1965-02-22

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since July 1, 1962, has any money been spent for the gravelling or maintenance of roads at the Telegraph Creek Indian reserve and, if so, how much money was spent?
2.	Upon what date, or dates, did the said work take place and who were the recipients of any such payments?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. It has been established that no money was actually spent on road gravelling or maintenance.
2.	See (1). Charges relating to the administration of funds during the period referred to have been laid and the matter is at present sub judice.


TENDERS FOR WELL DRILLING, CAPE RACE, NFLD.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Who are the Newfoundland agents for Pius Sullivan and Company Limited, 27 Springdale street, St. John's, which was awarded a contract for well drilling at Cape Race recently?
2.	Were tenders called for this work and, if not, for what reason?
3.	If tenders were called for the work, what are the names of the persons or companies who were invited to tender and amount of each tender?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. So far
as the department is aware there is no Newfoundland agent for Pius Sullivan and Sons Limited of St. John's, the firm being owned and operated by Mr. Pius Sullivan and sons.
2.	Tenders were requested for this work from eight prospective bidders.
3.	Bids were requested from: Pius Sullivan and Sons Ltd., St. John's, Nfld.; Atlantic Coast Well Drillers Limited, Bedford, N.S.; Trask and Sons Limited, Cambridge Station, N.S.; O. V. Kennedy and Sons Ltd., Bridgetown, N.S.; Goodyear Construction Co. Ltd., Grand Falls, Nfld.; Twillingate Engineering
and Construction Co., Twillingate, Nfld.; Michael Power, Portugal Cove, Nfld.; Royal Excavating Co. Ltd., St. John's, Nfld.
Only one bid was submitted in reply to this tender call, that of Pius Sullivan and Sons Limited in the amount of $9,020.


CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS RESPECTING BIRTH CONTROL
Mr. Priltie: 1.	Up to and including October 31, 1964, how
many letters and petitions have been received by the government from individuals asking that section 150 (2)	(c) of the Criminal Code, relating
to the dissemination of information on birth control, be amended or repealed?
2.	During the same period, how many letters or petitions have been received from individuals who are opposed to an amendment or repeal of the same section?
3.	How many professional, religious and other organizations have written to the government asking for an amendment to, or repeal of. section 150 (2) (c) of the Criminal Code?
4.	What are the names of these organizations?
5.	How many professional, religious and other organizations have written to the government opposing any amendment to, or repeal of. section 150 (2) (c) of the Criminal Code?
6.	What are the names of these organizations?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Prime Minister's office and the Departments of Justice and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1. 122.
2.	3.
3.	57.
4.	Society for population planning; First Unitarian congregation of Toronto; Board of evangelism and social service (United Church of Canada); Agricultural institute of Canada- Alberta institute of agrologists, Edmonton branch; Niagara diocese council for social service, Anglican Church of Canada; Saska-chewan conference young people's union (United Church of Canada); United Church women of Smooth Rock Falls, Ontario; Unitarian fellowship of Oshawa; 21st general council of the United Church of Canada; Edmonton branch of the planned parenthood association; Council for social service of the diocese of Niagara (Anglican); Rector, combined parishes of Lombardy, Newboyne and Westport (Anglican) on behalf of ten parishioners; North York Branson clinical society;

Questions
Women's college hospital, Toronto; Churches of Christ (Disciples) Toronto, all Canada committee; Westminster presbytery, U.C.C., Burnaby, B.C.; Pathfinders fund (mental health division) Vancouver; Canadian medical association; Children's aid society, metropolitan Toronto; Department of Christian social service, Anglican Church of Canada; Planned parenthood association of Ottawa; Planned parenthood association of Toronto; Canadian federation of societies on population planning; U.C. women's organization, Embro, Ont.; Canada conference, Evangelical United brethren Church, Kitchener; U.C.C. women's organization, Mount Elgin; Society of obstetricians and gynecologists of Canada, Edmonton; Alberta conference of U.C.C., Edmonton; Canadian council of churches, Toronto; Saskatchewan conference U.C.C., Regina; Canadian medical association, C.M.A. house, Toronto; Bennington unit, U.C. women, Embro, Ont.; Mt. Elgin U.C. women's organizations, Mount Elgin; 90th general assembly, Presbyterian Church, Toronto; B.C. civil liberties association, Vancouver, B.C.; Council of municipality of Toronto; Edmonton family service bureau, Edmonton; U.C. women's organization, (six units) Norwich, Ont.; The incorporated synod of the diocese of Ontario, Kingston; Unit 4, St. David's U.C., Woodstock, Ont.; Unit 3, St. David's U.C., Woodstock, Ont.; The incorporated synod of the diocese of Toronto, Toronto; Westminster presbytery, B.C. (U.C.C.) Burnaby; The Saskatoon conference young people's union, Saskatoon; North Toronto medical association, Toronto.
5 and 6. None.


INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	When is it the intention of the government to set up the Indians' claims commission?
2.	Is it the government's intention to close all hospitals situated on the reserves and in particular "the reserves situated at Morley and Gleichen, Alberta?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Departments of Citizenship and Immigration and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	Proposed Indian claims legislation was submitted to all Indian bands and Indian organizations for study on August 7. The representations have been reviewed and a bill with certain modifications will be available shortly for consideration as the business of the house may permit.
[Mr. Lamontagne.l
2.	Departmental experience has been that small hospitals situated on Indian reserves do not provide economic or efficient hospital service to the native population. For this reason it has been longstanding policy to close such hospitals whenever adequate community facilities become available.
The departmental facility on the Morley Indian reserve has never been recognized as a hospital by the provincial hospital authority. Its primary function is that of providing a base for the two nurses engaged in the public health program on the reserve and clinic accommodation for visiting medical and dental staff. There are also several beds in reserve for the emergent care of patients who cannot be moved to conventional community hospitals.
The department does not intend to close out the Blackfoot Indian hospital at Gleichen, Alberta, until adequate alternative facilities are available in the community.


NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM STUDIES
Mr. Coales: 1.	What are the basic research studies that will be transferred from the Nappan experimental
farm?
2.	To which experimental farms in the Atlantic area will these studies be transferred?
3.	How many individuals are associated with the research studies that are to be transferred and how long a period of time will it take to effect the transfers?
4.	How many research studies will continue at the Nappan experimental farm; what are the types of research; and how many individuals are associated with each of these studies?
5.	Are any research studies presently being carried out at other experimental farms in the Atlantic area to be transferred to the Nappan experimental farm, and, if none, for what reason?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) Plant breeding and plant nutrition, to Charlottetown, (b) Cattle and swine nutrition research, to Fredericton; (c) Poultry nutrition studies will be discontinued and the research officer will be moved to Ottawa.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	Seven officers and one vacant position are associated with the research studies that are to be transferred. No decision has been made regarding the timing of these transfers. They are expected to take place over the next three years.
4.	The research studies to be continued at Nappan are: (a) Adaptation and testing of forage and cereal crops; (b) Development of practical drainage and fertility practices particularly on marshland soils; (c) Management

of forage crops in a livestock forage economy, including the maintenance of livestock for this purpose.
Three research officers and the superintendent will continue at Nappan. One research officer is associated with each of the above three broad areas of research. They will work as a team under the direction of the superintendent.
5.	No. The experimental farm at Nappan will conduct work of immediate practical importance to the farmers in the area. Accordingly, it will not be conducting work of a basic nature or with broad application beyond its area of supervision. For this reason no research studies presently being carried out at other experimental farms in the Atlantic area will be transferred to Nappan.
DEPORTATION OF SEAMEN BEFORE INTERVIEW Question No. 2,381


Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	Have any of the seamen who entered Canada illegally, who were apprehended, ordered deported by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration after they had served sentences in jail, been deported before they were interviewed as to the circumstances of their apprehension, custody and sentencing, by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, who is conducting an inquiry?
2.	How many were not interviewed by Mr. Sedgwick?


Hubert Badanai: 1. On the assumption that the hon. member is referring to the 21 seamen, summaries of whose cases were tabled in the house by Mr. Tremblay on June 22, 1964, the answer is, yes.
Three of these persons have been deported from Canada without having been interviewed by Mr. Sedgwick. One was deported before Mr. Sedgwick was appointed to conduct an inquiry and two after the department's consultation with Mr. Sedgwick.
Of the other 18 seamen involved, one has disappeared and his whereabouts is unknown; one was apprehended by the United States immigration authorities and deported from the U.S.A. to his native country; 16 are still in Canada.
2. This information is not available to the department but Mr. Sedgwick's report on his inquiry is expected to be available shortly.


CRASH POSITION INDICATOR
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does a company called Leigh Instruments produce a crash position indicator commonly called the beacon, foUowing a project and research developed by the national research council and, if
Questions
so, what are the details in brief of this instrument, according to national research council authorities?
2.	Is this instrument used on R.C.A.F. planes?
3.	Is this instrument used on Air Canada and/or C.P.A. planes?
4.	Has Air Canada any comparable kind of instrument and, if so (a) has it been fitted on any of the jet planes of Air Canada and (b) for what period of time?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production, National Defence and Transport as follows:
1.	Yes. This device consists of a miniaturized battery powered radio beacon which is encapsulated in a foam plastic package installed near the rear of the aircraft. The package is relatively flat in shape so that it resembles an aerofoil. In the event of a crash, the crash position indicator is automatically released at the instant of impact. During the period of a few thousandths of a second in which the destruction of the aircraft is initiated, the crash position indicator is deployed away from the impact point by the aerodynamic forces associated with the velocity of impact and is decelerated to a safe landing speed.
The over-all dimensions of the crash position indicator are 20" X 20" X 4", and it weighs approximately six pounds. It produces a signal on a distress frequency for about three days, and this signal can be detected by search aircraft at ranges of between 20 and 40 miles.
When installed on a large aircraft, the crash position indicator is capable of surviving any likely crash circumstances. On small aircraft, its ability to survive is only limited at extremely adverse combinations of impact angle or speed.
2.	Yes, an accident data recorder-crash position indicator developed by Leigh Instruments is undergoing prototype evaluation in one Yukon aircraft.
3.	No.
4.	No.


