1965-03-09

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get some explanation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last night he appeared on the television news and, among other things, said he hoped one of the countries participating in the international police action in Viet Nam could be communist China. I should like to ask him whether he has any information on the attitude of communist China. What has been the reception in the United States, officially, in this connection? In view of the fact that he mentioned in his remarks that he would expect Canada would participate, has he any more information than he had yesterday in that regard, as to what might be expected to be Canada's contribution?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian participation would, of course, be related to whether it were a United Nations obligation. Yesterday we anticipated limitations on that possibility but Canada, as a member of the United Nations, might be a country whose services would be enlisted. As to whether Canada would accept, one would have to examine the circumstances at the time. The suggestion made by the Prime Minister is one which would have to be filled in as a result of the negotiation that would take place if and when a cease fire in Viet Nam was arranged.
With regard to the participation of communist China, the suggestion had been that the presence to be set up might be composed of the Geneva accord powers, and that would include China. The reply I made was predicated on that assumption. This too is a circumstance that would depend upon negotiations following a cease fire. There was no need to communicate either of these particular propositions to any particular government.
20220-767J
However, I might say that the general suggestion made by the Prime Minister in New York on Friday is being viewed with interest, and in some quarters I may say with more than interest. These are considerations that have to be studied carefully, and they are being studied by the countries with which we have already been in contact.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say which of the countries have shown a great deal of interest in this proposal; because press references indicate the United States is not interested in it. What are the countries the minister has in mind which he describes as displaying that avid interest?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would agree that the suggestion is one that does warrant avid interest. But he, perhaps better almost than anyone else in this house sitting on that side, would agree that it would not be desirable, when measures of this sort are being discussed, to disclose more than is necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: May I compliment the minister by saying that the latter part of his answer represents the general tenor of all his answers. May I ask him this. Were any of these countries communicated with before the Prime Minister made that speech to the Canadian club in New York?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, these matters have been discussed in a general way with a number of interested countries; not only the particular suggestion but the general problem.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would amplify the speech he made in New York last Friday, with reference to the possibility of having the international community intervene in the situation in South Viet Nam. I take it from the Prime Minister's speech that he envisages some type of conference or negotiation prior to a meeting of the Geneva accord powers. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he could give the house and the country some idea as to what agency he had in mind for calling such a conference or initiating the negotiations which he discussed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, some amplification of my Friday night statement was given in the house yesterday, and I do not think I can add anything to what was said then by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by myself in answer to questions. It would be, I think, premature and a mistake at this time to try to expose in detail the kind of negotiations which we argue should take place, first for a cease fire and then for some more diplomatic settlement for the area in question, a diplomatic settlement which could in some appropriate form be supervised and controlled by the international community.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the Prime Minister's position is that such a preliminary conference or negotiations would be necessary before Canada would raise its voice in requesting a reconvening of the Geneva accord signatories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the governments even more directly concerned than we are- considerably more directly concerned-have already been discussing among themselves, through diplomatic channels, the possibility of negotiation in this matter, and we have been participating in those diplomatic discussions.


ASSISTANCE TO UNIVERSITY STUDENTS TEACHING OVERSEAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Reg. Cantelon@Kindersley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am prompted to ask this question because this is education week in Canada. I should like to ask the government if they are going to provide again this year the services of air transport command to assist CUSO students to travel to their overseas teaching assignments. Second, would the government consider an increase in its financial support and encouragement of this very worth-while organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of National Defence made available the planes that took the CUSO students to their places of assignment. The question of similar assistance is now under review. I can say that the government hopes to expand very considerably our assistance to this unique peace corps organization.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, bringing the discussion back to the home front, I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he has any word on the whereabouts of Mr. Rivard.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be quite sure that as soon as I have news about the Rivard case and any developments which are of importance, I will deem it my duty to communicate them to the house without delay.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


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


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us if he inquired and if he knows what member of parliament's residence was searched by the R.C.M.P. in an attempt to locate Lucien Rivard, and what is the name of that Liberal member?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, following the interesting question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lapointe, I inquired and I must tell the house that the R.C.M.P. did not raid the residence of any Liberal member of parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Would it be a member of the legislature, and could the minister tell us his name?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said that no federal member's residence had been raided by the R.C.M.P. That is the only information I am in a position to give following the question which was just asked of me.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, does this- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have had enough supplementary questions on that very urgent and important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to amplify
the answer he gave the other day, that the question of a reward being offered for the recovery of the person of Mr. Rivard would depend on whether it took longer than a reasonable time to discover Rivard's whereabouts. Now that six days have gone by, is that period considered par on the escape course?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the touching interest which the Leader of the Opposition bears-


Mr. Vincent:: All parliament.


Guy Favreau: -to Mr. Rivard, which is quite understandable under the circumstances, I am pleased to inform him that I will be in a position to make a statement to the house, in that connection, tomorrow at the latest or perhaps at six o'clock tonight.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question? Could the minister tell us whether a police force other than the R.C.M.P. which is also after Rivard, raided the home of a federal member of parliament? If a federal member of parliament was not involved, was it the home of a provincial member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did try to indicate that this line of questioning was not in order. The hon. member is trying to do indirectly something which he is not supposed to do directly. In the circumstances the question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, could you tell me on which standing order you base yourself to say that my question is out of order?

DO R.C.M.P. CONSIDER THE VOICE OF WOMEN A SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION?
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the stated purposes and objectives of the Voice of
Inquiries of the Ministry Women in Canada, and in view of the fact that a number of its former and present officers and members are highly respected and well known national figures, would the minister inform the house if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police consider the Voice of Women a subversive organization.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, as usual, was courteous and polite in sending me a copy of the question he wished to ask today. I have made great research and could give him a dozen reasons why the question is out of order, but I will express only one. It is asking for the expression of a legal opinion which, under the standing orders given to me, is out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I hereby make application to go on the "Better late than never" show.


Mr. Speaker:: The question being out of order, I do not think it should be discussed even at ten o'clock.



ONTARIO-PRISONER IN CHAINS BROUGHT BEFORE JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In order to make my question intelligible I shall give a little background information. The question relates to one John Darrell Peters, who appeared at Osgoode Hall before Mr. Justice Hughes shackled, handcuffed and in chains guarded by five hefty members of, I presume, Ontario's finest. Has the minister any explanation to give the house for this sort of treatment?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but first I should like to welcome him back from his tour of western Canada where he tried to explain to the farmers out there how to improve their crops. I would ask him this question. Has the minister any information to give the house concerning the request made by the Canadian farmers union to the effect that the government should guarantee a minimum price of $3.50 per hundred pounds of milk regardless of its destination?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the first observation I can assure the hon. member that the western farmers were pleased to receive $272 million, the largest final wheat payment they have ever received. The second part of the question deals, of course, with government policy and will be announced in flue course.


Raymond Langlois: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to point out to all hon. members that supplementary questions are not really permitted by the rules but are a matter of grace. I do not base that statement on personal opinion but on certain authorities. In view of that fact, when the Chair recognizes an hon. member that recognition should be considered as a decision of the Chair, particularly if we are to maintain peace, order and good government in this chamber.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the serious loss of business to Canadian owned auto parts manufacturers has the minister considered or will he consider contacting United States officials with a view to amending the Canadian content in the basic year from a dollar value to a percentage value?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisler of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can agree with the initial premise to the hon. member's question, namely that there has been a serious loss of business to Canadian producers. In fact the present program is designed to and will provide a very substantial increase in Canadian production in the automotive field in the next few years. That is the purpose behind this program, and I am confident that that purpose will be accomplished.
In respect to the second part of the question I am not too clear. It had to do with a request that contact be made with United States officials. I do not think the designation under the order in council as to the quantum of Canadian added value is determined by the United States government.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister agree that the dollar value is as fair a value as a percentage value?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that question requires a rather complicated judgment. I am persuaded that a dollar value is a much more satisfactory arrangement than a value based on some percentage figure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Approximately three weeks ago the minister said it was his intention to place a resolution on the order paper which would make it possible for this house to participate in a complete discussion of the whole matter of the agreement regarding the permission which has been granted to the automotive companies to bring in parts and cars free of duty. Is it the minister's intention to do that at this or at the next session?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we already have outlined a priority program for the balance of the current session. It seems that unless very much more rapid progress is made in respect of the current priority items it will be difficult to include any additional ones.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform this house whether any additional steps have been considered which may be taken concerning the waterfront situation in St. John's which has occurred from time to time in the past few years?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been keeping in touch with the situation in connection with St. John's, and at the present time we are considering whether further effective steps should be taken to deal with that situation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister announced that tenders have been called by the Department of Transport for the construction of four ships for the Canadian coastguard. This is indeed welcome news. In view of the need for a second ferry

to operate between Nova Scotia and New England has the minister, when calling tenders for new coastguard ships that will serve also as icebreakers, given any consideration to constructing a ship that could serve a dual purpose by breaking ice in the winter months and operating as a ferry to bring in more tourists to the Atlantic provinces in the summer time?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not considered such a suggestion yet, but it is a rather ingenious one and I will be glad to consider it. Meanwhile I have had some discussion with the premier of Nova Scotia about providing that service.



REQUEST FOR GRAIN SHIPMENTS THROUGH SAINT JOHN. N.B.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of press reports that grain for India will be shipped through Halifax, will the minister say whether the port which has proven to be most efficient in handling grain over the past few years, that is Saint John, will also receive a share of this business?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without joining in the advertising campaign, sir, I think I might say that since it is very urgent to ship this wheat as rapidly as possible, I believe both the ports of Halifax and Saint John will be used for that purpose. I am happy to say there is a good deal of Ontario wheat in Saint John at the present time. I thank the hon. gentleman for the collusion.



THAMES RIVER, ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I know the minister is aware that an ice jam at the mouth af the Thames river has caused a sudden flood that has covered thousands of acres of Kent county farmland with water and has forced the evacuation of citizens from some of the local communities. Can the minister state what steps the department is taking to aid in this catastrophe?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we have taken immediate steps by way of aid in this very serious situation. The hon. gentleman spoke to me about nine o'clock last night, and I think before ten o'clock some action had already been taken on the matter, and further action has been taken today. One of the ships of my department is on the way, and in the meantime the United States coastguard has offered assistance. I spoke this morning to my colleague the Minister of National Defence, and a helicopter is being provided with a view to expediting in every way we can the breaking of the ice at the mouth of the Thames river before a lot of valuable agricultural land in Ontario is flooded.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question occasioned by remarks made by Herbert Lank, president of DuPont of Canada Limited, expressing some ridicule or criticism of the Department of Industry's program in underwriting research development. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has a national science policy in hand to be announced shortly, in order to put the position of research and the research potential of this country on a clear basis.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could look into this matter and see if it would be appropriate to make a statement in the house on what has been done. If it is, I shall do so shortly.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the house whether he intends to comply with the request of the Chibouga-mau and Chapais municipal authorities, and of many local organizations, to provide those localities with public radio and television service?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, a decision cannot be made in this connection before the Fowler commission has submitted its report.



MONTREAL-TELEVISION COVERAGE OF MOUNTED POLICE ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Cumberland. I am advised by the C.B.C. that no arrangements were made with police authorities to film the raids to which the hon. member refers. Such films as were used by the C.B.C. were purchased from free lance cameramen.
With respect to a further question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the answer is in the negative.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: As a supplementary question, yesterday I asked whether the government had made representations to the C.B.C. not to make any comment on the fact that one Lucien Rivard had escaped from jail. May I now ask the minister whether anyone had made representations to the officials of the C.B.C. in this regard.


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a proper question. We cannot inquire whether anyone has made representations to the C.B.C.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a very proper question to find out why the C.B.C. decided not to reveal anything of the story of the escapade, if you can call it that, the international escapade of this man Rivard. The question that was asked by the hon. gentleman was this. If it was not a member of the government as such, did any minister communicate with the C.B.C. and request that there should not be any dissemination of news regarding Rivard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question was answered.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: The answer to that was given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was asked yesterday and the answer was given today.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Transport is helping-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My name has been dragged in and I wasn't-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I can bring this interesting exchange to a conclusion. The minister said no. That was the end of his answer, if I understood him correctly, and of course the minister cannot be forced to answer unless he chooses.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the minister said.


Guy Favreau: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Justice interrupting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would advise the Chair. I have been lost in this cross talk between the two.


John George Diefenbaker: The question asked yesterday was whether the government had requested the C.B.C. not to make any comment. Now the question is, did any minister of the government do so. I notice the interest of the Minister of Justice. He seems to be disturbed about this. I ask whether the Minister of Justice had anything to do in this regard.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that question should have been put to me.


John George Diefenbaker: We would have to wait until tonight for the answer.


Guy Favreau: It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of Rivard interests the Leader of the Opposition to such an extent that he would believe it would be the end of his political life if Rivard had not escaped.


Mr. Starr:: It should have been the end of yours.


John George Diefenbaker: Doesn't the Minister of Justice agree that the way he handled this and the Banks case should mean the end of his political life?


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



CONGRATULATIONS ON PRESENTATION OF &quot;THE BARBER OF SEVILLE&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that words of praise are seldom heard about the C.B.C. in this house I would ask the minister to extend our congratulations to the corporation for the wonderful program shown on the French network last Sunday night, namely "The Barber of Seville", with an all Canadian cast.
Would the Secretary of State ask the C.B.C. to put on more programs of that kind?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to convey the hon. member's feelings and views to the C.B.C.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Would the minister recommend that an invitation be sent to the hon. member for Lapointe to sing on the C.B.C. network? That would be quite interesting.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. On February 23 I asked the minister about any announcement he might like to make regarding a highways conference, following the announcement from the Prime Minister's office about a $30 million assistance program for highways in the Atlantic provinces. At that time the minister said he would take the question as notice and see whether he would be able to make a statement about the matter. Is he now in a position to make such a statement?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have not been able to make a statement on highway policy as yet, but I might say I do not now foresee the calling of a meeting with the provincial highways ministers. As hon. mem-
Inquiries of the Ministry bers know we have gone a long way in the road building program, and we still have a fairly long way to go. I feel that perhaps the best thing I could do is to make inventory of exactly what we have done and try to do some planning for the future, and in the meantime try to co-ordinate our different activities in the field of road work.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is he aware that the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) declared during the week end that he wanted a general election to be held in the spring? Does the Prime Minister agree with his colleague?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is considering the abolition of corporation taxes on private power utilities, as reported in the press?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am considering a great many things these days, Mr. Speaker.



REMOVAL OF TAX ON MACHINERY OF PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. It stems from a meeting in the city of Peterborough. Mr. Campbell, of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, addressing the city manufacturers association about the auto pact between the United States and Canada had this to say:
One essential part of the new plan is that Canadian industry is able to enter it and compete with United States' counterparts on equal terms.
He went on to say that the 11 per cent sales tax on equipment and machinery must be abolished by the government if it wants industry to compete on an equal basis with manufacturers in the United States. I would

Inquiries of the Ministry like to ask the minister if he will put pressure on the Minister of Finance to have this tax abolished before the budget is brought down.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the airport at Winnipeg. I am prompted to do so by the welcome news that moving sidewalks are to be installed at the airport at Dorval. My question relates to the facilities at Winnipeg which the government has been considering in order to avoid passengers having to go both up and down to reach or deplane from aircraft. Has any progress been made in this connection?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know, sir, whether the hon. gentleman, like me, heard Max Ferguson this morning. If he had, 1 do not think he would have asked that question today. [Later:]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a brief supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I apologize for not having heard Max Ferguson this morning-that is my loss-but would the minister have a look at my question regarding the airport at Winnipeg and give an up to date answer at an early date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly the kind of question that, under our standing orders, if it was put on the order paper would get an answer, without taking up the time of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister of Transport that two or three times last fall he promised he would give an answer to this question on the orders of the day. I suggest that he keep his commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. Stenson.l

Can he tell us whether he intends to reply soon to the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec concerning the assistance he intends to give the farmers in the Abitibi and Temiscamingue districts who, last year, suffered from poor weather conditions?


Harry William Hays: The request received from the province of Quebec for the federal government to participate in the assistance programs being established by the provincial authorities to assist farmers in that province who suffered crop losses as a result of adverse weather conditions is still under consideration by the government. In this connection I regret that I apparently misunderstood the question asked by the hon. member for Chapleau on February 18, when he asked if a request had been received from the provincial government to provide assistance to the farmers of the Abitibi and Temiscamingue areas. These areas were not specifically mentioned in the correspondence received from Quebec, which dealt with assistance programs covering the whole province.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Minister of Agriculture tell us if he intends to complete his studies before the end of the year so he can obtain his diploma before the end of the session?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I have a question for the minister-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is rising to protest the fact that he has not been recognized, I may say that he has been recognized once already, whereas the hon. member for Cape Breton South has not.


