, privileges and obligations as all other Canadian citizens. They are covered by the pension plan in exactly the same way as everybody *else. It should be borne in mind that it was not by any means all provinces which came along with technical contributions or suggestions regarding the plan to be evolved; only one or two of them did so. There was an isolated suggestion or two from the other provinces. So I can assure my hon. friends from the two territories that their constituents have the happy satisfaction of knowing that they are identical to all other Canadians and have not been left out in any way.


Erik Nielsen: One very brief word.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Another one?


Erik Nielsen: This is the first time that I have participated in the discussion of this bill, and now that the vehicle has appeared for me to express a few views on behalf of my constituents, with the tolerance of the hon. member I hope I will be allowed to do so. We are in committee, and if my presence on the front row offends the minister I shall be pleased to move back. Under the previous government there was set up a financial advisory committee selected from the members of the seven-man wholly elected council of the territory. In this situation we have progressed a little further than our sister territory, the Northwest Territories.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Shame.
IMiss LaMarsh.]


Erik Nielsen: I do not think there is anything shameful in referring to it as a sister territory. This financial advisory committee was set up, and one of its purposes was to discuss this cost sharing type of program. This committee visits Ottawa periodically for the purpose of discussing budgetary matters, and there is no reason in the world why the minister or any other member of the treasury benches cannot avail herself or himself of the opportunity, while this committee is in Ottawa, of discussing this type of matter with them. Otherwise the committee serves no useful purpose whatever if it is not to discuss these budgetary and fiscal arrangements, particularly these cost sharing programs. So that the vehicle does exist. I am sure this comes as news to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if not to the Minister of National Revenue. In any event, the vehicle is there and I urge the minister, who has been one of the very few ministers on the treasury benches who has listened with any degree of sympathy to this type of representation from the two northern territories, to make use of this vehicle.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is now common knowledge that Mr. Rivard has escaped from a Liberal penitentiary, I want to ask the minister this question. Can the investment fund related to the pension plan be used for the building of improved and more secure penitentiaries for the future?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, having just heard this information I now know why the hon. member for Yukon has taken such a prominent place among so many of his friends.


Erik Nielsen: I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, since I have not yet taken out a social security number, whether I would be eligible for a pension.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, veering away from penitentiaries to other safeguards, I am considering safeguards for this particular bill and some of the financial measures proposed in it. I think this is as good a place as any to call to the attention of the committee what may well be the inadequacy of the accounting, and of the reporting to be done pursuant to the accounting, in respect of this particular bill. The minister has stood clause 110, and it may well be that what I am going to propose will have some appeal to the minister and may be the subject of consideration later on.

What I should like to point out to the committee is this. While it is quite true that the funds in this plan are dealt with pursuant to the consolidated revenue fund, and that because of this the provisions of part VII of the Financial Administration Act apply, the Auditor General will consequently be entitled, pursuant to his functions and duties under part VII of the Financial Administration Act, to examine this fund from time to time and to make a report.
However this report will be made under the general provisions of the Financial Administration Act. While it is true that the Financial Administration Act does permit the Auditor General to go into some measure of detail, I have my doubts as to whether in respect of an act of this kind that is completely adequate. I would ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to bear in mind that there are a number of individuals who will have vested rights in the plan and funds which will be administered under the legislation. There will be taxpayers who, to a limited extent, will certainly be guarantors, as well as the employees and employers making contributions. We must also consider the recipients. I do not think we can limit ourselves to the extent by which we are assured that every precaution will be taken in the administration of this fund to see that there is adequate protection.
I also look at it in this way, Mr. Chairman. To what extent will parliament have the opportunity from time to time of examining the workings of the fund? Outside of special parliamentary committees which may be set up from time to time it will be left to the public accounts committee, acting on yearly reports of the Auditor General, to consider the functions of the fund, the application of the act and all the different complex and complicated steps and measures which are contemplated under this legislation.
I call the minister's attention to the fact that when the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act was passed in 1963 it involved a fund to be established for the benefit of the people of Canada in general. Of course the people of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec, as well as the federal government have an interest. There was a special section, section 17, inserted in that act, of which the Minister of National Revenue may have some knowledge, covering this particular aspect.
I do not profess to be an accountant. In fact, I am not a very good bookkeeper, and if it was not for the gentle assistance I receive from
Canada Pension Plan
time to time from the offices of the Department of Finance I probably would not be able to report my income tax properly. However, I do feel this is a situation in respect of which we must have the complete assurance of the minister that this tremendously complex and complicated proposal will be adequately protected and that there will be the kind of annual report-not the kind which is contemplated by the Financial Administration Act-which will from time to time permit parliament in general and this house in particular an opportunity, through the functions of the public accounts committee, to examine this fund and the operations of this scheme, and in this way will allow us to make a close and detailed study.
I think this is tremendously important and I should like to hear from the minister whether it is contemplated that there will be something more allowed than what the Auditor General is entitled to do under the normal provisions of the Financial Administration Act. I should also like to see somewhere in this act a very carefully worked out formula regarding the type of report which will be made from time to time so that this parliament and this house, in its role as trustee to the people of Canada, the recipients of pensions and the employers and employees who make contributions, will be able to have before them a clear and accurate picture of the situation, as it exists from time to time.