Raymond Langlois: This is the second time today 1 have risen to ask a supplementary question and I have not been recognized. I have kept quiet about it even though other members have been recognized. This is your jurisdic-

Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS
tion, Mr. Speaker, and I respect your judgment. However, I should like to have an opportunity to ask some supplementary questions, and I think I have that privilege. I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the first question, with the kind permission of all the members, will be from the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that he stated a while ago that he granted a bonus on grain in western Canada, does he intend to give the same subsidies to the Quebec farmers, instead of mere poultices, as is practised at present by the minister responsible for ARDA?


Harry William Hays: I do not believe this is a proper question for orders of the day. The answer would be long and involved, but I shall be glad to give an answer if the hon. member would put his question on the order paper. I will outline exactly the subsidies that are given to eastern Canada, to central Canada and to all the provinces.



REQUEST FOR REPLIES TO LETTERS TO MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: My question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister take it upon himself to remind his ministers to answer correspondence within a reasonable time. In this case I have the Minister of Justice in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for M6-
gantic.


Malcolm MacInnis: This is a very important matter. Questions asked in this house are generally referred to the order paper. The Minister of Justice has been sitting on a letter requesting information for quite some time now. I should like the Prime Minister to remind his ministers that they should answer correspondence. He had to do this previously with the Minister of Labour. Since he has done it with the Minister of Labour, he should do it with the Minister of Justice.



CANADIAN SKI TEAM-REQUEST FOR AID FOR SUMMER TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question is based on representations I have had made to me and considerable correspondence. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I love to ask the hon. lady a question when I anticipate a satisfactory reply.
In view of the outstanding success of Canadian skiers in international competition, has the government received any request from Canada's national ski team or the relevant organization for further financial assistance from the Canadian physical fitness council to provide for a summer training program for members of this team? If so, what are the government's intentions in this respect.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend knows how much I dislike, when receiving questions from him, having to answer no. However, in this particular case that is the answer; I have not received such a request.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister or whichever minister is responsible for this matter. Is the Prime Minister aware that the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism is now inquiring into the ethnic origins and culture of civic employees of the city of Ottawa, and that this is illegal under the laws of Ontario? If so, I wonder what he intends to do about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not aware of this, but I will be glad to look into it. I am convinced that the commission would not take any step which was against the law of the province concerned. However, I shall be glad to look into it.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I should like to know whether instructions were given to the research commission which is investigating city employees to include a prior conclusion

Inquiries of the Ministry to the effect that before undertaking the investigation they were confident there had to be more dualism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to include that in my inquiry.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the
Prime Minister giving any consideration to discontinuing the operations of the B and B commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received an official complaint from national defence or from the dominion command of the Canadian Legion concerning the suspension of the secretary of the army benevolent fund?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. This question is of national urgency and I would ask the minister to answer immediately.
In view of the fact that housing construction has decreased by 300 units in the month of January 1965 only, as compared with 1964, in the province of Quebec and that there are 100,000 unemployed in that province, what measures does the Minister of Labour intend to take to cope as soon as possible with this deplorable situation?

This is an urgent question which should receive an answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the time allowed on orders of the day is not sufficient to answer the erroneous statements made by my hon. friend.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am told by my colleagues that 

there was an error in the interpretation. I mentioned that there were 100,000 unemployed in Quebec, and the interpretation was 500,000. I said, in French, that there were 100,000 unemployed in Quebec. If this is the error the minister mentioned I wish he would correct his reply also.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of Labour, and I said in my opening that it was an urgent matter. When 100,000 persons are unemployed in one province I think the minister should answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point three times, and similar questions have been asked regularly-


Gilles Grégoire: Answer.


Mr. Speaker:: -during the last two weeks, when the answer has always been, I believe, that if the hon. member would put the question on the order paper there would be an attempt to give a complete answer.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I refer Your Honour to Beau-chesne, which says that any question can be put to a minister when it is of urgent and national importance. I believe that when the situation is that the number of unemployed has reached that level, it is an urgent question and should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is arguing his question, not stating it.


Gilles Grégoire: They are afraid to speak on it.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 8, 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. When the committee rose yesterday clause 8 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 8-Amount of employee's contribution.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned yesterday that under clause 8 it is proposed

to deduct from the Canadian worker's pay cheque a further amount over and above what is already being deducted. As I said, deductions are made in respect of federal income tax, provincial income tax, union dues and, in many cases, for health insurance. And now, on top of all that, a further deduction will be made for the pension plan.
I wonder where the line is to be drawn concerning compulsory deductions from the Canadian worker's pay cheque? It seems to me there are already too many deductions. His earnings are taken away from the Canadian citizen and no matter how hard he works, new laws are passed authorizing further deductions from the Canadian worker's pay cheque, as we will be doing under Bill No. C-136.
Personally, I have nothing against giving the old age pension to Canadian citizens at 65 years of age, but I would much prefer that the same amount be given to everybody, whether or not the citizen had a high or low income. But I do object to further deductions from pay cheques, as proposed under clause 8.
Rather I think the government should consider increasing old age pensions regularly, without any contributions on the part of the workers. A stop should be put to those deductions from pay cheques for all kinds of plans such as the one we are considering today.
It is my opinion that when a Canadian citizen has been working all week, he surely deserves his salary and he should keep it because he really needs it to pay rent, food, clothes, schools, medicine, doctor, etc.
Here is another plan which will deprive the Canadian worker of another part of his salary.
I protest against the fact that once again, the government assumes the right to take away, through this pension plan, other parts of the Canadian worker's salary.
I am in favour of an increase of the old age pension to $100, that is under part IV of the pension plan, that such a pension be given, without a means test, to all Canadian citizens aged 65. But I am against the deduction of any amount from the worker's pay, as it is proposed to be done under clause 8.
I am the more opposed to such a proposal that the 1.8 per cent deduction will constitute a much larger amount than what the worker will get back as a pension.
The 1.8 per cent which will be collected from both the employer and the employee will not be used only to pay a pension to
Canada Pension Plan
Canadian citizens at the age of 65; the combined contribution of 3.6 per cent-1.8 per cent for the employer and 1.8 per cent for the employee-will be used to build up a bigger fund than needed to pay pensions to Canadians, and I do not find that normal. Not only will money be taken away from Canadian citizens for the pension plan, but that money will also be used to set up a fund the government will use for other purposes.
When money is thus taken from Canadian citizens and employers, it is no longer a pension plan, but an additional tax imposed on Canadian taxpayers, a further burden on the low income groups.
I most strongly object to this, and I am against this further tax levied on Canadian taxpayers. Since the coming into power of this government, taxes have constantly been increasing and, under clause 8 of Bill No. C-136, an additional tax is being imposed on the Canadian taxpayers.
I hope that the Minister of National Revenue will put an end to all those taxes. I see him sitting next to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is absent at the moment and the Minister of National Revenue, that is the minister of taxes, is piloting the bill. Why? Because he is looking after the interests of his department and not only those of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The big advantage of this pension plan is that the minister of taxation will go and pick even more money out of the taxpayers' pockets by increasing taxes. That is why he comes here to defend this pension plan.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It would seem to me that the hon. member is overstepping the limits of clause 8 now before us. He appears ready to undertake a general study of the taxation problem in Canada.
On reading clause 8, I see that it deals with the employee's contribution under this bill. I would suggest that the hon. member, having made his point, can conclude his remarks when he wants, but he should refer to the subject matter now before us, that is the amount of employee's contribution.


Gilles Grégoire: I was speaking precisely on clause 8, which reads as follows:
Commencing with the year 1966, every employee who is employed by an employer in pensionable employment during a year shall, by deduction as provided in this act-

Canada Pension Plan
That is a mandatory deduction. How do you call that? It is a tax. Therefore, under clause 8, a new tax is levied to set up this pension plan.
I maintain that my remarks are in order when I state that the 1.8 per cent contribution collected from the employee and the 1.8 per cent contribution paid by the employer, a total of 3.6 per cent, represent more than the amount needed to pay a pension to people of 65 as contemplated by the minister. Therefore, when more money is collected than is paid out, there is more money than is needed to set up a pension fund, since there is some left over. In that respect, it is estimated that between $8 and $9 billion will be collected within 10 years. That is not a pension fund; it is a new tax.


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
Can the hon. member tell us why his colleagues and himself talked so much yesterday
in order to have several groups of people included in the pension plan, knowing that it was a contributory plan, and today they are against imposing any form of contribution?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will tell my hon. friend from Longueuil (Mr. Cote) that I am not against the paying of a pension to all citizens. But I object to the fact that they must pay three times the amount which they will draw at the age of 65. I object to this, and I will never be a party to the legalized robbery which is being organized by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue.
I am not against Canadian citizens receiving $100, $125 or $150, not when they have reached the age of 70, but at 65; to the contrary, I am in favour of such a measure, because I realize that they deserve it, but I object to the fact that at the age of 18, 20, 30, 40 and 50 a Canadian citizen should pay three times the amount he will receive when he is 65. He must pay four times the amount he will receive, and he is compelled to pay that amount. That is why I claim that this is another tax, and when this is done under a pension plan, this is an act of hypocrisy and legalized robbery committed by the Minister of National Revenue. If the hon. member for Longueuil accepts that he is very na'ive and he does not defend the interests of the people of Canada.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question?

Does the hon. member know that in 20 years the reserve fund of the pension plan accumulated out of the contributions will have been exhausted as a consequence of the benefits paid to the contributors to the Canada pension plan?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Longueuil may believe the beautiful speeches delivered by the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but we do not, because if the fund is exhausted 20 years hence, that will be due to the fact that the other departments which are always broke will have dug into that fund in order to pay anything but pensions.
If it is emptied, it will also be due to the poor administration of both departments concerned, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Revenue, since expenditures of $18 million are expected when there is not even a single pension to pay to anybody. When expenditures of $18 million are expected for the administration of a pension plan under which no pensions are paid, I appreciate that this can keep two ministers busy to mismanage the business of the Canadian people.
Therefore I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil not to blame us, but rather the two ministers.
I can understand that two ministers are needed to try and make us swallow that, because the Canadian people will not digest it, for they are not as credulous as the hon. member for Longueuil.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I prefer to believe the estimates of actuaries rather than those of the hon. member for Lapointe.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I merely
answered the question of the hon. member for Longueuil and I must remind him that our role is not to take everything at its face value, to accept everything without asking questions. If it were so, I would tell him to go back home. Besides, it is a fact that for a long time he has merely been acting as a rubber stamp.
I was saying that under this pension plan, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Health and Welfare take away from Canadian citizens, in a compulsory way, more money-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems that the hon. member is considering now the very principle of the bill. This principle has already been discussed in the house, considered in committee and passed; unanimously or not, it was passed by the committee and by the house, and I do not think that the hon. member can now raise the question of the principle of the bill.
I would therefore suggest to him once again to remember the provisions of standing order 59 which restricts the discussion in committee strictly to the clause under consideration.
Therefore I invite him to restrict his remarks to that clause.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to the fact that I am not discussing the principle of the bill, but rather the 1.8 per cent paid by the employer and by the employee, that is 3.6 per cent, and I submit that those contributions make up an amount too large in relation to the pension benefits offered. The contribution is provided for in clause 8, and I think I am in order when I say that the percentage is too large in relation to the benefits that the pensioners will get.
I am speaking strictly to the provisions of clause 8, that is the percentage of the salary that will be taken out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer, and when I compare that amount, under the provisions of clause 8, I say it is too large for the pension plan alone, and that is why I should like to suggest to the Minister of National Revenue to lower that contribution or to increase the benefits of the pension plan.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that my remarks are relevant because I am sticking to the provisions of clause 8. In fact, I am discussing the contributions that will be compulsory for the employers and the employees. So, I believe I am completely in order.
In fact, some of my colleagues, in a few minutes, will bring forward figures to establish that it is highway robbery to levy 3.6 per cent from the taxpayers for the purposes of this pension plan, and that is precisely what I am objecting to. That is the reason why I say that the amounts to be levied for the purposes of this pension plan, under clause 8 of Bill No. C-136, are too high, and I have no hesitation in describing this pension plan as a colossal hypocrisy that is offered to the Canadian people under the cover of social security legislation.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian taxpayer will be further taxed, and that is why Lib-
Canada Pension Plan
eral members of parliament are so strongly upholding the pension plan.
Mr. Chairman, I want to voice my objection to all these taxes.


Some hon. Members:: This is not a tax.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I hear some hon. members say that this is not a tax, but when a plan is compulsory, as specified in clause 8, and when deductions are made from the salary, as provided under clause 8, when a taxpayer is liable to be fined and even jailed if he does not pay, as provided under clause 8, then I call that a farce. And when people are taxed under false pretences, as specified under clause 8, then I call that hypocrisy and legalized theft, and the members of the cabinet and of this government are responsible.
Mr. Chairman, they do not know what means to take to impose further taxes; therefore they go about it indirectly under the provisions of clause 8.
Why are they hiding the fact that it is a new tax? They are afraid to incur the disfavour of the Canadian people who are already overtaxed. Under clause 8, a new tax of 3.6 per cent will be levied, and we object to it. Taxes are high enough as it is without levying a new one, as is being done under clause 8.
The Liberal party is right at home when it comes to levy taxes. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Revenue is doing it all the time, and it is the Canadian people, alas, who are always paying. That is why we have been saying for quite a long time now that the Liberal party is tax-happy.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, of course.


Georges-C. Lachance: Does the hon. member think that his role in the house consists in talking nonsense and in presenting arguments in which he does not even believe himself?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe my role is to protect the Canadian people from the kind of people, like the member for Lafontaine and the Minister of National Revenue, who are tax-happy.
The hon. member is saying here, rather clearly, that he is in favour of taxes, but during election campaigns Liberal members always say the contrary, that is that they are going to reduce taxes, but during the sessions new taxes are introduced, as they want to do today under clause 8.

Canada Pension Plan
The hon. member for Lafontaine is the one who is talking nonsense, it is up to him to say he is in favour of an increase in taxes.
Mr. Chairman, with this I bring my observations to an end.
I protest against this new tax, I protest against this new imposition and I declare without hesitation that it is always the same thing with the Liberal party: it is a party of taxes, a party of impositions, a party of tax-happy people.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question. Would the hon. member consider seeking a seat in the Quebec legislature so he could then do something about the tax question in that province?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the opportunity to protect Quebec taxpayers in the House of Commons. If the hon. member for Medicine Hat is in favour of taxing the people of his province, let him say so.
But as members for the province of Quebec, it rests with us to protect Quebec taxpayers and, as federal members of parliament, to protect Canadian taxpayers, since some members, like the one for Medicine Hat, are unwilling to protect their constituents against additional taxes.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I wish to oppose strongly this 1.8 per cent contribution to be paid by the small wage earner. It is my duty to record my opposition, as a federal member of parliament and as a supporter of the small worker, of the little fellow.
Mr. Chairman, I am against what the hon. member for Lapointe has referred to as a tax, in no uncertain terms. That is exactly what it is. In addition to that, it is compulsory, because it is an imposed contribution. During consideration of the last part of clauses 109 and 113, it was found that it was compulsory for the Canadian people to secure a number and that they had to accept it, for the use of the departments concerned, in connection with the pension plan established by Bill No. C-136.
Indeed, under the principle that numbering must be accepted, we are not free to refuse to pay this 1.8 per cent contribution, since a penalty is provided.

But what intrigues me in all that is precisely the fact that this 1.8 per cent tax or compulsory contribution is being levied on the small wage earner up to a maximum of $5,000. The same thing was done when the old age pension was raised by $10. A new 1 per cent tax was imposed on earnings from $1 up to $3,000. The same class of people are always being crushed by the tax burden.
The hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) can object all they want and say that those are not taxes. But let them try and put that over their constituents. I do not think their constituents will swallow that any more than the members of this house.


An hon. Member:: It is not a tax.


Raymond Langlois: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) seems to say that instead of complaining about taxes we should accept them. I wonder if under the co-operative federalism system he is advocating, which is more or less-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure that the hon. member will admit that in studying co-operative federalism he is straying quite far from subject matter of the debate. I would ask him to read clause 8 which gives only the amount of the employee's contribution.
In my opinion, and under the meaning of the rules, hon. members should limit their arguments for or against the amount given in clause 8 and not discuss, as the hon. member is trying to do now, such general matters as co-operative federalism.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I should like to mention that I am answering precisely an objection raised by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska who, as usual, interjects from his seat, saying that it is not a new tax. In my opinion it is a new tax, period.
Clause 8 deals precisely with the 1.8 per cent contribution which it is proposed to impose on the small wage earners of the country. Can they deny that it is a new tax, when it involves precisely those who are already burdened, overtaxed and I think that we could even say, harried by this government and the previous ones.
Mr. Chairman those are the people who should be protected, and I am trying to protect them against that compulsory tax, that new 1.8 per cent tax.
I do not intend to go far afield but I want to answer in no uncertain terms the objec-

tion raised by the hon. member for Lon-gueuil who asked earlier: Are you in favour of a pension plan? Yes, Mr. Chairman we are in favour of a pension plan, but a universal one.
Then, why levy a contribution of 1.8 per cent? Does the Minister of National Revenue want to make money or is the purpose merely to help the Canadian people? The Canadian people will not be helped by taxing the little people, as it is intended. According to the principles of morality and democracy, everybody should be taxed according and proportionately to their gains; those who earn up to $5,000 a year should not be singled out because in this way only the small wage earner is taxed. That is more or less what is being done, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The question that the hon. member is raising now was entirely covered when the committee previously considered clause 6 among others. If the hon. member was present at the sittings which preceded today's, he knows that the point he is now suggesting was dealt with in several speeches.
I would consider that the statements he is trying to make at this time are not relevant to clause 8.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the fact that this question was discussed on clause 6. Besides, I was ordered to sit down five or six times on the same question and, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, I think that you were in the chair at that time. So, believe me, I know clause 6 and its provisions. For the time being, I was referring to clause 6, paragraph 2, which I know by heart, because I mentioned it rather often at the last sitting and at last Friday's sitting. I know very well that I was not dealing then with clause 8, but I was referring to it in respect to this 1.8 per cent tax, because it is really a tax, period.
In my opinion, it is a financial burden put by this government on the small wage earners of the country.
I, for one, should like to see government members and the present ministers explain to the Canadian people this 1.8 per cent and tell them straight out what it is.
They maintained on the other side of the house a few minutes ago that actuaries studied the question and gave their approval. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, but one man who
Canada Pension Plan
did not approve of it lost his job. He was also an actuary.
It is dictatorship; another tax is levied on small wage earners.
That is all I wanted to put on the record and, believe me, I will say it again.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put one question to the Minister of National Revenue; if he is willing to answer me immediately, that will, no doubt, shorten the debate.
Can the minister tell me what will be the amount, the exact figure of the contributions?
If I take, as an example, $5,000 as the maximum contributory earnings, at 1.8 per cent, I get $90 as the maximum contribution of the worker-


Some hon. Members:: Less $600.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Let me finish my question. The minister will explain it to me. Can he confirm the amount of $90 or does he foresee another amount? That is what I want to know.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Seventy nine dollars and twenty cents.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, the answer to this question is that under the bill as it is written the maximum contribution for an employed person will be $79.20 and for a selfemployed person $158.40.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Amount of employer's contribution.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I think nobody will blame me for wanting to say a few words on clause 8-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Clause 8 has been agreed to. Unless the hon. member had risen before the clause was carried-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I was here.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The hon. member was outside the house.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The clause has not been agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not want to limit the discussion in any way, but clause 8 has been agreed to. Should the committee allow the hon. member for Shefford to go on with his remarks, I will not object.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Even before you called clause

Canada Pension Plan
9, the hon. member for Shefford was standing at his place.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, he was standing.


Lucien Lamoureux: I can assure the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that the Chair was looking on that side of the house, naturally expecting that there would be other contributions to the discussion of clause 8. Well then, the hon. member for Shefford was not at his seat when clause 8 was carried.


Gilles Grégoire: Since you had not called clause 9-


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 8 has been carried. Now, if the hon. member would be good enough to resume his seat, I would suggest, if such is the desire of the committee, that we return to the consideration of clause 8, which is, however, an irregular procedure. As an alternative, the hon. member for Shefford could be allowed to discuss clause 8 when we get to clause 9. There would be no objection to that.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you something? Since clause 8 deals with the 1.8 per cent contribution by the employee and clause 9 with the 1.8 per cent contribution by the employer, could the committee not discuss, under clause 9, the total contribution of 3.6 per cent, so that we may continue our debate on the contributions to be paid by both the employer and the employee?


Lucien Lamoureux: Surely. In my opinion there is not too much difference between the 1.8 per cent payable by the employer and the 1.8 per cent payable by the employee. During this afternoon's discussion it was very difficult for the Chair to determine whether hon. members were speaking on clause 8 or clause 9.
Clause 8 having been carried, I am willing to deal liberally with the discussion and to let the hon. member for Shefford speak of the 3.6 per cent contribution in general.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that clauses 8 and 9 are quite similar. One concerns the employee, the other the employer.
As for the matter of dealing liberally, I feel this is in fact treating the Canadian people Liberally, by taxing them.
If we consider the contributions which the employer and the employee will have to pay, this will mean $2 or $3 taken off the employee's weekly salary. The employee will

claim this amount from his employer in the form of a salary increase, because what counts for the employee is his take-home pay at the end of the week. He will then demand a salary increase. This will raise the cost of living not only by 1.8 per cent, but by 3.6 per cent, because the employer's share also will be passed on.
Considering the amount that this 1.8 per cent represents for certain employers, we can say that the Liberal party will drive many small employers to bankruptcy because these employers, besides having to pay 1.8 per cent, will be obliged to increase their employees' salary to cover the latters' share.
What I find most ridiculous in clauses 8 or 9 is the fact that the contribution of 3.6 per cent will be compulsory. If this legislation were so attractive and generous for employers and employees, it would not have to be compulsory.
The best proof that this legislation is a supplementary tax is that it is compulsory.
No pension plan devised by any insurance company is compulsory. The day we are not satisfied with it, we can cancel it and withdraw the amounts we paid into it.
The Canadian people will no doubt realize after the election, or even before, because an attempt is being made to make them understand, that this pension plan is nothing else but a tax. It is a compulsory pension plan being forced upon employers and employees throughout the country. If it is so beneficial to the future security of our young and older Canadians, why not set up a pension plan so attractive that there would be no need to make it compulsory, as the government is trying to do at present?
We pay taxes and it is a known fact that people find them very distasteful. The proof that this is a tax, as the hon. member for Lapointe pointed out, is the devotion and the interest shown by the Minister of National Revenue, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in piloting and pleading for this bill.
Under Bill No. C-136 the pension plan becomes a tax which will pour revenue into the federal treasury. They want to force taxes down our throats, not in the form of direct taxation, but under cover of a compulsory pension plan.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question? He and previous speakers have raised the point that a good deal of

money would be raised for the federal government through this legislation. Is he aware that the funds raised beyond those required to meet the pay-outs and administrative expenses of this plan must be turned over monthly to the participating provinces and do not rest with the federal government?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, we are presently compiling those figures and studying all this matter; we shall soon be able to give exact figures to the Minister of National Revenue. We are especially examining the amount paid by a contributor, and on his behalf by his employer, during 47 years of his life, from the age of 18 to 65, which is the period during which an ordinary citizen works, according to the rates of contribution set out in the bill, in relation to the amount which this person will draw from the age of 65 until the end of his life expectancy.
We see that not only will the contributor not draw his capital, but he will not even draw part of the interest on the capital he paid in from 18 to 65 years of age.
I know that the amounts accumulated in that fund will have been paid, but to whom? To civil servants, to bureaucracy, to inspectors, for stationery as is now the case in some departments where farmers receive 15 per cent and the administration 85 per cent? This is the case regarding the last budget of the Deparment of Agriculture for the year 1964, which appropriates 85 per cent to the administration of the department.
Therefore, I presume that 85 per cent of the total amounts paid by the contributors may be taken up for purposes of administration. That is what the Minister of National Revenue meant when he said that all the money would be spent.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks in order to complete my previous observations, since it seems we are combining clauses 8 and 9-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair is not combining clauses 8 and 9. Clause 8 was duly carried and we authorized the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), regarding whom there were some doubts, as to whether he was at his seat at the time the clause was carried, to make his contribution, which was indeed very interesting. But that latitude having been granted the hon. member for Shefford, we must now limit the present discussion to clause 9.
Canada Pension Plan


Raymond Langlois: All right, Mr. Chairman; anyway, I said all I wanted to say on clause 8. Now, here is what I have to say on clause 9.
I am not changing my views as to the 1.8 per cent. To my mind, this is a measure still more pernicious as far as the employer is concerned, for the simple reason that the employer is not entitled to any repayment on this 1.8 per cent he may have overpaid. In the case of the employee, under the previous clause, he pays this 1.8 per cent of his salary once during the year. On the other hand, under clause 9, the employer may pay twice or three times the 1.8 per cent contribution during the six months' period reserved for the different employees working for him and he cannot get any repayment.
The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) persists in defending this bill. He mentioned the actuaries a while ago. But has he seen the Financial Post's latest report on that. I think he should take a look at it since he attaches so much importance to those institutions specializing in financial matters. Why does he not examine the report published by the Financial Post in this regard. He would find that this paper had no hesitation in castigating the views he expressed a while ago.
We are not the only ones who struggle against that tax octopus the Liberal government is setting loose against society.
I shall even go a little further. They would have us accept such a thing, swallow that kind of a "barbotte", by telling us that it will boost the economy and help people in the low income group, when our neighbour, the President of the United States, is doing just the opposite.
There is one person I sure would like to see beside him this afternoon, and that is the Minister of Finance, whose department is also interested in this bill, because he has access to the files. I would very much like to see him explain to us how his new policy of tax increases will help the country, when the other fellow, on the contrary, goes in for a tax reduction policy to come to his country's assistance. One of them has got to be wrong. You could not find two persons holding such opposite views on the same subject, especially since they both hold the same key positions. This can be found to be impossible and illogical at the present time. I should like very much to hear the explanations of the Minister of Finance in this regard.
If the Minister of National Revenue wants to be honest with the house, he will have to recognize that the imposition of a new 1.8

Canada Pension Plan
per cent tax will constitute a burden for the small Canadian employer and for the small industry which is already assailed by thousands of problems in the field of labour.
Mr. Chairman, we want to know how matters stand at present concerning salary increases. Following the implementation of the plan, labour will cost employers 1.8 per cent more. The employer will add this expense to his production costs, and the cost of living index will go up. Will that be of any help? That is how everything is paid for in the long run. Perhaps this was not discussed at length during consideration of clause 6 (2) (a), but it still remains that the employer has been neglected.
It is the employer who will suffer the consequences of a nefarious and diabolical system, a tax levy which is purported to be of assistance to the people. It does not make sense.
The hon. member for Longueuil knows it very well. Let him explain it to his constituents at the next election.
Then, that is it: two chords, two violins, two tunes; but, today I want exactly to remain in the same chord I started with some time ago, and to defend the people's interests against the government which is imposing useless, futile and harmful taxes for the country itself and its economy. This is one of them and I ask the Minister of National Revenue to give serious consideration to a report in the Financial Post concerning this pension plan. It criticized this levying of a tax of 1.8 per cent to be paid by employers and of 1.8 per cent to be paid by low wage earners.
If the Minister of National Revenue is honest with himself, will he tell the committee what he calls this compulsory contribution of 1.8 per cent? In his own mind, does he construe this contribution as a tax, yes or no? Will he admit whether or not it is a tax? This is the only question I want to direct to the Minister of National Revenue.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry? [Translation]


Raymond Langlois: No, Mr. Chairman, I asked a question and I insist that the minister answer it.


Lucien Lamoureux: I want to point out to the hon. member that he is putting forward an argument which is contrary to the principle of a contributory pension plan. He advances an argument which opposes a principle that

has been approved by the house and by the hon. member. I assume, and I would suggest that other members who want to follow the same line of argument, by opposing the contribution of 1.8 per cent by employees and employers, are, indeed, opposing the principle of the bill as it has been agreed to by the house on second reading. I would suggest that the hon. member read the resolution as it has been unanimously carried by the house. That resolution involves a contributory pension plan.
I suggest the hon. member's argument against this principle contravenes a resolution that has already been carried by the house.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I respect your statement. It is not the principle of the bill I am opposed to, but the principle of its application, because it becomes a tax. That is not the same thing.
When we come to clause 1 you will see what I call an uneconomic plan and what is a tax. Consequently, I ask the Minister of National Revenue to answer and tell me whether this 1.8 per cent is a tax, yes or no.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, it is described quite clearly in the clause. It is a contribution.


Raymond Langlois: It is a contribution. Is it a tax or a levy? It is a contribution, but it is compulsory. May I call it a tax? I am not asking for so much. Could the minister answer, yes or no?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member has the right to ask questions. The minister has answered. The hon. member may not be satisfied with the minister's answer, but he cannot demand the answer that he wishes. The hon. member wishes to have an answer, yes or no, from the minister but unfortunately, an hon. member cannot demand such a specific answer from a minister.


Raymond Langlois: I accept the minister's answer and I rephrase my question. As far as I, myself, am concerned, what could I call this 1.8 per cent contribution?


An hon. Member:: You can call it what you please.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should not like the minister to put the members of the house in a position where they could make all kinds of mistakes. I should not like the

Canada Pension Plan
public to be told that a tax is being imposed if that is not a fact.
My hon. friends opposite say what they like to the public, but not me.


An hon. Member:: You are the only one that does not understand. Others are not both end duffers.


Raymond Langlois: They are not both end duffers, they are duffers from one end to the other.
I understand why the minister does not answer the question. However, in view of the fact, that the minister said it was a contribution, I shall call it a contribution, but just the same, it is a tax that is levied by him. [Text]


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member's question I say that he may, of course, call it whatever he likes. The legislation says it is a contribution.


Raymond Langlois: Yes, I know, but would I be in error if I were to call it a tax?


Edgar John Benson: I am not here to correct the many errors made by my hon. friend.


Raymond Langlois: I agree with that, but we are
here in our role as the official opposition to correct some of your errors.


Mr. Montsiih:: Since when? I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Raymond Langlois: I still maintain this is a fact, and the minister well knows it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I should like to draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that the party which I am representing in this debate is actually the official opposition.


Raymond Langlois: I agree with that intervention, but they have not said a word today.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We have not had a chance. I should like to say, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka did last night while discussing clause 8, that we are proposing substantive amendments to clauses 44, 46 and 48. We want to show our concern for the soundness of the plan by proposing consequential amendments to clauses 9 and 10 as well as 8. According to the previous agreement, the minister indicated that if we passed these now and there were substantive amendments carried to these other clauses, we could reopen these clauses.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, on reading clause 9, I see that, contrary to the previous
clause, there is no remittance of amounts overpaid by an employer. I therefore conclude that the employer who had to pay surplus contributions will never be reimbursed. Therefore, this increases the 3.6 per cent provided for in the act to about 4 per cent, because this overpayment shall never come back to the employer. This increases to quite an extent the receipts of the pension plan; in our opinion they represent a fair sized figure at present. As a matter of fact, if you make a simple calculation, you will realize that an 18 year old worker will contribute $160 a year to the pension fund until the age of 65, when he becomes eligible. Lend this amount at 6 per cent during 47 years, adding $160 annually, and you will get the fabulous sum of $30,000 at age 65, 47 years after the first contribution.
This citizen will receive only $104 per month whereas his contribution to the fund, plus this employer's contribution will yield upon retirement a yearly amount of $1,800 in interest only. A pensioner will not even be able to get the interest on the amount he will have paid in.
That is why we are saying that this is a magnificent plan for the government and should I be in a position to set up a similar plan for myself, I would do it immediately.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, I have but a few brief questions to ask and I hope that the answers will be as accurate as possible.
The minister said a while ago that each month, the amounts paid as contributions would be returned to the provinces as loans. Did the minister mean that all the amounts collected in a given place, that is in a province, would be reloaned in full to that province, or did he mean, for instance, that the amounts collected in Ontario could be loaned to the province of Saskatchewan? In other words, I would like to know whether those amounts will be reloaned according to the collecting place.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that this matter was fully discussed during the debate on clauses 110 and onwards. At that time the method of distribution of funds back to the provinces was discussed.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer. I do not have the time to consult Hansard, but under those circumstances let us proceed in another way.