Edgar John Benson: First of all I think the points raised by my hon. friend are good points. Every safeguard possible must be used to ensure that the funds created through the Canada pension plan are properly accounted for, and I think under the provisions of this proposed legislation that is the case. The funds will be received by the Department of National Revenue on behalf of the Receiver General of Canada and will be subject to internal audit of the department, and then subject to audit of parliament through the Auditor General, just as are the tax moneys collected by the Department of National Revenue.
On the pay-out side, which involves the authorization of the Department of National Health and Welfare, although the actual payments will be made by the comptroller of the treasury, there will be a complete internal audit covering all expenditures made of a statutory nature. That internal audit will in turn be considered by the Auditor General for his evaluation of the controls which are

Canada Pension Plan
carried on in order to ensure the security of the fund. I am sure the actual handling of the cash will be subject to a good deal of audit and sound administration.
Moving from that point, let me say that the minister of finance must report annually to parliament in regard to the fund, and there must be, under clause 116, a report made by the chief actuary every five years, as well as at any time there is to be an amendment made to the legislation.
In addition to that, we have made provisions for the establishment of a pensions advisory committee, the purpose of which will be to review the workings of this fund and report thereon from time to time. In addition, the ordinary administrative expenditures of this fund, although they are paid out of the fund, must be approved by parliament during its consideration of the estimates. This will provide parliament with an opportunity in connection with the Canada pension plan to question the whole operation of the plan at the time these particular estimates are before the house for consideration.
Mr. Chairman, from the point of view of accounting and audit, I really think a good deal of security is built into the legislation as it presently stands.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to the minister for his complete answer, but I should like to ask one more question. Perhaps the minister thought he answered this question by inference, but having in mind a time two or three years from now when a report will be made by the Auditor General and the public accounts committee will have an opportunity to examine the accounting, can the minister say in his opinion that the type of report which the Auditor General can make within the four corners of the Financial Administration Act will accurately describe and indicate the standing of the fund and the operation of the act, keeping in mind the fact that the Financial Administration Act was probably directed toward a much more general question in respect of the consolidated revenue fund, rather than the more complex and complicated investment fund which is contemplated by the Canada pension plan? In other words, will the type of report that the Auditor General will normally make, be a report which when referred to the public accounts committee for consideration from time to time will give that committee the opportunity to make a thorough and detailed study of the operation of the plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not deal with one or two points. One other report which must be made to parliament, which will be dealt with a little later on, is the report which must be made by the minister of national health and welfare. This is dealt with in clause 118. Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves, but clause 117 (5) requires the advisory committee reports to be tabled.
In addition to that let me suggest that the audit of the investments purchased by the fund should be a relatively simple matter for the Auditor General to consider in order to see whether they are properly accounted for, particularly because of the securities which will be involved. These purchases will only involve blocks of securities purchased from provinces, plus perhaps some investments of excess funds in obligations of the government of Canada. I really do not see any great problem in this regard.
I do not think the Auditor General could be expected to give an actuarial report on the fund, but it is up to parliament to ask for such a report. An actuarial report is required by the legislation in any case every five-years, but an actuarial report in respect of a fund such as this, including long range projections on maximums and minimums, would take quite a long while to prepare. It is going to take a year's work, and I think asking the chief actuary to do this more than once every five years would probably be unnecessary.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, the investment fund is going to represent a very large accumulation of capital. I understand that by 1980 it will amount to some $8 billion. This is a drastic departure from the original plan contemplated by the government, which was to be a pay as you go scheme. I am wondering whether this large sum of money in the pension plan fund is going to take the place of the investment fund that was talked about by the government in relation to the establishment of a national development corporation. This is something that was contemplated by the former administration to meet the lack of investment capital that is all too evident in Canada, particularly in some of the outlying areas. The new administration picked up the idea and it was promised as one of the matters of some urgency.
Speaking as a member from the province of Manitoba I know that the use of this fund is going to have a considerable bearing on the progress of that province because the in-