Canada Pension Plan
Contributors residing in the province of Quebec and working as federal civil servants for employers in Ontario will pay their contributions to the fund provided for in Bill No. C-136. This means that Quebec will be deprived of rather important amounts originating from contributions, and that it will not be able to borrow.
I see that the minister shakes his head. In that case, it would have been better for him to give a definite answer to the question I put to him a while ago.
Then, supposing that the Quebec government may borrow from the local fund through the contributions of Quebec residents, under its own pension plan, it would therefore be able to use the funds paid under Bill No. C-136? The minister shakes his head.
Therefore there is still contradiction in that case. This is precisely the point. By way of answers, we are given nods or shakes of the head, probably meaning yes or no, but which are not understood-


Edgar John Benson: I would agree with the last remark, Mr. Chairman. I dealt with this particular matter in detail, in answer to questions raised by my hon. friend, previously during this very debate. We went fully into the method of collecting contributions on an employee basis. People who work in Quebec and reside in Ontario would contribute to the Quebec plan, and vice-versa with regard to the people from Quebec who work in Ontario. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this matter is not relevant at all to the particular clause which we are discussing, namely clause 9, which deals with the calculation of the contribution of an employer. In addition, the matter was dealt with fully in reply to questions raised by my hon. friend previously.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I have not mentioned the contribution of employees, but I want to deal with the employers of Ontario and New Brunswick who will employ residents of the province of Quebec who will work 24 days for an employer, then will go to another place in order to work for another period of 24 days, and who will go after that to New Brunswick to work for the same employer during 24 days or less than 25 days. In that case, what will happen to the share of the employer, which will never have been paid?
If Quebec wanted to register its "migrant" employees, who work on a seasonal basis, sometimes in one part of Canada and sometimes in another, those employees would not

be able to take advantage of this part of their contributions which is paid to the federal fund. Quebec would not be able to benefit from the part of the employers in the other provinces who would employ a number of workers for a period of 24 days or less than 25 days, three, four and even five times a year. As pointed out by my hon. friend and colleague from Megantic (Mr. Langlois), this is precisely the trick that could be used by various employers, that is make an exchange of employees.
I realize the minister answered yesterday rather clearly that he did not believe an employer would resort to such tactics in view of the fact that this would represent hardly $1.80 on $100 in wages paid to an employee. But if an employer takes on 20, 30 or 40 workers of all categories, this represents, after all, hundreds of dollars at the end of a 24-day period.
In view of the fact that those employees are residents of Quebec they will be treated unjustly due to this scueme which some employers in other provinces might resort to respecting employees living in Quebec.
That is why I am concerned about those employees and I am wondering whether the minister has provided some penalty against employers who could act in such a way toward employees who do not come within the provisions of clause 6 where pensionable employment is defined.
In view of the fact that Quebec residents will be in a position to earn most of their annual income in other provinces and that they could be transferred from one employer to another, this represents nevertheless rather large amounts.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Dube):: Shall clause 9 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I am asking a specific question. Is there any provision concerning the penalty to an employer who would behave that way?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member asked a question which had been answered previously in the debate and which he knew full well had been answered previously. He is again speaking in the debate, and I believe this is contrary to the rules.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have indicated to hon. members who have previously taken part in the debate this afternoon that certain of the questions asked had been asked before and answered to the best of the minister's ability. I do not think the hon. member can insist that a question that has been put before, and answered, should be answered again.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that other members have ever asked whether there is any provision concerning the penalty an employer would have to pay if he behaved in this manner, that is exchange workers that are not subject to pay any contribution under Bill No. C-136.
But the residents of a province who would be employed in another province could be subjected to a serious prejudice as far as their annual earnings are concerned, for the purposes of the pension policy, if they were transferred from one province to another, after a relatively short period of employment.
Therefore, I ask a question that can be answered very easily: Has any provision been nade with regard to penalty against employers who would behave in this fashion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer this question, and any other juestions the hon. member has, when he has ndicated that he is finished speaking on his particular clause.


Gérard Perron: I have finished my comments, Mr. Chairman, and that is the question I am isking.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
nember's point really refers to clause 6 of his bill, rather than to clause 9. This is a natter we discussed yesterday, and I indicated hat there is no provision in the bill for :ontributions being made when people work 'or less than 25 days or earn less than $250; hat is if they fall within certain classifications )f employment. As my hon. friend indicated, f someone worked outside Quebec for 24 lays-I refer to a resident of Quebec-he vould not contribute; and if he went back nto the province of Quebec and took longer erm employment there and contributed, he vould not have had the opportunity of con-ributing to the Canada pension plan, because )f clause 6(2) (a). This is quite true, and it vould also work in the other direction: if
Canada Pension Plan
someone from Ontario went into Quebec and worked for a period, he would presumably have to comply with some sort of period under the Quebec bill.
With regard to penalty, I indicated yesterday that I did not think that as a practical matter employers would follow the practice of employing a number of people for 24 days and would then fire them all and hire another group of people in order to get their work done, or would switch them back and forth, and so on. We think this is not a very likely thing to happen. Therefore as my hon. friend knows-because he was on the pension committee, which had 51 sittings-there is no provision in the bill for a specific penalty in this regard. However, there is clause 7(1) (g) of the bill which provides that the government may vary the amount of $250 and the term of days if they were subject to a great deal of abuse.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Amount of contribution in respect of self-employed earnings.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, clause 10 deals with contributions by persons in respect of self-employed earnings, and subclause (1) states:
Commencing with the year 1966, every individual who is resident in Canada for the purposes of the Income Tax Act during the year...shall make a contribution for the year of an amount equal to 3.6 per cent of
(a) his contributory self-employed earnings for the year-
And so on.
The people of Queens-Lunenburg riding whom I represent are a very independent group of people. They are a highly industrious and thrifty group of people. Many of them realize that it is their thrift and industry which, in part, helps keep the government in spending money, and not the other way around. Many of these people are self-employed and throughout the years have made provision for their retirement needs either through life insurance or retirement savings plans or investment in Canadian industrial growth companies, which regularly provide them with an income. These people are vitally concerned over the impact that this plan will have upon their savings, their investments, and their existing pension plans.
There is a strong feeling among many of these people with regard to the compulsory aspect of this plan, and I should like to suggest to the minister that he give consideration to amending this plan so as to make it volun-

Canada Pension Plan
tary rather than compulsory. If this is not possible, I would propose that the bill be amended so that participation in the plan by those who are self-employed may be voluntary and not compulsory, for all those who can prove that they have made or are making provision for their own retirement income at least equal to that provided by Bill No. C-136. Without this type of amendment Bill No. C-136 is an extremely paternalistic and dictatorial measure. To those who have already made or are making provision for their retirement which is at least equal to the benefits of the Canada pension plan, this bill actually means that they are forced to put the government of Canada in funds with which to buy provincial or municipal bonds. Why cannot these people be trusted to make such purchases by themselves if they so desire or if they are able to do so?
I would suggest that the minister give consideration to amending this bill along the lines I have proposed. For if the government of Canada can tell us how we must invest our surplus funds, then I would ask the minister to tell me exactly what is left of our so-called free society? I am in agreement with the idea that Canada needs a pension plan. Those who wish to participate in the plan should have the right to do so. But I firmly believe that in a measure of this kind participation should be voluntary and not compulsory. I therefore ask the minister whether he would consider substituting the word "may" for the word "shall", so that Canadians may retain freedom of self-determination when considering active participation in or individual opting out of this plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to tell the committee how he voted on the matter of principle involved on the resolution stage?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, may I say that if the minister had been listening to my remarks a moment ago instead of thinking up some smart political reply to my comments, which I make in fairness to the committee, she would have heard me say-and I think I speak fairly clearly even though I do have what they call a Dutch accent in Lunenburg county-that I am in agreement with the idea that Canada needs a pension plan. Consequently, I voted accordingly. But I say again to the minister as clearly as I possibly can that the people I represent object to the compulsory aspect of the plan, and are only asking that those who have made provision for their own retirement on a comparable

basis with the benefits provided by this plan be allowed to opt out or to stay in the plan, as they so desire.
If the minister has any comment to make perhaps she would first rise to her feet, because I should like to listen to what she has to say.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It may well be that some of the hon. member's constituents felt the same way when Bismarck first introduced such a plan in western Germany; and while the hon. member calls his constituents Dutch, I think they are very proud of the fact that they stemmed mainly from Germany.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really fail to see the relevance of the minister's comment to what I have said. I think that anyone who has studied history will realize that the original settlers of Lunenburg county in particular came there in 1753. It is true that at that time they came from Hanover, for in that age there was no Germany; so for the minister's edification they called themselves Hanoverians.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the objection raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg which is an objection based on his own opinion, to which of course he is entitled, as well perhaps as the opinion of some of his constituents. This plan is designed to be as universal an old age pension plan as is possible. All persons who qualify must contribute to the plan. It is written so that it will cover as many people as possible in the labour force of Canada. It is therefore written so that persons in the labour force, including employed people and people who are self-employed, must contribute. My hon. friend will realize that many people during their lifetime shift from being self-employed to employed, and vice-versa.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Such as yourself.


Edgar John Benson: Yes; I was self-employed before coming here. If there were an opting out privilege some people might opt out in the early years because they were self-employed but later on be sorry they did so because, like the hon. member for Perth and myself, they later became employed persons. This is one of the difficulties involved.
Another difficulty which would arise if we decided that some people who were self-employed could opt out concerns whether they receive equivalent benefit under any provisions they make for themselves. I do not think that any government administration

could be expected to examine every person who is contributing to a basic plan such as this and decide whether they have an equivalent benefit and do not have to contribute. The provisions of the plan are so framed that everyone will contribute to the plan a very limited percentage of their earnings up to the first $5,000, and through the Canada pension plan must provide a basic pension for themselves which would be equivalent to 25 per cent of earnings up to $5,000.
There are provisions under the Income Tax Act where, if people earn more money than this, they can invest it in a retirement savings plan and deduct the contributions from their taxable income for the year. But as I say, the plan is designed to be as universal as possible. It is a compulsory plan and a plan to which all members of the labour force must contribute, provided they earn amounts in excess of $600 if employed and $800 and over if self-employed.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister. He referred to an individual who could be self-employed at one stage of his career, and an employee during another period, as in his own case. What would happen in the case of a man who would have a warehouse, having no administrative responsibility concerning the purchase of goods which would be stored in his building, and who would work, so to speak, on a commission basis? Would he be considered as a self-employed person or as a wage earner?


Edgar John Benson: The method of determining whether or not a person is self-employed for the purposes of this bill is exactly the same as that used for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is based on whether or not a person is in business, or has a contract of employment and is, therefore, an employed person. I could not give a general answer to the method of determination.
It would depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. If an individual was considered to be self-employed for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, he would also be considered to be self-employed for the purposes of the Canada pension plan.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should cite a more specific example. Let us take the case of an individual who obtains his merchandise from a boat manufacturing company and operates a retail business, furnishes the premises and facilities required 20220-768
Canada Pension Plan
but does not purchase the boats from the manufacturing company, and only receives a commission at the time of a sale. Is that individual considered under the Income Tax Act as a self-employed person operating a private enterprise, or as a salaried individual? I hope the minister will bear in mind that the individual in the example I have cited only receives commission on the sale of the merchandise. Under the provisions of this plan will he contribute to the extent of 1.8 per cent of his earnings paid by the company manufacturing the boats, for whom he sells these boats, or will he be required to pay 3.6 per cent of his commissions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, if an individual accepts goods, is operating a place of business and carries on the business of selling those goods, incurs overhead expenses and so on, he would probably be considered to be a person with self-employed earnings.
I should like to make it quite clear to this committee that I do not wish to adjudicate in respect of any particular case or example during our considerations at this time. It would be impossible for me to do so because one would be required to be in possession of all the facts surrounding an individual case to make such an adjudication.


Raymond Langlois: Do I take it from the minister's answer that in respect of individual circumstances such as I have referred to, one would have to study all the circumstances before coming to a conclusion in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: Yes. The determination would have to be made on the same basis as the determination is now made for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, because such an individual would presumably be a taxpayer. Such a case would be considered in a similar manner under the terms of this bill.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a few questions concerning certain points raised by another hon. member; I forget the name of his riding. The question was raised whether it would be possible to establish the participation of the residents of the nine provinces affected by Bill No. C-136, on a voluntary basis, on the part of those who could not contribute and even those who, under the Income Tax Act, could contribute for earnings accumulated during the year, or leave that on a voluntary basis for those who would like to participate in the pension plan under Bill No. C-136.

Canada Pension Plan
Here is my question. What would happen if, under the Quebec plan, the contribution of self-employed people, of a farmer or of a person earning an income less that the required amount for the federal income tax return would be established on a voluntary basis?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the hon. member's question is entirely hypothetical, because the resolution before the Quebec legislature, as I understand it, states that this is compulsory. I have recommended to my hon. friend that he read that resolution in order to determine the comparability of the two plans.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, for at least two days reference has been made to a resolution which I do not have before me now but which has been submitted. I sit in the House of Commons in Ottawa where I try to defend as well as I can the interests of Canadians and also those of the residents of the province of Quebec; I think that these references made quite regularly since last night, at least, concerning the resolution tabled in the Quebec legislature, do not answer the question I asked.
I will then repeat this question unequivocally hoping to have an answer.
What would happen if the Quebec legislature allowed those who do not have to file an income tax return because they do not earn more than $1,000, as well as those who earn less than that yearly, to contribute on a voluntary basis to its pension plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer the hon. member's question if he will indicate again that this will complete his discussion of this particular clause.


Gérard Perron: And if I have other questions to ask, I reserve the privilege of asking them. If the minister would be good enough to answer that specific question; I am awaiting his answer.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to continue answering questions asked by hon. members for the purpose of allowing this type of debate to continue. If the hon. member will indicate to me a group of questions to which he requires answers I will

be pleased to do my best to provide them, but it does seem to me that every time the hon. member asks a question he does so for the purpose of obtaining an answer in order that he may continue to discuss the clause now under consideration. I feel that is a wrong procedure.


Gilles Grégoire: Do we have to conclude that the minister does not want to answer any more questions concerning the pension plan? Is that not arrogance, Mr. Chairman?


Edgar John Benson: The practice adopted by the hon. member in asking the particular question he has posed is one based on a wrong principle, it seems to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is what you call escalating the debate.


Edgar John Benson: The question the hon. member has just posed is an extremely hypothetical one. For that reason I do not think it would be proper for me to attempt to answer it. I have already indicated to the hon. member what the situation is regarding the resolution now on the order paper in the Quebec provincial legislature. If the hon. member will read that resolution he will see how it compares with the bill now under consideration in this house. I do not think I should go beyond that statement and assume that the province of Quebec will change its legislation.


Gérard Perron: 
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is clause 10 carried? [Text]


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Amount of contributory salary and wages.
Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, as the result of a substantive amendment to clause 49 we wish to propose a consequential amendment to this clause. I understand that this clause will be held in abeyance for that purpose, but I wish to say in this connection that the consequential amendment relates to the exclusion of certain contributory years in respect of students while they are attending universities.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 15-Amount of maximum contributory earnings for a year.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to mention that we propose to make a consequential amendment to clause 15 which is dependant upon a substantive amendment which we will propose to a later clause in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 26-Inspection.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, clause 26 was stood. This is the clause dealing with the inspection of records by the Department of National Revenue. As was suggested, I arranged a meeting with the officials and myself for those who had spoken on the particular clause and who had indicated they had objections to it. The government would like to move an amendment to this clause 20220-768J
Canada Pension Plan
which was agreed upon by the group that met. The amendment reads as follows:
That subsection 1 of section 26 be revised to read as follows:
"Audit. 26.(1) Any person thereunto authorized in writing by the minister for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises or place where any records or books of account are kept or should be kept and
(a)	audit or examine any books, records, writings or other documents which relate or may relate to the information that is or should be contained in such records or books of account or to the amount of any contribution payable under this act;
(b)	require the owner, occupier or person in charge of the premises or place to give him all reasonable assistance in connection with his audit or examination and to answer all proper questions relating to the audit or examination, and for that purpose require the owner, occupier or person in charge of the premises or place to attend at such premises or place with him; and
(c)	if, during the course of any such audit or examination it appears to him that an offence under this act has been committed, seize and take away any such books, records, writings or other documents and retain them until their production in any court proceedings is required."


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I so move.


Gilles Grégoire: As regards this clause 26-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member allow me to put the amendment?


Gilles Grégoire: Could we also get a copy, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Can the minister provide copies of the amendment?


Edgar John Benson: They are being distributed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before accepting this amendment I should like to mention at least how the Department of National Revenue goes about inspecting company or private offices. Sometimes persons search in office files as if they owned the place or as if they were dealing with bandits or thieves. They take everything with them and search everywhere in order to find the least mistake, sometimes a trivial discrepancy.
I know that those national revenue inspectors are authorized to search as much as they like and to cause trouble. Businessmen compare them to the German gestapo.
Mr. Chairman, they are authorized, allowed, empowered to enter businessmen's offices in order to make the same inspections and to cause the same trouble.
Mr. Chairman, Canadian and Quebec businessmen have been protesting for a long time

Canada Pension Plan
against the behaviour of income tax inspectors when they come into their offices and compel the owner of the undertaking or business to put his entire staff at their disposal, to the extent of bringing operations to a standstill.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that clause 26 gives us the opportunity to ask the minister to select more competent persons to inspect books and records and also to have his departmental inspectors take courses in good manners or still to subject them to other regulations so that they will behave better when they call on Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is indispensable because those inspections are carried out in an outrageous and offhanded way. I think the minister should ask the staff of his department to be a little more courteous and polite with the Canadian taxpayers and to stop considering everybody as being robbers or gangsters. If there were businessmen in this house, they could give many examples which would add to this striking and eloquent evidence to support what I am advancing at this time. I think the minister should be listening now, because he would have everything to gain for the reputation of the Canadian government.
If those inspectors, auditors, examiners behaved more properly with the Canadian taxpayers, or a little more politely and more courteously-this is an appeal to the minister that he do it, not only in the examination, auditing and inspection of books in the case of pension plan contributions, but also in the case of income tax-then he would be the first to benefit from it.
I know him as a perfect gentleman, a polite and courteous man, and I think he should meet his staff in order to hand them on some of the politeness which characterizes him.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will admit that consideration of this clause does not allow the hon. member to consider, as he has been doing for the past few minutes, the attitude of the employees of the Department of National Revenue. We are now considering an amendment moved by the minister, and it is in no way related to the administration of national revenue.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with the entire clause, and now I see that an amendment is designed to add a new subsection. If you prefer, I can wait until the amendment is carried.
However, before it is passed, inasmuch as it is obvious that this legislation will require checks, inspections, in those circumstances,

considering the type and method of the checks and inspections carried on by the Department of National Revenue, we have no choice but to vote against the amendment to this clause, not because of the checks themselves, but because of the manner in which those who conduct such checks, examinations and inspections behave.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking the minister -perhaps that could reassure us since we are considering clause 26-whether he could not organize a series of lectures on courtesy and politeness for the inspectors of his department-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair feels that the hon. member is unequivocally out of order and that his remarks are irrelevant to the clause and amendment under consideration when he suggests that the Minister of National Revenue should consider the conduct of his officials. We are not concerned here with the conduct of such officials, and I would suggest that the hon. member for Lapointe limit his remarks to the clause and amendment under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, without asking the minister to establish classes which might be useful to the taxpayers, I should like to ask him some questions.
Can he tell us what he means by the following words which appear in the amendment:
-require the owner-
Does this mean that an inspector can come into an office bullying everyone or simply trying to discuss-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am keeping to the provisions of the clause, and when the minister refers to his inspectors, I should like to know what he means by the following words:
-require the owner, occupier or person in charge of the premises or place to give him all reasonable assistance-
Does the inspector act offhandedly, saying: I require the books; I require everything? Or does he say: My dear sir, you are a taxpayer, you already pay a lot of money, I am sorry to trouble you, but I should like to verify your books.
This is one of the questions I wish to ask the minister. I see that he is ready to answer. An answer at this stage might prevent an extended debate.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to point out that 1 have full confidence in the Department of National Revenue. Since becoming its minister on June 29 last I have not had a single letter written to me complaining about the actions of my assessors on grounds of courtesy or the manner in which they were behaving. Indeed, employees of the department are expected to approach the tax paying public with all necessary courtesy.
I would further like to point out to my hon. friend that the clause as it is proposed to be amended will be much more restrictive on the departmental officials than any corresponding clause in a taxing statute in Canada. It is not a search clause. It is an examination clause simply to authorize people in my department to go into businesses and look at the records in order to verify that people have been complying with the law. I certainly see no reason why there should be a course in courtesy in my department, but I often think when standing here that one would be more in order for members of the House of Commons.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that you allowed the minister to speak about courtesy classes, I am of the opinion that I can also refer to that without any objection from the Chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that the answer given by the minister was very limited, since he merely answered the question put to him by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: At least the amendment softens some of the words originally in clause 26. We are willing to accept it but I am still a little concerned about the last portion of subclause (l)(c) which says:
-retain them until their production in any court proceedings is required.
I know subclause (3) does give the officers the right to make photostats and provide these to the owner of the documents. It also gives the owner the right to see records and documents at all reasonable times, but it still leaves the officers with full authority to retain the records until their production in any court proceedings is required. In fact it does not oblige the department to make photostats, because in subclause (3) the wording is
Canada Pension Plan
"may make or cause to be made one or more copies."
Though we do not object to the amendment we think there should be some provision limiting the time during which the department may hold records. For instance, in some cases it may take 60 or 90 days to prepare a case for court proceedings, and the clause would allow the department to keep documents for that length of time. Even as amended the clause places no obligation on the department to return the documents within a specified time, and I think 30 days would be a reasonable time.


Edgar John Benson: In answer to my hon. friend I point out that the clause states that the minister, on request, shall supply a photostat. Therefore if somebody requests us to supply photostats we have to do it. It would not be wise to write into this clause a limit on the amount of time during which the department can hold records because, as I stated previously during debate on this clause, we are here talking about payroll records. In many instances employers would not want them back, and if such a limiting provision were incorporated in the clause the department would have to incur greater expense in order to return the records by the date specified or else make complete photostats of them and, as my hon. friend knows, payroll records can run into thousands of documents. Speaking from my experience of dealing with taxpayers before being appointed to my present post, I think I can say that the clause as rewritten will generally satisfy employers.


Mr. Enns:: I am interested in the question raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat because the question of time is one that does concern employers who have large payroll calculations to make, and keeping records for a long time could be disadvantageous for employees whose salaries might be delayed. Does the amended clause differ in terms of time limitation from the provision in the Income Tax Act? Is there any time limitation on the keeping of records taken by income tax officials?


Edgar John Benson: The main difference is that the department is required to give photostats of the documents, and this provision is not in the Income Tax Act. However, as a matter of policy, where it is at all practical, when records are seized by the income tax department we will provide the owners with photostats or allow them to examine the seized documents. Indeed, we would be in a better

Canada Pension Plan
position under the Income Tax Act if we had the same authority as under this bill to produce photostats in court.


Gérard Perron: Just a few question, Mr. Chairman, concerning clause 26 and the amendment proposed to it.
Should an employer be subject to the Quebec pension plan only, would he also be subject to this part of Bill No. C-136, more specifically to clause 26, amended or not?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Gérard Perron: I asked the question at the beginning of the debate on this bill. We were discussing access to the documents or files under the numbering system. What ministers would have access to those files under Bill No. C-136?
I was told clearly that four federal ministers would have access to them: the Minister of Labour for the numbering or registration of Quebec citizens; the Minister of National Revenue to collect contributions; the Minister of Finance to administer or keep an eye on the trust company that will administer the contributions; and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to pay the benefits.
I was told that the same thing applied to the four Quebec ministers concerned.
That means that we allow four federal ministers and three of four provincial ministers to have access at any time to an employer's records and files.
I would like that number to be limited as much as possible because sometimes, through some public servants' inefficiency- and I am not talking about federal civil servants because I know their efficiency in the field of-


Edgar John Benson: If the hon. member would allow me to correct the impression he apparently has, I may say that the access to records is limited to the Minister of National Revenue under this particular provision. These records of individual companies may be seen only by the Minister of National Revenue, through his employees. I just wanted to make that point quite clear.


Gérard Perron: Thank you for clearing up this matter. This prompts me to ask the following question. In the case of a province exercising

its own right in the field of legislation, in connection with a pension plan, would the provincial minister of revenue have access to the same files?


Edgar John Benson: Under this particular provision only the Minister of National Revenue has access to the files of employers who are employing people who are covered by the Canada pension plan. This does not give the Minister of National Revenue any right of access to pension records in the province of Quebec, if the province of Quebec is outside the Canada pension plan.


Gérard Perron: But in the case of a contributor or of an employer affected by both, since, under Bill No. C-136, he may have to contribute to the federal fund for one, two, maybe three years for one of his employees or as an employer himself, while, as a Quebec employer, he would have to pay his contribution to the Quebec pension fund, does clause 26 of Bill No. C-136 give the inspectors of the Department of National Revenue access to his records, when officials of the provincial pension fund, under the provincial plan which is supposed to be adopted will have access to them?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Gérard Perron: The minister shakes his head. I thank him for his answer.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to say once again that this is the beginning of a real gestapo.
It often happened that in my absence, with only an employee who is not even the manager of my business being present, an inspector has looked through my own records.
There are already unemployment insurance inspectors, those of the parity committees, inspectors of the licence bureau and those of public buildings-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérard Perron: -inspectors of the sales tax on cigarettes, federal income tax inspectors, provincial income tax inspectors, municipal inspectors. That makes about 17 or 18 inspectors who visit my place of business more or less regularly every month.
I wonder therefore what will happen when inspectors doing their job under Bill No. C-136 will be added to those now calling regularly.

It will then be a real gestapo, as stated by my hon. colleague from Lapointe, and I wish to point out that if Premier Lesage of Quebec adopts a plan related to Bill No. C-136, I will hold him responsible for setting up a dictatorship in Quebec.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words concerning the inspection referred to in clause 26 (c).
Indeed, paragraph (c) reads as follows:
If, during the course of any such inspection or examination it appears to him that an offence under this act has been committed, seize and take away any such books, records, writings or other documents and retain them until their production is required in any court proceedings.
In such a case, where would the evidence of the businessman, the firm or the individual be since it will be taken away for an indefinite number of days? It is the very heart of the business, its books, its evidence, that will be taken away.
Yet, the inspector of the Department of National Revenue will walk away with the documents, records and files because clause 26(c) states that he may take anything he wants, provided it is related to the bookkeeping of the establishment.
I say that it is going too far to allow some civil servants to misplace evidence, to tear some documents, inadvertently-I do not say that it is always done on purpose-but this gives some civil servants the opportunity to take off with the books of a concern.
I think that the Minister of National Revenue should reconsider clause 26 (c) so that photostats of those documents might be taken while those documents would be left with the owners.


Edgar John Benson: This is provided for under subclause (3) of this particular clause, that is the taking of photostats and returning the records to employers. I should point out also that the only records that can be seized are records relevant to information needed for the administration of this plan. In practice, this would be the payroll records basically, because all the information with regard to employees contributions, their submission and so on, presumably would be in the payroll records. This provision only applies to payroll records. It does not apply to general business records. The seizure of general business records is covered by the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Lambert:: The other day when this clause first came up for discussion, I had quite a bit to say about it and objected to the
Canada Pension Plan
original version. I must say that under the leadership of the Minister of National Revenue and his officials, the representatives of the parties met and the result was the amendment that has just been proposed. I think it is a reasonable compromise that should work.


Edgar John Benson: Thank you very much.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, just before we pass this clause I should like to ask the minister what records a farmer would have, for instance, in this regard; and how would the department enforce the collection of farmers' payments in this regard, or those of any selfemployed person, for that matter.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the first thing to protect the farmer is the fact that he does not have to pay in respect of his casual employees, that are included under clause 6 (2) (a). The second thing is that the farmer who would have to keep payroll records for the purposes of this act would likely be the farmer who had one or more full time employees. He would have to keep a record indicating the amount of the employee's salary and how much he paid, if he had a full time employee earning over $600 a year, and he would be expected to make remittances on the employee's behalf. For the farmer's record of his self-employed earnings-which is the general case with the farmer-these selfemployed earnings will be determined on the basis of his earnings under the Income Tax Act. There will be a form to fill in with respect to the Canada pension plan, and the amount will be determined from it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will he be required to keep records under this act? How is the department going to collect the money from selfemployed farmers?


Edgar John Benson: The self-employed farmer is not required, under this act, to keep any more records than he is generally required to keep under the Income Tax Act; so this act does not require anything beyond the general provisions of the Income Tax Act with regard to the keeping of records.


Alfred Dryden Hales: How will he pay his contributions?


Edgar John Benson: If his contribution to the Canada pension plan is $40 or less he pays it four months after the end of the year when he pays his income tax; otherwise he pays on an instalment basis. As I recall it, farmers have to make a payment in December and one in April, under the Income Tax Act, and this will apply to contributions of over $40

Canada Pension Plan
under this act. He would make the payment at exactly the same time as he pays his income tax; and by the same cheque, presumably.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I think the minister will find that there will be a great many very unhappy farmers in Canada.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 26 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to clause 43.
On clause 43-Definitions.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 43 the government has an amendment to propose, as follows:
That subclause (1) of clause 43 be amended by renumbering paragraphs (d) to (g) as paragraphs (e) to (h), respectively, and by adding immediately after paragraph (c) the following paragraph :
"Disabled contributor's child."
(d) "disabled contributor's child" or any form of that expression of like import means a dependant child of
(i)	a male contributor who is disabled, or
(ii)	a female contributor who is disabled, if immediately before the contributor became disabled the child was, in prescribed circumstances, being maintained wholly or substantially by such contributor, but does not include a dependant child described in subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (c); and for the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph (c) shall be read as though for the reference therein to the time when the contributor died there were substituted a reference to the time when the contributor became disabled;
The joint committee recommended that there be an additional type of benefit-that is, a dependant child's benefit-payable in respect of each child of a disabled contributor. The government gave consideration to this recommendation and agrees that it would be most helpful in assisting disabled pensioners and their dependant children. Families of disabled contributors would otherwise suffer undue hardships upon losing the contributor's earnings. Under this proposal the children would be entitled to the same consideration given to orphans of a contributor.
The chief actuary has estimated that payment of benefits to the dependant children of disabled pensioners may add the following additional outlays: For 1975, $15 million; for 1980, $24,6 million; for 1990, $40.7 million. In

order to make this new provision it will be necessary to amend several clauses of the bill, including clauses 43, 44, 58, 77, 78 and 79.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that we are gratified to see this additional supplementary benefit being included in the bill as a result of the work of the joint committee. We think it will provide a benefit to a very needy group that was omitted in the original draft.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the recommendations of the committee on the pension plan.
It would be of interest to our group to have the French version of those recommendations, so that we might study them or compare them with this bill.
Could the minister provide us with those French copies?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rose to say something on my own behalf, but perhaps I can tell my hon. friend that he can find the report of our committee in Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, February 16; and, of course, it is available in both languages.


Gérard Perron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is going to refer again to the committee report, or to Votes and Proceedings or other papers tabled in the house.
My hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) wants the French version of the proceedings of the 51 committee sittings and not only the report which contains the proposed amendments to various clauses of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Shefford can speak for himself. He said that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had referred to the recommendations of the committee and the minister had indicated that one of those recommendations was now being implemented. That recommendation is found in paragraph 8, subparagraph (iii) of the report of the special joint committee which was tabled in this house on Tuesday, February 16, in both languages. He can find it, as the hon. member for Beauce can find it, if he will consult Votes and Proceedings for that day.

Canada Pension Plan
I rose, Mr. Chairman, not to get into this argument-but since the question was asked and I knew the answer, I thought I might as well give it-but to join the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and others in saying that we, as members of the committee, are delighted that the government has accepted this, yet another of the recommendations made by the special joint committee. This did seem an unfortunate gap in the original draft, and this was something with regard to which we were unanimous in the committee. I am happy to see it being introduced in this way. We hope that the government's batting average with respect to the committee's recommendations-which so far is pretty goodwill be kept up, and that as we move along all the recommendations will be accepted.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I would point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we are highly interested in the recommendations made by the committee, especially in the discussions which took place during the 51 meetings of that committee, and more particularly as regards the evidence of the organizations and the various public bodies which appeared before that committee and presented their recommendations.


An hon. Member:: Ask the hon. member for Beauce.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That is the evidence we would like to obtain.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I distinctly heard some one say: Ask the member for Beauce.
Since those insinuations are persisting, I wish to say once more that clause 1 has not yet been carried and if those tricks continue, I am entitled to ask, as a member of parliament, for the French version of all the evidence and proceedings as regards the various public bodies which appeared before the committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am noting the suggestion of the hon. member, and that being done I suggest that perhaps we could consider the proposed amendment to clause 43.
May I read it to the committee?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 43, as amended, carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Might I just point out here once more that we have a consequential
amendment depending on the passage or not of a substantive amendment to follow later.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 44-Benefits payable.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, there is an additional amendment which is consequential upon the previous amendment. The amendment is as follows:
Clause 44
That subclause (1) of clause 44 be amended by renumbering paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e), and by adding immediately after paragraph (e) the following paragraph:
"(f) a disabled contributor's child's benefit shall be paid to each child of a disabled contributor who has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period; and"
That subclause (2) of clause 44 be amended by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page 35 and substituting the following:
"Calculation of minimum qualifying period in case of disability pension and disabled contributor's child's benefit." '
"(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (f) of subclause (1), a contributor shall be considered to have made"
That subclause (3) of clause 44 be amended by striking out lines 19 and 20 and substituting the following;
"Calculation of minimum qualifying period in case of other supplementary benefits."
"(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (g) of subclause (1), a contributor shall be considered to have"
This proposed amendment to subclause (1) authorizes the payment of disabled contributor's child's benefit where a disabled contributor has made contributions for not less than the qualifying period. The amendment to subclause (2) provides that in order for a disabled contributor's child's benefit to be payable a contributor must meet the same qualifying conditions as for the payment of disability benefit itself to that contributor.


Mr. Robichaud:: I so move.