crease in taxation of 3.6 per cent will extract about $36 million annually from the people of Manitoba that would otherwise be available for investment purposes. I am wondering whether the Minister of National Revenue can inform the house if this is an alternative to the national development fund contemplated by the government.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then we still have to anticipate that the national development corporation will be forthcoming as a government policy?


Edgar John Benson: I really do not see that the Canada development corporation has anything to do with this particular clause of the bill. The Canada development corporation as envisaged was a corporation to be set up by the federal government. The moneys that will come in under this legislation, except for a small proportion, will not remain in the hands of the federal government. They must be passed on to the provinces for provincial investments if they are available. Mind you, this is capital lent to the provinces. It is capital on which they will be paying interest and the interest will be credited to the fund. Their borrowings will represent investments by the fund which must ultimately be repaid, just as any other borrowings by a province have to be repaid. I mentioned earlier that at some stage, say in about 20 years, one may have to face a diminishing fund or the alternative of increasing the rates. But this really has nothing to do with the idea of the Canada development corporation as such.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My reason for asking the question is the huge sums involved. It is a tremendous accumulation of capital, $8 billion by 1980. Obviously the government had not planned to accumulate a huge fund of this kind because the initial plan was to be a pay as you go proposition. It would seem to me that the government has stumbled into this funded plan and that it would interfere with the accumulation of funds for investment purposes as contemplated under the development corporation scheme.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is the case. Incidentally the actuarial report, based on 3 per cent per annum, projects a fund of $6.6 billion by 1980 and $7 billion on the basis of 4 per cent per annum. I really do not think that on this clause one should get into the economic arguments with regard to the effects of the
Canada Pension Plan
Canada pension plan. I do not see how one can do this under clause 111. What I would say is that the amounts of money involved in the fund that will become available in the years of build-up of the fund under the Canada pension plan do not equal or come near equalling annual provincial borrowings at the present time. This means that if the provinces get funds out of the Canada pension plan they will not have to turn to the market for those funds and this means that the funds that would normally have been lent to the provinces will become available for other investment.
As to the effect of the Canada pension plan on total Canadian savings, I do not think I should forecast whether or not there will be an increase or decrease in total Canadian savings. I believe these are matters which were covered adequately in the economic report. I could get the report and read it to my hon. friend but I do not think I should. The matter was brought up in the committee and discussed very thoroughly there. I do not believe I should try to deal with the economic arguments on this clause.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The only point I wish to make is that it is obvious that this change in direction by the government, which they had not anticipated when the plan was first devised, is going to interfere with any contemplated investment scheme and it is unfortunate that the government has not made a more careful analysis and study of the problem.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask only one question respecting the accumulated funds which will be administered by that corporation. Mention has been made of some $7 or $8 billion that will have accrued by 1980.
Does this amount of $8 billion include the capital which the province of Quebec will accumulate also?