Lucien Lamoureux: It has been moved by the Minister of Fisheries that clause 44 be amended. Shall the clause as amended carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one question I should like to ask about this amendment, which is one of a series putting into effect the same recommendation. Is there any limit on the number of children who could qualify under this provision, as there was at one point with regard to the number of orphans a person could leave?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Canada Pension Plan
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause, as
amended, carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, as mentioned earlier, and as I had indicated to the Minister of National Revenue at one stage, we did have substantive amendments which were to come, and this is one of the clauses in question. I should point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that in our estimation we are doing what it is possible for us to do for those people who would not otherwise benefit under the Canada pension plan. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that he felt that this should be done under old age security. Let it be understood that we are not averse to that, but in my estimation, if I were to move an amendment to part IY of the bill along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre you, sir, would probably rule it out of order. As a consequence we feel this is the only way-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why does my hon. friend have to be so helpful?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I simply want to point out to the hon. member that we are trying to do for these people just what he wants to do, but in the only way in which we think it would be allowed.
It has been indicated that there are two to two and a half million people who are not going to benefit from the Canada pension plan. We are suggesting amendments which will supply funds from the Canada pension plan to those over 70, and those over 65 and retired. We are also suggesting a minimum of $25 far a single person and $40 for a married couyle; and we are including in our amendments those who would not otherwise receive that minimum. We feel that this will go a long way toward making the plan what it should be; in other words, enable it to affect the largest number of Canadians possible, a wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare has on occasion indicated.
We have two amendments to clause 44, and I am wondering whether we could present them together so that we would be in a position perhaps to vote on them at the same time. Therefore I should like to move:
Page 35, line 5, immediately following subclause
(1)	of clause 44 insert the following as subclause
(2)	and renumber the present subclause (2) and subclause (3) as subclauses (3) and (4) respectively :
"(2) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subclause (1), a contributor shall be deemed to include a resident who, except as by this subclause (1), a contributor shall be deemed to and	.

(a)	has reached 70 years of age, or
(b)	has reached 65 years of age and has retired from regular employment".
The other amendment to clause 44 is as follows:
Page 35, add the following subclause to clause 44:
"For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subclause (1) a contributor shall be deemed to include a person who, his earnings in any one year being below the basic exemption for that year, files a return of such earnings in the prescribed manner and form with the minister and elects, on or before April 30 in the following year, to have that year deemed to be a year for which he has made a contribution in respect of such earnings."
I have copies of the amendments in both English and French for distribution, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Perth has just read into the record two amendments in respect of clause 44 which he proposes to move. I suggest it would be somewhat difficult to deal with the two amendments at the same time, and I assume therefore that his intention is really to give notice that he proposes to move two amendments. Perhaps the hon. member will suggest which amendment we should proceed with for the consideration of this committee at this time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suggest we proceed with the first one I referred to, Mr. Chairman.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman intended to propose these amendments as a package.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That was my preference.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps we could proceed on that basis and then vote on each subsection.


Lucien Lamoureux: If that is a procedure acceptable to this committee perhaps we could now proceed with a consideration of the two amendments proposed by the hon. member for Perth.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with these amendments, and as no one else seems to be prepared at this time to comment on them, perhaps I should proceed. I hope that I will be permitted to make some introductory remarks because, as has been indicated, the two amendments now before us for consideration are difficult to separate. The financial implications of both are inter-related.
First of all, I should like to repeat very briefly the four categories of individuals we feel have been left out of this plan, and the

means by which we intend to include them. The four groups or categories are, first, those individuals over 70 years of age, as referred to in the first amendment and, second, those individuals over 65 years of age who have retired, third, those individuals who have incomes of less than $600 in any one year, or who have consistently received incomes less than that amount and, finally, that group of individuals who will receive less than $25 a month after having contributed for a number of years. These are the groups of individuals we should like to see included under the provisions of this plan, and it is for that purpose we are proposing these amendments.
At this time I should like to plead with the government to give serious consideration to these amendments we are proposing. Yesterday the hon. member for Huron made a very pointed speech in which he suggested that now was the time for the government to give some thought to the amendments being put forward. At this time I want to outline in detail what I think are the most serious objections to this plan and the reasons I believe the government ought to give some serious consideration to these amendments and finally accept them. If they do not accept these amendments the plan as it now stands will not achieve the objectives envisaged by the government.
Several gigantic failures inherent in this bill have been mentioned on many occasions by many members, and while I do not wish to speak in respect of each one of those failures, I should like to enumerate them and indicate why our amendments are necessary. At this time the government has not done anything in the way of correcting what we think are basic failures. First, this plan will create a gigantic pool of funds to be held in the hands of both federal and provincial governments. This will in effect create a draining off of billions of dollars which are required to keep our economy rolling. This is one of the most dangerous features of this plan.
The second danger we see relates to the fact that the funds collected under this plan are to be redistributed by way of benefits completely disproportionate to contributions. Many people have expressed the feeling that individuals will receive benefits which are not in proportion to their contributions, and we feel that this is one of the great failures of this Canada pension plan, particularly when it is referred to as a wage related plan. We feel the provisions of this bill depart seriously from that principle, and to 20220-769J
Canada Pension Plan
some extent our amendments may bring the provisions of this bill a little farther along that road.
The third failure we see in this plan relates to the large number of individuals who have been left out, and we think something should be done for that large group of Canadian citizens. I have already stated that this group of people is the group that we believe will be included in this plan as a result of the acceptance of our amendment, and I have in mind individuals over the age of 70 years, those over the age of 65 years who have retired, and small wage earners and small farmers and businessmen who will not under the present terms be entitled to benefits. Our amendments are designed to bring those people within the provisions of this plan.
We have heard a great deal about the tremendous administrative costs involved in a plan as complicated as the one now before us. Hon. members will remember the discussion which took place in respect of clause 26, and while I do not wish to repeat the arguments presented in that regard, I should like to state that its effect, along with the effect of many other clauses in the bill, will be to create an invasion upon the rights of citizens who are not now subject to this kind of investigation under the Income Tax Act.
This bill proposes the establishment of a universal numbering system which can be identified with the income tax system, and may well be the prelude to a new taxation structure in proportions never heretofore dreamed of. The proposed scheme is one which will offer benefits to only those who are included, but we are involving ourselves inextricably and unrelentingly in a proposal which will tie up the incomes of many future generations. The burden we are creating cannot be forecast; I suggest it can only increase. The actuaries who have studied this plan only shudder when they are asked to forecast what the results of this plan will be in the future.
Before the special joint committee on the pension plan several actuaries appeared, some from insurance companies and some from private business, who said almost exactly the same thing as Mr. Kroeker of the department of insurance. They, of course, were appearing for private interests and they were able to say so without any fear of losing their jobs. Still and all, they did come before the committee and say so. I can think of several who said that the plan is so complicated it is

Canada Pension Plan
extremely difficult to forecast what burden it will place on future generations.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would prefer to complete my remarks before six o'clock. These people who put forward these opinions pointed up that a burden is being placed on future generations which it is most difficult for any of us to visualize now and it was the opinion of many actuaries that there should be more of a pay as you go aspect to the plan. These are the basic dangers and the things about which we hope we can do something.
I am going to make this final suggestion to the government. I say "final" because we have made it on a number of previous occasions including once in the committee and once when we were discussing clause 2. We think that the plan we proposed and which the hon. member for Perth has outlined will fill the gaps in the present plan by providing minimum pensions for all at age 65, on top of old age security. This will be the effect of our amendment. We understand the position of the New Democratic party who are asking for an amendment to the Old Age Security Act under part IV, but we feel that our proposal is much superior for reasons that I will give.
Second, the proposal we are making with regard to the payment of an additional $25 a month to the people who are now left out of this plan is that the moneys be paid from Canada pension plan collections in the first instance. We would propose that the money raised through the early collections, which will create this tremendous fund of some $8 billion, might well be used to pay additional pensions rather than leave a stagnant pool of money which has been collected from the people, and then proceed to collect another $450 million annually to raise old age security payments. This is the weakness that we see in the plan proposed, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on behalf of the New Democratic party. We hope to avoid raising other funds in some other manner, either through general taxation or an increase in the old age security tax as he has proposed.
If the government is not prepared to accept any real changes in this legislation or to meet any of the valid criticisms that have been put forward in the committee by many persons who presented briefs, and that have been put forward in the house over the last two and a half weeks, we will have to give

serious consideration to an alternative plan which will serve the people of Canada better. Perhaps such an alternative plan would involve a different and better approach to old age security under a universal system. If the government will not make some change to include those people who are now left out and to add some welfare element to their present plan, then we will perhaps have to go back to the suggestion, made by several persons to the joint committee, that a universal type of pension is the only answer to fill the gaps that have been left.
When we introduced our plan on clause 2 I undertook to give some figures as to the cost of the plan which we would propose and I should like to do that now. I should like to detail the cost of the minimum pension of $25 per month paid from the Canada pension plan, on top of old age security of $75, for all age 65 or over who have retired. The figures that were given in the committee were mainly forecasts for the year 1970 and I will first take the effect on the pension fund in the year 1970.
According to the evidence given, the cost of an additional $25 to all over 70 in Canada would be $283.1 million. The cost of an additional $25 to all those between 65 and 70 who have retired would be $127.8 million, which would make a total additional outlay of $410.9 million. The additional revenue that we will have by amending clauses 8 and 10 of the bill, which amendments have been held in reserve, and which would provide for contributions on the full amount up to $5,000 for those who are receiving over $600 and no contributions whatever from those who receive less than $600 per annum, would be $107.1 million in the year 1970, leaving a net cost of $303.8 million to carry out our proposals.
One may of course ask: Are such funds available? We answer immediately that they are. According to the figures provided to the special committee there will be available from the Canada pension fund in 1970 gross receipts of $519.3 million and gross payments of $98 million, making a net balance in 1970 of $421.3 million. If we deduct the cost of our proposal from this amount it will leave in the fund for that particular year a benefit of $117.5 million. I have further figures, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps this would be a good time to call it six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to advise the committee that the following

question will be considered at ten o'clock this evening: The hon. member for Skeena -highways, inquiry as to federal-provincial conference.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I had just concluded giving the committee the cost for the year 1970, of the proposals we are making, and indicated that even after payment of the additional amounts of $25 per month to all those on old age security there would be left in the pension plan fund that year the sum of $117.5 million. I took the year 1970 because-


Guy Favreau: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow me to revert to motions to make an announcement in relation to a question raised earlier? May I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. Churchill:: Why should we rise and report progress?


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair is in the hands of the committee. If this is the wish of the committee we will rise and report progress.


Guy Favreau: I am sorry I could not be here at eight o'clock sharp. The announcement I wish to make is in relation to a question which was put to me by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition during the question period, concerning a reward in the Rivard matter.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will be glad to yield if the fugitive has been found.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think this statement could very well be made on motions tomorrow during the regular course of business.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was there not a motion by the Minister of Justice that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day? Should not the committee make the decision, and not one member?


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair did not hear a formal motion made by the minister and was under the impression that there would perhaps be unanimous agreement so that a formal motion would not be required. It has
Canada Pension Plan
been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has the floor, and he would have to relinquish the floor to the minister to allow him to make his motion. Is this agreed?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Guy Favreau: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, what are we doing now? What is the business in front of us?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I move, if I have the unanimous consent of the house, that we revert to motions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This shows the ridiculousness of moving out of committee, because this requires unanimous consent. I indicated that would not be given. This report should be given tomorrow during the regular time for motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand there is not unanimous consent for the house reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. I have indicated there is not unanimous consent.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if I may have a word on this-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the minister that he cannot do that at this time. He might have been able to make his statement if there had been unanimous agreement, but that was not forthcoming.




[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.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: In view of the interruption perhaps I should start again. Before the committee rose at six o'clock I had indicated the

Canada Pension Plan
figures for providing additional payments of $25 on top of the old age security payments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member so soon, but perhaps he will not mind being interrupted until the committee quietens down. My interruption is really on a point of order, to protect my right to raise a point of order. I would just like it to be understood that the fact I have not raised a point of order with regard to the hon. member's amendment does not preclude my right to raise it after he has made his speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: The rule is well known that a point of order can be raised any time during the course of debate before the question is put.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have not the faintest idea what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is driving at. If he has some point of order in connection with my remarks I would like to hear it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought I made myself clear. I have no quarrel with the hon. member's right to make the remarks he is making, but before his amendment is put I would like to raise a point of order with respect to its propriety. If my hon. friend has any question about it, the point will revolve around the question whether the amendment does not trespass on the financial initiative of the crown.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Now that the hon. member has given notice that at some later time he will raise this, I will proceed. I will now go into the figures for 1966. I have given those for 1970 mainly due to the fact that that is the year in which the transition in the old age security will take place, and that is the year for which most of the figures were given to the special joint committee.
In 1966 the plan could start paying the additional sum of $25 without straining the Canada pension plan fund. In 1966, according to the figures given to the special joint committee, collections in the fund will total $413.5 million. We are proposing that by paying an additional contribution under clauses 8 and 10 there would be an additional revenue of $93.3 million raised, making a total available for that year of $506.8 million. We estimate the additional outlay in 1966 to pay these additional pensions would be $410.9 million, which would leave a balance of $95.9 million in the fund. In the figures which I have just given, I have not included anything to do with the transition period which was spoken of earlier.

Last week the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave some examples to the committee in which he used merely the transition period and showed that some persons might obtain less under one plan than under another. I would say that increasing the transitional period is not fundamental to the financial success of our proposal. In fact, even if we do not increase the transitional period at all, even if we do not extend the amount of the payment to the full percentage of income under clauses 8 to 10, we can still easily pay this extra amount out of the Canada pension fund. We did include them because we felt it would be an act of responsibility, since we are going to spend additional funds, to find a means of raising those funds. We have, therefore, found two particular items by means of which you would raise something in the neighbourhood of $137 million in the year 1970.
We think that such additional revenues in the future would be desirable in order to keep the fund from being reduced too far. However, Mr. Chairman, the country is going to be hard put to carry the increased taxes for the Canada pension plan. This afternoon there was a good deal of discussion between the hon. member for Beauce and the Minister of National Revenue as to whether or not the payments under this plan were a tax or a contribution. I think the minister made it clear it did not really matter what you called them; it still has to be paid. I say regardless of whether it is called a tax or a contribution -it is certainly an enforced contribution which you have to pay-it will be a tax on the people.
If we were to adopt the plan of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it would be an additional strain on the people of almost an equal amount of $450 million or thereabouts. I think this, coming all at once, would put too great a strain on the economy. I think one sees at once it would outbalance the whole plan. On the other hand, we cannot accept the government's plan because we do feel it is inadequate. Therefore, somewhere between the proposal of actually increasing the old age security payments by $25, on top of this fund, and the government plan, comes the proposal that we make. We think that the same objectives can be achieved, that we can pay these people who are left out, and have the effect of merely slowing down the building up of the fund under the Canada pension plan.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the government has replied to the complaints from the opposition about people who are left out by saying: Well, we can make other provisions for them, we can make further provisions for them in the future. This is not the way this plan was put forward. It was not put forward in order to leave great groups of people out who would be covered in another way at some time in the future. Our proposal was put forward as a package. We have four groups of people we want to benefit. The total result of our proposal will be to provide those who have reached 65 and retired with a minimum pension of $100, $75 from old age security and $25 from the Canada pension plan. This is the ultimate objective of our plan, but it is not inseparable. There are separable parts to it, and even if the government will not accept the whole proposition, then let me put some of the four features individually.
I mentioned, for example, the minimum pension feature, a minimum of $25. I think that is a reasonable proposal. There may be people who are on the border with small incomes who manage to pay something this year, but next year they may be below the minimum and not pay anything. The following year they may be over the minimum again. All during their working life time they may be paying into this plan but their average lifetime earnings, under those conditions, would be very small. If you took 25 per cent of those earnings, which the plan allows, their pension could be very small, perhaps $8 or $10 a month, something like that, after having contributed to the best of their ability for their whole working lifetime. I think that the proposition of the minimum pension is an acceptable one, even if it is separated from the others.
I think, too, that the provision we have made for allowing people with incomes of less than $600 to file their returns for a year without paying a contribution, is a reasonable one. They will, nevertheless, be credited with what they did earn during their lifetime, and when they come to retirement they can take each year and keep their average up. I feel this proposition is reasonable. Even if the whole package is not acceptable, why not take those people who earn less than $600 and who could not afford to pay into this plan, and relieve them of the obligation of the payment of premiums for that year? I think that is a separable proposal which could be accepted in any case.
Canada Pension Plan
I see that my time has nearly expired. I should like, therefore, to say that the proposal for paying the additional pension of $25 on top of the old age security for those over 70 and for those over 65 who have retired, is separable from the main part of our package. I urge once again that the government consider the amendments which we are putting forward, and if not acceptable in total at least they may be acceptable separately as useful parts.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Before any point of order may be raised, may I suggest that the mover of the two amendments might help the committee greatly by explaining the two amendments. He told the committee earlier that there would be certain consequential amendments which would make some alterations, presumably to clauses 9 and 10. I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has given us some idea of the package, but some parts of it remain relatively obscure. It would seem to me to be eminently unfair to ask the committee to even consider whether or not such amendments are in order before the committee is aware of exactly what the amendments are and what they would entail. May I, therefore, invite the hon. member for Perth to explain the two amendments which he has moved, and tell us what the consequential amendments of an earlier date and a subsequent date might be so that the members of the committee might see the Progressive Conservative package in full.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka went into some detail on this when we were discussing clause 2. I suggest we have, during the course of the debate, made it clear that we have in mind consequential amendments. The Minister of National Revenue suggested we pass those clauses at the time and the clauses could be re-opened if these substantive amendments were carried. Certainly it has been indicated that we had in mind that we did not wish to endanger the fund as far as the Canada pension plan is concerned, or the actuarial position of the fund. I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in line with the comment that was made a moment ago by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, perhaps I might be permitted the same latitude that I was quite happy to accord to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. In other words, I should like to make a few comments about the proposed amendments