Edgar John Benson: These figures are quite independent figures. The top figure of $7 billion I have quoted at the rate to which I have referred is entirely for the Canada pension plan. The legislation we are dealing with here is the Canada pension plan as such, and the figures I have quoted apply only to it.


Gérard Perron: Another question, Mr. Chairman. If a province like Quebec had its own pension plan and had the responsibility of

Canada Pension Plan
administering its funds, it could not take advantage of this clause that will allow provinces to borrow from the federal contributory pension fund?


Edgar John Benson: Generally speaking, no. There might be some small amounts. If there was no arrangement made with regard to federal civil servants, for example, there might be some funds coming out of Quebec into the Canada pension plan, but generally the answer is no.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The answer of the minister rather intrigues me. What does the minister mean by suggesting there might be some small amount of funds coming from civil servants in Quebec into the Canada pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: If there was no agreement. I was simply trying to cover all points. If no agreement was arrived at under section 4 of the act this could possibly be so, but the general answer is no.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In other words, there will be no funds in the Canada pension plan available for investment by the province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I want to ask one more question. Under clause 111(2) are we assured that the only investments that can be secured from this fund or obtained from the investment fund are securities of provinces which are in the Canada pension plan or securities of the federal government?


Edgar John Benson: Securities of the province or guaranteed by the province and the same with regard to the federal government, federal government securities or federal government guaranteed securities.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does this guarantee mean that B.C. hydro bonds might be accepted if they were guaranteed by the province of British Columbia?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, if it is an agent of the province it is covered under clause 112(c)(ii).


George Louis Chatterton: I was going to ask my question under clause 112, but it has been asked.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question and was told that small amounts could be lent to the province of Quebec, which will have its own plan-probably to provide for

eventual requests-because under the pension plan proposed in Bill No. C-136, part of the contributions made by Quebec people working in other provinces will go into the general pension fund.
That is probably why I was told that small loans could be granted. But, a few minutes later, the answer was a flat "no", with the comment that a province with its own pension plan would not be able to benefit from those small loans. So, which of the two answers are we to accept?


Edgar John Benson: I think if my hon. friend will read my answer very carefully, he will see that it would be a very exceptional circumstance under which the province of Quebec could get any funds out of this plan. They would not get funds out of this plan generally speaking. People who are working in the province of Quebec would be contributing to and covered by the Quebec pension plan. If they moved out of Quebec and worked in some other province, they would be covered by the Canada pension plan. Similarly a resident of the province of Ontario would be covered by the Canada pension plan, but if he moved into Quebec he would be covered by the Quebec pension plan and would contribute to it.


Raymond Langlois: This brings me back to the question I asked about an hour and a half ago. Supposing a man works in Quebec and lives in Ontario or works in Hull and lives in Ottawa, or suppose a man lives in Hull and works in Ottawa, how does the provision operate then?


Edgar John Benson: The governing factor is where he is employed, not necessarily where he lives.


Raymond Langlois: It is completely opposite, for example, to the Income Tax Act which is based upon where he resides.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, the Income Tax Act abatement provisions are based on residence for employment earnings.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly why I asked my question once more, because substantial amounts will be paid by residents of the province of Quebec who may contribute for a few years to a Quebec pension plan and who thereafter, even if they maintain their residence in the province of Quebec, will pay substantial sums, for many years, as