Canada Pension Plan
that make up the Progressive Conservative package before I raise what I think is a very important point of order.
In so far as the remarks made today by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and others of his party on earlier occasions have pointed to four groups of people for whom something should be done, I want to say that I am in complete agreement with them. I believe very firmly that we have to increase the amount of pension being received by those now 70 years of age and over. I believe that we have to do something for those who are between 65 and 70 years of age. I believe that we have to do something to improve in the future the position of those whose annual earnings during their working years are less than $600. I also believe that we should do something for those who, when they first come on Canada pension plan benefits, will be drawing benefits that are minimal-that are below $25. It just happens to be my view that we would meet all four of these needs much more readily and much more straightforwardly by making an increase of $25 a month in the amount of the old age security pension. I happen to feel, also, that this would be a way of doing it that would not fool anybody in the way the Progressive Conservative package does.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka made it clear today that their proposals are to be paid for by using money that otherwise would build up in the Canada pension plan fund. If you use money that would otherwise build up in that fund for a purpose that was not originally planned, it means that you are hitting at something else; and what you are hitting at by this arrangement -and it comes out clearly in the proposal for lengthening the maturity period-is the amount of pension to be enjoyed by persons who go on Canada pension plan benefit five, ten or 15 years from now.
This is the main point that I do not like about this package: It asks the people who are now between the ages of 45 and 62, when they go on Canada pension plan benefit, to take less pension than they would otherwise get, in order to provide these other payments. I contend that these other payments should be made, but I believe they should be paid out of general revenue by all the people of Canada and not just by this select group of people between 45 and 62 or 62J years of age. I want to make it clear that I disagree with this plan in its substance. I want to make it clear that if the amendments now before us, and the other amendments to come

later, are allowed as in order, this is no embarrassment to me; I think in substance they are inferior to the proposal that we make and I will vote against them.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that the making of these amendments raises a very serious point of order. My hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party seem to be trying to rely on the fact that this is a special fund, and they therefore take the position that they are not moving what amounts to money amendments. But the fact is that these amendments do redirect moneys that are appropriated by a form of taxation, and therefore in my view they invade the financial prerogative of the crown. I draw attention in particular, Mr. Chairman, to citation 246, paragraph 3, of Beauchesne's fourth edition, found on page 207:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all-
I would point out that those three words "once for all" are italicized.
- (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that when the resolution preceding the Canada pension plan was first brought before us, it was stated clearly that it was "expedient to introduce a measure to establish a program of pensions for contributors". Throughout the whole of the discussion of this legislation that has been the key word, namely that the Canada pension plan was a plan to provide pensions of various kinds for contributors and for the dependants of contributors. It has been made clear to us, throughout, also, that what we have before us is a package consisting of the earnings-related Canada pension plan and the flat rate universal scheme of old age security. What we can do under old age security is one thing, but so far as the Canada pension plan is concerned it is before us as an earnings-related scheme. The general framework of that plan calls for the contributions, or taxes, or whatever you call them,

Canada Pension Plan
collected from the people to be used to pay benefits to contributors, to dependants of contributors, and so on. But the amendment now before us, the very first one to clause 44, would go beyond that framework and would provide that pensions of $25 a month could be paid to persons who were not contributors.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this violates the terms of the citation from Beauchesne that I just read. I submit that it completely alters the arrangements of the plan. It redirects this money that is collected from the people to a purpose not indicated in the resolution that had the royal recommendation; to a purpose not indicated by the crown, which has the final responsibility in these financial matters. I suggest that there is no point in saying that the money is there in the fund and that therefore it could be used in any way the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka or the hon. member for Perth may propose. If he can do that, Mr. Chairman, I can propose that the money be used to pay an increase in old age security. By the same token, on those occasions when there is extra money in the unemployment insurance fund, any private member could move that it be used for some particular purpose not otherwise provided.
But no, Mr. Chairman; these moneys that are collected and paid out by the crown, even if they go in and come out of special funds, are subject to all of the rules that apply to money bills, to the collection of taxes and to the disbursement of funds.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is in itself contrary to the scheme of the Canada pension plan; that the whole package which it proposes, to take money out of the Canada pension fund and use it for other purposes, is destructive of the fund and destructive of the plan; and that this amendment and the consequential amendments which go with it are out of order when moved by a private member. I think the minister could be asked, if the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka thought he could so persuade her, to bring in such an amendment, but even if she did she would have to do what she is doing with respect to part IV of the bill; that is to say, bring forward another resolution authorizing the committee to consider such a change.
I hope that if others want the same latitude you have given me, Mr. Chairman, you will give it to them, but what I have said really amounts to two things. I have expressed my views with regard to the substance of the
amendment, namely that I think it is the wrong way to try and meet the needs of the four groups outlined by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka; I believe there is a better way to meet those needs; and in terms of its propriety I think it infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown, and consequently the amendment, having been moved by a private member, is out of order.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, following the lines of the submission made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I should like to indicate that we agree with his argument when he states that, in effect, these amendments are financial provisions and clearly beyond the scope the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has in mind. However, I think first of all, Mr. Chairman, your attention should be drawn to the resolution which was moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on November 9.


Mr. Simpson:: Which year?


John Carr Munro: 1964. It is as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada pension plan, to establish in Canada a comprehensive program of retirement pensions payable to contributors-
And I would emphasize the words "payable to contributors".
If you read, Mr. Chairman, the amendments advanced by the official opposition, you will see that the first one reads:
For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subclause (1) a contributor shall be deemed to include a resident who, except as by this subclause provided, is not pensionable under this act-
The amendment has in mind somebody who has reached 70 years of age. Clearly such a person is not a contributor. The whole plan and the resolution which was accepted by this house clearly deals with only those people who do make contributions. Only those people will be entitled to benefit. Under the resolution the benefits are payable only to such people; that is clearly stated in the resolution. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to the first three lines of that resolution. Therefore, without getting into the argument which was advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think that the two amendments which we have before us, and I suggest the consequential amendments which follow, are clearly out of order when reference is made, on this ground alone, to the resolution adopted by this house.
I would appreciate a ruling with respect to that submission, Mr. Chairman; but in the

Canada Pension Plan
meantime, and also following the reasoning of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I want to refer to the bill. However, may I just say first of all that it has been clearly stated by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that these measures with respect to contributions are a tax. In other words, they are taxing provisions. He himself used the word tax. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre used the term "financial provisions".
I think it would be worth while to turn to the bill, where under the terms of clause 110, which deals with the financial provisions, all the moneys which are paid into the plan by way of contributions are paid into the consolidated revenue fund. That fund is the general revenue fund of Canada into which all moneys and revenue which come into the country through tax levies are paid. As far as the establishment of the Canada pension plan account is concerned, a bookkeeping entry in the consolidated revenue fund account will be required.
I should also like to refer to subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 110, which clearly indicate that these contributions do come into the consolidated revenue fund account and that all benefits are charged to that account.
So that what we have here is an admission by the hon. member that this whole area of contributions involves taxation proposals. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre states that they are financial provisions. Therefore they are clearly beyond the scope of the opposition to advance by way of amendment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre called it taxation.


John Carr Munro: He called it a tax. That clearly
indicates that it is a financial provision.
That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I refer to page 220, citation 263 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraph (1), which reads:
All taxes, duties and grants of money, and all measures imposing financial burdens on the people, are matters within the sole jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
And so on. Paragraph (2) reads:
The principle that the sanction of the crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from the public revenue applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue.
It clearly states that this prerogative is beyond the scope of an amendment moved by the opposition when, at the top of page 221, it says:
In like manner, no increase can be considered either of an existing, or of a new or temporary tax
IMr. MunroJ
for the service of the year, except on the initiative of a minister, acting on behalf of the crown-
So, Mr. Chairman, in support of the general submissions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we would contend that these amendments are clearly out of order.
I should also like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to one of your own decisions in the debates for 1963, which is to be found in volume VI of Hansard for that year, page 5665. At that time you gave the following decision:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Last evening when the motion for second reading of this bill was proposed-
The house was considering at that time an amendment to the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order to the effect that since this bill contained money provisions it should have been initiated by means of a resolution based upon the recommendation of the Governor General. During the course of the discussion reference was made to a number of citations in Beauchesne's fourth edition and also to section 54 of the British North America Act.
I do not intend to discuss the merits of these citations except to say that, meanwhile, I have had an opportunity not only of reviewing these citations but also examining the provisions of the bill. It seems to me that there is at least one money provision in the bill.
Then you went on, Mr. Chairman, to state what that provision was.
You then stated:
I have, of course, given serious thought to the arguments advanced briefly by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to the effect that the proposed legislation does not require to be preceded by a resolution because there is existing legislation-
Before that you stated, and I think this is the crux of your position on the matter:
It is obvious that the increase in the number of directors, requiring additional expenditures out of public funds for the payment of the additional directors' travelling and living expenses will not affect the total sum of $20 million-however, the new act will change the conditions attached to the spending of these moneys by the original act, and to this extent the bill now before the house would appear to be a money bill.
That is exactly the situation now before us. The provisions are financial, and there is no question about the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that these additional obligations on the fund will cause an additional burden, and will cause an additional expenditure from this fund, which will be a bookkeeping entry in the general revenue account. That being so this is obviously a financial provision and is

beyond the power of the opposition. This must be advanced by way of resolution on the part of a minister of the crown. That principle is supported not only by Beau-chesne's, according to the citation I have given, but by your own decision.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is no question in your own mind but that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the parliamentary secretary are accurate. It is the sole prerogative of the crown to move an amendment that involves the expenditure of money. Following that citation there immediately arises a question as to whether or not Bill C-136 is a monetary bill, because the consolidated revenue fund is not necessarily involved. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to citation No. 243 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states in part:
A money bill was defined as follows in the Parliament Act passed in the British house in 1911:
"A money bill means a public bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the consolidated fund, or on money provided by parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation-
This is the pertinent point, Mr. Chairman.
-the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money;-
If we accept that interpretation of the definition of a money bill, then of course Bill C-136 clearly falls within it and, therefore, the arguments presented by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka based on citations 246 and 263, which indicate that it is the prerogative of ministers of the crown only to move amendments to money bills, are clearly out of order.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I only intend to take up one or two minutes of the committee's time. The amendments before us show without doubt that in relation to the pension scheme now before us we are not now considering a welfare bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Is the hon. member addressing himself to the point of order which we have had under consideration for the past 30 minutes?


Bert Raymond Leboe: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not.
Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: I am afraid I must remind the hon. member that we have not determined that point of order as yet.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am sorry, Your Honour.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I think it is perfectly clear at this stage that the government is not going to accept any suggestion we make in respect of what we feel is wrong with this bill. Surely that attitude is not consistent with the undertakings made by the Prime Minister and others to the effect that this bill would be considered thoroughly by this parliament on behalf of the public.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize that his responsibility in this regard is to assist the Chair in determining whether or not the amendment is out of order. The comments he is now making cannot help the Chair in any way in this regard.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, my remarks at this time are of an introductory nature. The point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not raised at the time it should have been raised. We have been discussing the amendments that are now before us for two weeks.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct your attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 70 (4) which states:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
We raised the very proposal we are now discussing at least two weeks ago, directed in respect of clause 2, and throughout this whole debate it has been assumed by all members that this was our case. We left nothing in doubt in this regard which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the parliamentary secretary or anyone else could question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not object at the outset to that situation, but took it upon himself to pick holes in our scheme-I imagine he had some difficulty in this regard-and suggested that it was not as good as the one proposed by his party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all. This was the simplest job I ever had.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That all took place more than a week ago, Mr. Chairman. We have been talking about our package deal ever since that time. At the time the hon. member for Perth proposed the amendment now before

Canada Pension Plan
the committee he made some comments. I made several remarks about his amendment following the comments of that hon. member. That all took place before six o'clock today and there was no objection taken at that time. It is only following the dinner hour that apparently someone has decided that we were out of order.
In the first place, had there been any question about our amendment being out of order, surely the point should have been raised some time ago.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member think that even had I thought there was something out of order in respect of his remarks on clause 2, that I should have objected before today and before an actual financial amendment had been proposed?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, it may be that the hon. member has had the whole afternoon to think about this, because the hon. member for Perth moved the amendment early this afternoon at which time no objection was raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was moved at 5.45.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That is three hours ago, Mr. Chairman. What has the hon. member been doing in the past three hours? He has had three weeks to think about this. In addition, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this same question was raised during meetings of the special joint committee before which Dr. Ollivier appeared and gave an opinion.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor, please. Hon. members from the New Democratic party and from the government side are continually interrupting because they know this is a good amendment and do not want it to come to a vote. This same question was raised in the joint committee. Dr. Ollivier appeared and gave his opinion, and we voted on our amendments. There was no question about them being in order. We admit they were voted down but they were voted on. Dr. Ollivier's opinion was that they were in order and we voted on them. I am not going to rely on what happened before although I think it is a perfectly good precedent.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were the amendments in the special joint committee to which the hon. member now refers and on which votes were taken, as votes were taken on my amendments, amendments to the bill or were they to a report that made recommendations to the house? Does that not make quite a difference?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member knows perfectly well that it was the report to the house. What on earth does he think we were amending? We certainly were not amending the bill; we were considering a report. Our amendments were voted down and the report was made. It looks to me as though our amendments will be voted down again because with the combination of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who thinks he has a better plan, and the government, which has a worse plan but will not admit it, our amendments will no doubt be defeated.
I am constantly being interrupted, Mr. Chairman, and thrown off the subject. Let us get back to the discussion of this question. This is not a taxation bill; this is not a money bill. This bill involves the collection of contributions from people and then the paying out of the contributions in the form of pensions. The moneys are not public funds. This has been stated time and again. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows they are not revenue funds. They are special contributions made by many people, but they are not taxes. Because these moneys are collected under a special provision and are then paid out they never become part of the public revenues of Canada. They will never be shown in the public accounts, with the possible exception of the administrative cost.
What we are doing here does not change the set-up of the act. It is not changing the cost of administration. We are doing nothing but saying that the government has limited contributions to certain people and that we want to widen this group of people. In the amendment now before the Chair we have redefined the word "contributor" to include persons who are not now covered by the bill. They then become contributors. Certainly every time there has been a change in the bill in the committee or in the house or anywhere else there has been a change in the general picture of how much is collected, from whom and how much is paid out to whom.

This afternoon for example we moved an amendment to include the orphaned children of a disabled person. This was not considered a charge on the revenue. No new resolution was brought in. We just made an amendment by which we changed the class of persons to whom payments can be made. These people are not contributors. They do not pay a cent. The comparison is there if you want to recognize it. Widows, who are included in the bill, pay nothing. Dependant children pay nothing; orphaned children pay nothing. These are people who do not contribute but nevertheless they are included in the provisions of the bill. I say they should be there. They are not contributors but they have been defined as contributors and are allowed to draw out of the fund.
All we are doing is saying there should be another category of contributors who do not have to pay, and we seek to define them. The resolution that the parliamentary secretary read was in the most general terms. It said that it was expedient to bring in a bill to be known as the Canada pension plan to make payments to contributors. The plan then went on to provide for the paying of pensions to the various groups of people defined in the bill as contributors and this was done without changing the resolution and without any further amendment.
We seek to include all people over 65 by classing them as contributors. Certainly they contributed to the welfare of this country during the period when they were earning their livelihood. Technically they are not contributors to the plan but we seek to define them as contributors and to accept them as such. We say they are all contributors and should be entitled to receive a pension. The people who are going to get the minimum benefit are those who may earn under $600 in some years and will therefore make no contributions. They will make a contribution one year and not the next year, but they are still regarded as contributors.
I say this is not a money bill. This is a pension plan providing for the redistribution of the contributions that are paid in. Some will go to people who have paid nothing; some will go to people who have paid only a little and get a lot, and some will go to people who will pay a lot and get very little. These latter are the people who are in the very young age group and will pay all their life, and get very little out of the plan in the end. This whole thing is nothing but a payment in and payment out deal. It is a rearrangement of the contributions.
Canada Pension Plan
Without question, this is not a taxation measure and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think you should rule the amendment in order.