employees of a company or of the federal government under this Bill No. C-136. It is claimed that the province of Quebec, because it will administer its own pension plan, will not be able to borrow, under this plan anything from those huge amounts which may be accumulated in 15 or 20 years.
Must we conclude that those citizens can only pay and add to the fund at the disposal of other provinces, because even if those residents of the province of Quebec have contributed during part of their lifetime to the federal pension fund, they will not be able to benefit from it as resident citizens and participate in the prosperity which could be promoted through a loan contracted by the authorities of the province of Quebec, thanks to this accumulation of capital which, it is said, will reach $7 billion or $8 billion.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 112-Definitions.
Harold Edward Winch: I have a keen interest in clause 112, as amended, which of course has to be taken in conjunction with clauses 113 and 114 as outlined in the opening lines of clause 112. If we take clause 112, along with the implications of 113 and 114, there is a point upon which I should like to have a clear explanation from the two ministers who are taking charge of this bill.
I should like to ask if the interpretation is completely correct that these three clauses mean the federal government is the collecting agency, and then, being the collecting agency from the employees and employers, retains under what I will term the federal offices, the administration costs and what they expect to be three months' benefit expenditures, then making available to the provinces on a pro rata basis, according to the contributions, all other moneys? Now, that is my reading of this provision. If my interpretation is correct, Mr. Chairman, then I come to my basic reason for asking this question.
There will be millions and hundreds of millions of dollars collected over and above the amount required for administration, or the three month projection of benefit payments. I should like to ask the two ministers, is there not one cent to be held by the federal government for investment by the federal authorities for the welfare of Canada under national planning? I may say that I am in support of the general principle of this bill, and will vote for it. However, I
Canada Pension Plan
should like to know whether or not, in order to be able to introduce this bill in the House of Commons, have it passed and accepted by the provinces, there has been a sell-out to the provinces by granting them all the surplus money for provincial expenditure and investments without a solitary cent being left in the hands of the governing body of Canada, the federal government, which certainly has responsibility for over-all planning.
I sir, must state as my personal opinion, that I think something is definitely haywire if, under a national pension plan, there is no provision for the federal authorities to have any funds for investment purposes. Is my interpretation of clauses 112, 113 and 114 correct, that outside of administration costs and projection benefits for three months, the moneys must then be made available to the provinces, and nothing is kept for the federal authorities for national planning, national financing in the interests of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: First of all I would say the hon. member is substantially correct in his interpretation that the funds which are collected and come into the plan must be offered to the provinces as loans on which they will pay interest, but the primary purpose of the plan from the point of view of the government of Canada is not the accumulation of funds but the provision of pensions for Canadians.
In the early years of the plan substantial funds will be built up and these will be made available to the provinces on the basis of the contributions from the provinces to the plan. I think the federal government has never had any great trouble in borrowing money, but this is to be money which will be borrowed by the provinces.


Harold Edward Winch: I presume there is no provision for the federal government to borrow money out of the fund for the purpose of national planning?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct. The federal government will not be borrowing from this fund except on a short term basis or where a province, which has funds available to it, does not choose to borrow them from the Canada pension plan.


Harold Edward Winch: I think it is a very wrong proposition that the federal government cannot undertake national planning through the use of funds collected under a federal plan. Does the interest which the provinces pay on money they will borrow come back into the federal pension fund?

Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: Right.


Harold Edward Winch: Will that money be available to the provinces for reborrowing, or will it be available to the federal government?


Edgar John Benson: The moneys that come in will be credited to the Canada pension account and will form part of the Canada pension fund. Except in the early years the amount of money involved in the interest would not equal the amount of money paid out in any particular month or year. One might say the interest which comes in will be used to pay out benefits, and new contributions will be lent to the provinces.
The government of Canada must offer money accumulated in the fund to lend to the provinces. Admittedly it will be used by the provinces for capital purposes but it must be repaid by the provinces. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, over a 20 year period there will be the question of paying this money back because the fund will start to decline or there will be an adjustment of rates.


Raymond Langlois: The question asked by the hon. member for Beauce a few minutes ago was so long that the minister did not give an answer. A person residing in Quebec, which will have its plan, may be transferred to Saskatchewan or New Brunswick-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. Would the hon. member kindly indicate how this question relates to clause 112? It seems to me he is repeating the argument which he made on a number of occasions with reference to a previous clause. I suggest he should not attempt to revive a question which may not be relevant to this clause.


Raymond Langlois: It relates to the loans to the provinces.


Lucien Lamoureux: Under what part of clause 112 would that be? This clause deals with definitions. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver East went beyond the terms of this clause but he was referring to three clauses, Nos. 112, 113 and 114, and I suggest to the hon. member for Megantic that the point he is making now is not relevant to clause 112 and has been considered under clause 111.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, section 112 (4) (a) reads as follows:
-the total amount of all contributions credited to the Canada pension plan account, during the 120 months preceding that month...as estimated by the Minister of National Revenue-

Consequently, I feel that there is a link between the amount paid in by people who live in one province but contribute in another and the manner in which that money will be distributed to the provinces in the form of loans.
That is why I feel that the question asked by the hon. member for Megantic is not out of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the minister could give a brief reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Megantic.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you but I was not through with my question.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I could answer the question briefly and I apologize for not having done it earlier. The contribution, whether it is to be made under the Quebec pension plan or the Canada pension plan, is based on where you are employed. If you are employed in Quebec you pay to the Quebec pension plan, and if you move outside Quebec and are employed somewhere else you contribute to the Canada pension plan. This is a two way street. People living in Ontario and moving to Quebec would contribute to the Quebec plan, but the distribution of funds from the Canada pension plan is made on the basis of contributions from the various provinces. There is no movement back to the Canada pension plan of contributions to the Quebec plan. They remain in the Quebec pension fund and are available only to the province of Quebec.


Raymond Langlois: How can the minister know that a man moving from Ontario will have to pay for the Quebec plan before the Quebec plan becomes law? Suppose the Quebec plan is based on residence, the same as income tax is.


Edgar John Benson: I must work on the assumption that it will be a comparable pension.


Raymond Langlois: I do not see how.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house would be agreeable to returning to committee of the whole on Bill C-123, an act to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have no objection provided third reading is not proceeded with tonight.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-123, to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance-Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Gordon)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 41 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Next sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Margaret McTavish Konantz: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) regarding the final payments that had been made by the Canadian wheat board on the 1958 wheat crop, and up until this year. I asked this question because of the comments that were made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) after the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced the final payment on the 1963 crop. I was disappointed when, instead of welcoming the most gratifying results that had been announced by our minister, he chose to take advantage of the occasion to make a partisan speech. In brief he was saying that when he and his government were in office, results were much better.


Mr. McIntosh:: That is right.


Margaret McTavish Konantz: Here I should like to comment upon an editorial which I saw in a newspaper, the Western Producer for February 25, printed in Saskatoon. This editorial says, in part:
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
For Messrs. Alvin Hamilton, John Diefenbaker and others to suggest that if they had been in power things would have been different is the worst kind of misleading drivel. At no time in the Diefenbaker regime did the government face up to the situation with regard to wheat marketing as it now prevails.
With this in mind I thought that the house should know how much the Canadian wheat board have paid in the years when the Conservative government was in power.
I must admit that it still surprises me that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle could continue to think that he personally was responsible when he was minister of agriculture for the selling of our wheat, when he knows as well as we all do that the wheat board is given the responsibility for marketing prairie wheat. I have yet to hear the former minister -and I am sorry he is not here tonight- give credit where credit is due. Instead he seems to be going about the west making statements to undermine the wheat board. He says that there is a price war between the United States and Canada, and I think that this is very damaging to the wheat board's position. He knows that the wheat board, as I have said, is responsible for selling our Canadian wheat, but I have yet to hear him give credit where credit is due. I admire the straightforward attitude that is taken by our minister in the present government.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Ask the farmers about it; they know.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question put to me by the hon. lady was: What were the final payments made by the Canadian wheat board for 1958 and subsequent crops? I have the figures here. In the crop year 1958-59 the average final payment was 9.2 cents per bushel. In 1959-60 it was 12 cents a bushel, and in 1960-61, 31.8 cents a bushel. The figure for 1961-1962 is for spring wheats excluding Durums and the reason I switch here is because of the peculiar position of prices in that year for Durums which made the average a little different. Therefore I switch over to a comparable position with the statement I made in the house today. In 1961-62 the average payment was 43 cents. In 1962-63 it was 40.2 cents; and today, as I announced, the wheat board paid an average of 48.7 cents.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.12 p.m.


Wednesday, March 3, 1965