John Carr Munro: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on some of the observations of the hon. member. He has referred to the position taken by the government side when we were discussing clause 2. This certainly causes some bitterness on this side because when we were debating that particular clause we argued that the change in the rules recommended in the last report of the committee on procedure, which stated that all discussion should be strictly relevant to the point, should be strictly adhered to. However, this position was most offensive to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for Perth. Both members contended that the government was stifling debate. I can recall the comments being made that a considerable interval had elapsed during the recess and that the government could expect very little co-operation from the official opposition unless we gave them all the latitude they desired. So they then proceeded to deliver speeches having nothing whatsoever to do with the clause.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing now?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is going beyond debating the terms of the point of order that we have to consider. I would ask him to revert to a consideration of the point of order itself and to present such arguments as may be of assistance to the Chair in reaching a decision on this very difficult matter.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, the other points raised by the hon. member were equally specious. He referred to comments in the joint committee. This was a joint committee designed to go into all aspects of the bill, designed to give all the latitude possible.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: And to make suggestions as to improvements.


John Carr Munro: Yes, to make suggestions as to improvements.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Not one of which was accepted.


John Carr Munro: Surely that was not the proper place to raise points of order such as are necessary in the house. When the hon. member uses that argument it is an admission that he is on particularly weak ground. I

Canada Pension Plan
can recall that every time in the joint committee an objection was taken by a government member, members of the opposition immediately objected to this. They contended on that occasion that we were trying to ram the bill through.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You did not make one change in it.


John Carr Munro: There were several changes. You cannot have it both ways.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We cannot have it either way.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You were not here when we made the amendments last week.


John Carr Munro: If you look at the front of this bill you will see it states it is:
An act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
These people specified in the amendments are not contributors to the Canada pension plan and it is not seriously contended that they are. Therefore the amendments contravene the essence of the bill, to say nothing of the resolution I referred to earlier.
In the second proposed amendment they say a contributor shall be deemed-
-to include a person who, his earnings in any one year being below the basic exemption for that year, files a return of such earnings in the prescribed manner and form with the minister and elects, on or before April 30 in the following year, to have that year deemed to be a year for which he has made a contribution in respect of such earnings.
Clearly this is an additional charge or tax on all those people. It cannot be argued otherwise. What this proposes to do in effect is charge a contributor on the whole amount from zero up, which increases the tax burden. Is that not so?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Where does the hon. member find that in the amendment we are now considering?


John Carr Munro: It was certainly referred to in the calculations given by my hon. friend.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is only one amendment under consideration and that is the first one moved by the hon. member for Perth.


John Carr Munro: Obviously these people referred to in the two amendments are not contributors. It is also specious to contend that we did not raise this point of order soon enough. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already referred to that. My understanding is that the hon. member for Perth moved the amendment, and afterwards the hon. member

for Parry Sound-Muskoka proceeded to explain the intention behind it. Then we reached six o'clock and adjourned for the supper hour. After that we listened to further explanations, and surely members of the opposition wanted us to hear their explanations in order to ascertain whether or not the amendments were out of order. Now, having heard the explanations, it is clear they are out of order.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to disagree with the last speaker. Two points were made, and they are clear. The first is that this bill in essence is not a taxation bill. It states and uses the word "contributors", and the money that is collected is to be put into a special fund. It does not form part of the general revenue of Canada in any way, shape or form. We are asking that the word "contributor" be extended to include those categories who have already reached 70 years of age, and those who have reached 65 years of age and are retired from regular employment.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about a package deal. Mention was made of those people 70 years of age and over who will not benefit under this bill, of persons aged between 65 and 70 who have retired and of people whose annual earnings are less than $600. We have already made changes in the bill in the definition of those who are contributors, but there seems to be almost a barrier against any change in the plan. In other words, the government which has decided who will be a contributor is loath to go below a definition of $600 a year, or $800 a year in the case of a farmer. It is loath to include those over 70, and those over 65 years who have already retired. If we have already changed the definition of contributors in one sense, then surely to goodness it can be changed as proposed now. What I am trying to say is that the amendment is fully in order.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, before you give your ruling might I be allowed to make a few comments on the amendment?


Lucien Lamoureux: Obviously there is no limitation whatever and the Chair would be very pleased to have the guidance of the hon. member for Cariboo.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I do not want to speak to the point of order; I want to speak to the amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair is now prepared to make a ruling and perhaps it will not be necessary for the hon. member to speak on the amendment after the ruling is given.

It goes without saying that this is not an easy decision to render, and I will admit that from the moment the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Perth this afternoon the Chair was a little perplexed. The intrinsic complexity of the amendment proposed by the hon. member made it very difficult for the Chair to reach a decision earlier as to whether it was acceptable or not, but the point having been raised in due course the Chair is now prepared to make a judgment.
An argument was made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that this point of order was not raised immediately and therefore could not be taken into account. I am sure the hon. member did not advance that proposition too seriously.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Very seriously.


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, if he did I would suggest he was wrong. I read citation 71 at page 59 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states:
Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the standing orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business, and may be raised at any time by any member, whether he has previously spoken or not.
This is quite clear and I am sure hon. members will recognize that a point of order can be raised at any time before a question is put. There are other citations and precedents which could be quoted on this point, but I am sure there is no real argument here.
The more important point raised by hon. members in the discussion was whether this amendment affects the financial initiative of the crown. Indeed this was the basis on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre placed his original objection. It is never too easy to determine whether an amendment or motion does or does not infringe on the financial initiative of the crown. I would like to refer to May's sixteenth edition which, at page 684, defines what is a charge on the public revenue. I might say it seemed to me during the course of the discussion there was confusion about whether we are concerned here with a charge on the public revenue or a charge on the people-that is, a tax. What we have to decide is whether this amendment, if given effect to, would be a charge on the public revenue which, as I say, is defined in this way at page 684 of May's sixteenth edition:
A charge "upon the public revenue" or "upon public funds" now means an obligation to make
Canada Pension Plan
a payment out of the exchequer, i.e. an item of national expenditure. In relation to expenditure, financial procedure is. with one exception mentioned below, exclusively concerned with charges payable out of the exchequer.
Perhaps I could refer also to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 246, subsection (1), which was referred to by one hon. member who took part in the discussion on the point of order. It reads as follows:
The recommendation of the crown is needed for such measures as bills relating to the extension of time for the repayment of the deposit which has become liable to forfeiture in the case of a private bill; the release or compounding of sums due to the crown; the repeal of an exemption from an existing duty, as the burthen of the duty is thereby augmented; a proposal to repeal an existing drawback on export of sugar, as it effects an increase of charge upon the importers who desired to export sugar.
Then, paragraph (3) reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn or replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I have read this rather quickly because it is part of the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which seems sound enough. The amendment in my opinion would appear to entail a payment out of the revenues collected under the terms of the bill, which would be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund. There seems to be a presumption that it would be a charge on the exchequer.
There are other points, just as important, that were raised. Another one is whether or not this amendment goes beyond the terms of reference set out in the resolution. Here again, I should like to quote from Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 246, subsection (3), which is again the citation mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As the hon. member pointed out, the purpose of the amendment would appear to re-direct the moneys in the fund for a purpose other than that provided under the terms of the resolution. This would be in contradiction of the principle set out in paragraph (3), citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
A further point is whether the amendment as proposed is in contradiction of the principle of the bill adopted on second reading. This point was made very clearly by the parliamentary secretary. He referred to a number of citations which I feel were very much to the point. I should like, for the bene-

Canada Pension Plan
fit of hon. members, to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 406, paragraphs (a) and (b):
Amendments are out of order if they are
(a)	irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependant upon amendments already negatived;
(b)	inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as agreed to by the committee
Then, I should like to refer also to citation 401, paragraph (3), which reads as follows:
The chairman, in the case of an amendment offered to a bill that was limited in scope to the repeal of a clause in a statute, ruled that the amendment was out of order, because its object was the continuance and the extension of the clause to be repealed. The chairman stated that, though the committee had full power to amend, even to the extent of nullifying the provisions of the bill, they could not insert a clause which reversed the principle which the bill, as read a second time, sought to affirm.
Then, in May's sixteenth edition, at page 554, we find this:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration. Amendments, which are irrelevant to the clause under consideration, should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the bill, be moved as new clauses.
Then, I should like to quote paragraph (5) on that page:
An amendment, which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible.
Now, the principle of the bill, in my opinion, is stated in the resolution to which hon. members have referred, in particular the parliamentary secretary, and would appear to be contained in the title of the bill which says, "An act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors." This amendment would appear to me to go beyond the principle of the bill and the resolution which affirms the terms of reference which guides the discussions in committee. For all these reasons, it would appear to the Chair that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth is out of order and I do rule accordingly.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are only endeavouring to have this bill live up to the extravagant words used in the white paper, so I regret that I must appeal your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
[The Chairman.]
In committee of the whole, when clause 44 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, was being considered, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) proposed the following amendment thereto:
"That Bill No. C-136 be amended as follows:
On page 35, line 5: Immediately following subclause (1) of clause 44, insert the following as subclause (2) and renumber the present subclause (2) and subclause (3) as subclauses (3) and (4) respectively:
'(2) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), a contributor shall be deemed to include a resident who, except as by this subsection provided, is not pensionable under this act, and
(a)	has reached 70 years of age, or
(b)	has reached 65 years of age and is retired from regular employment.' And on page 35, add the following subclause to clause 44:
'(5) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), a contributor shall be deemed to include a person who, his earnings in any year being below his basic exemption for that year, files a return of such earnings in prescribed manner and form with the minister and elects on or before April 30 in the following year to have that year deemed to be a year for which he has made a contribution in respect of such earnings.' "
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling given by the chairman of the committee of the whole. The Chair ruled, in effect, that the amendment infringed the financial initiative of the crown and that it was irrelevant to and inconsistent with the principle of the bill as approved by the house when the bill was given second reading. Whereupon the hon. member for Perth appealed the ruling.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I declare the ruling
sustained.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I not been paired I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, had I not been paired I would have voted in support of your ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee will now resume consideration of clause 44.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Now that these amendments by the official opposition have been declared out of order, with which I have no quarrel, inasmuch it has been indicated that the minister apparently does have the power to move such amendments I wonder whether she would do so in an offer to help the old and the poor?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 46-Amount of retirement pension.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this is really a part of what we were talking about before, but it is a different clause. I am going to move an amendment to clause 46 which will bring in people who have been in a very low earning bracket or below the exemption figure. We feel that these people are ignored in the pension plan. They are going to receive nothing from it whatsoever. As I said, this matter has been discussed, but I should like to point out that there are going to be many people, people who are actually going to need a pension the most, who will get nothing at all. I think that these people should be covered under the Canada pension plan in order, as I said earlier, to live up to the extravagant statements in the white paper. Consequently I move:
On page 36, strike out clause 46 and substitute the following:
"46. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a retirement pension payable to a contributor is a basic monthly

Canada Pension Plan
amount equal to 25 per cent of his average monthly pensionable earnings.
(2) Where a retirement pension calculated in accordance with subsection (1) would be a lesser monthly amount than $25 or where a person is a contributor by effect only of subsection (2) of section 44, the retirement pension payable is a monthly amount of $25 or, in the case of a contributor whose spouse has not reached 65 years of age, a monthly amount of $40."


John Carr Munro: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as this amendment advocates the payment of additional moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund and therefore constitutes an additional charge I submit it is out of order. The fact that it involves a different group of people does not alter that principle and I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is clearly out of order for the same reasons stated with regard to the previous amendment which you ruled out of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: It does appear to the Chair that this is a money resolution or motion along the same lines as the one that was moved in amendment of clause 44. I would invite the comments of hon. members of the committee who wish to indicate their views on the point.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned we think the amendment is out of order for exactly the same reasons as in the case of the proposed amendment to clause 44.


Lucien Lamoureux: Members of the committee will realize it is a little difficult to reach a decision so quickly but I have had a minute or two, or three, to look at the amendment and to my mind it is out of order for the same reasons as the amendment that was moved to clause 44, the principal reason being that referred to by the parliamentary secretary. Therefore I have to rule the amendment out of order.


Norman Platt Lambert: In other words, the levy is taxation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Might we not see the clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: It has been called ten o'clock by a number of members and I believe we have no power to go beyond this point.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works may not have held his present post for very long but he has certainly learned how to give us the great double talk when it comes to answering simple, uncomplicated questions.
Today he made a comment about highways, after about a period of two weeks of reflection, and if he had set out on the course of using that amount of words for the purpose of saying nothing I would congratulate him on having reached his objective.
I should like to deal briefly and chronologically with some of the events relating to proposed federal government participation in a national highways building program. On July 17, 1963, and prior to that time, we were led to believe that there would be a national highways building conference. The provinces were enticed into understanding that there was going to be such a conference. They were led to the belief that the federal government wanted to sit down and discuss a national highways system, with federal government participation in it, and the provinces were asked to submit ideas and proposals along those lines.
We waited for many weeks and months after this pronouncement on July 17, only to be told on April 28, 1964 by the minister's predecessor, that because of certain events in the province of Quebec no such highway building conference was going to be held, despite all the hopes of the provinces who had been led to the belief that such a conference would be held. Their hopes and aspirations were washed down the drain. We in the provinces accepted that with some resignation, thinking that there was a valid reason for the government to cancel the proposed conference.
However, on February 10 of this year a statement was issued from the Prime Minister's office indicating an additional $30 million would be sought from this parliament to provide for a highway building program in the Atlantic provinces. As soon as this announcement was made some of us hoped

it would be the forerunner to a similar declaration for the other provinces, which occasioned the question I posed to the minister some days ago, and which he answered today.
I would like to make one or two comments about his statement today. First he said he did not see any need to call a highways conference, so presumably the position of his predecessor is maintained. He also said that he felt perhaps the best thing he could do was make an inventory of exactly what this and previous governments have done. It seems passing strange to me that such an inventory does not exist. After all, the federal government had been contributing to the trans-Canada highway since 1949 and has kept a continual inventory of the amount of work done.
In fact, I have before me the latest annual report under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, for the year ending March 1964. In it I find that the three prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the province of Prince Edward Island have completely finished their work under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, and all the mileage in those provinces has been completed and paid for by now. In the other provinces there is not very much left to do before the trans-Canada highway is fully completed from one end to the other. The minister could also very easily find an inventory on the roads to resources program, because adequate records are kept on the participation of the various provinces in it.
The minister also said today that he would try to co-ordinate the different activities in the field of road work. It is utter nonsense on his part to attempt to co-ordinate these activities. All of the highway building program at present being engaged in by the federal government is done under the minister's department, so far as the provinces are concerned. What more co-ordination do we need?
What we do need is a firm declaration on the line of the promises which the Prime Minister made to the people of this nation in every election since he became the leader of his party, namely that there would be a second trans-Canada highway so far as western Canada is concerned. He even had a map drawn of it at one stage. Obviously the Prime Minister believes so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned that their lifeblood and future expansion for development rest on highways development, and this is precisely
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the same situation with respect to the western provinces and the north.
We are simply asking the minister to give some careful consideration, more them the kind of consideration he has obviously given it so far, and come up with some declaratory statement which will raise again the hopes of the people in western Canada, particularly the people who live in the north and who depend so much on a national highway building program to further promote the economic development and population expansion of those areas.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has analysed fairly well the answer I gave this morning. It is true I said I did not believe a conference of provincial highways ministers should be held at this time. The reason I gave was that I wanted, myself, to look at the problem. As the hon. member knows I have not had too much time to look into what is, as can be well imagined, a very complicated problem. I feel very strongly that the government should first of all finish whatever it has started in connection with the trans-Canada highway. It should also complete the different other roads programs that are in the offing.
The hon. member mentioned the $30 million road construction program in the maritime provinces. Well, I think he will agree with me that the maritime provinces have not been as fortunate economically as some other areas of the country. I am sure he does not want to begrudge the maritimes being given this type of help.
There is one other thing I should like to mention which the hon. member does not seem to think is very important. I mentioned the co-ordination of the different types of work. It is true the work is done under the Department of Public Works. However, as the hon. member knows, the policies are arranged mostly by other departments. For instance there is the roads to resources program under northern affairs, and mines and technical surveys, which has something to do with the policy that is in effect. Then, the Atlantic development board has something to do with trunk roads. This is the type of thing to which I was referring.
What I have been trying to do, first of all, has been to finish off the trans-Canada highway and then to see if there is not some way of co-ordinating the different policies that are being followed. Once that is done, then
12174	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion we can take into account the request for a conference with the provinces. I think the hon. member will agree that in the past few years a considerable amount of federal money has been spent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Wednesday, March 10, 1965