MARINE INDUSTRIES LTD.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Does the government of Canada do business with Marine Industries Limited of Sorel, P.Q.?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the board of directors of Marine Industries Limited, of Sorel, P.Q.?
3.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded this firm by the federal government from October 1, 1964, up to the present time?

Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. A. Ludger Simard, Ste. Anne de Sorel, P.Q.; Mr. L. N. DeRome, 318 Stanstead, town of Mount Royal, P.Q.; Mr. Jean Simard, 1321 Sherbrooke street west, Montreal; Mr. Rene Simard, 289 du Roi, Sorel, P.Q.; Mr. Arthur Simard, Chemin Ste. Anne, Sorel, P.Q.; Mr. H. C. Hawken, 74 Stratford road, Hampstead, P.Q.; Mr. Leon Simard, 3110 Dau-lac, Montreal, P.Q.
3.	Total amount of contracts awarded by the Department of Transport to Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, P.Q. from October 1, 1964 to November 30, 1964, is $2,003,245.59. This includes the conversion and repair of the ferry vessel New Grand Haven for an amount of $1,843,927.14.
Total amount of contracts awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, P.Q. from October 1, 1964 is $946,072.


&quot;THE CHIEFTONES&quot; INDIAN ORCHESTRA
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1964, has any request or communication come to the attention of the Indian affairs branch or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the all Indian orchestral band called the "Chieftones" and, if so, what was the nature of each such request or communication, from whom was it received and what reply in detail, was given thereto?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No request or communication can be located in the department prior to December 15, 1964, from anyone acting on behalf of "The Chieftones". In response to subsequent inquiries by the department, Indian affairs branch officials in Edmonton have advised that "The Chief-tones", an all Indian instrumental and vocal orchestra, was organized at the Edmonton Indian residential school in 1964. Initially, they played for school and local entertainment, but their performances were favourably received and they are now appearing in other centres.


SOLICITATION OF JAPANESE WORKERS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1964, has Canada made any request to the government of Japan or to any other entity in Japan to have workers come to Canada and, if so, what, in detail, was the nature of any such request, the reason for it being issued, and the response given thereto?
2.	Does the Canadian government plan to provide any facilities or to use any present facilities in Tokyo or any other place in Japan in order to facilitate the immigration to Canada of Japanese workers and, if so, what, in detail, are those plans?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Conversations have been held between officials of the Japanese and Canadian governments on the question of providing facilities in Japan to promote immigration to Canada of qualified Japanese. However, these conversations have not yet developed to the point where plans can be detailed. If and when these conversations bear fruitful results, then an appropriate announcement will be made.
2. See answer to No. 1.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE, EUREKA, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders been called for construction of a standard revenue post office at Eureka, Pictou county, N.S.?
2.	Who were the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisler of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Robert Higgins Co. Ltd., $14,282.70; Wayne Wood, $14,938.35; James Gordon Mac-cara, $15,894; Paragon Construction, $16,579; Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., $17,576.
3.	Robert Higgins Co. Ltd., Trenton, N.S.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE, SCOTSBURN, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a standard revenue post office at Scotsbum, Pictou county, N.S.?
2.	Who were the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes.
2. MacBurnie Bros. Ltd., $10,984; Merle MacEachern, $13,442; Wayne Wood, $14,738.35; MacKinnon Construction, $14,953.71; Paragon Construction, $16,092.16; Eastern Contracting, $19,700.
3. MacBurnie Bros. Ltd., Tatamagouche, N.S.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE, THORBURN, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for the construction of a standard revenue post office at Thorburn, N.S.?
2.	To whom has the contract been awarded?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Robert Higgins Co. Ltd., $14,282; Wayne Wood, $14,738.35; James Gordon Mac-cara, $15,494; Fraser, Mason and Fraser, $15,596; Paragon Construction, $15,601.45; Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., $17,476.
2. Robert Higgins Co. Ltd., Trenton, N.S.


REPORT ON TIED SALES BY OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Priltie: 1.	Has the interdepartmental committee which has been investigating the report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning the practice of tied sales imposed by oil companies on service stations completed its studies yet?
2.	Has the committee presented recommendations to the Minister of Justice?
3.	When will the minister present legislation on this subject to the house?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Minister of Justice, in reply to questions in the house on October 29 and November 26, 1964, stated that he had placed certain recommendations before the cabinet and expected to be in a position in the near future to make known the policy of the government with respect to the recommendations contained in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission. Any decision in this respect will be made known in due course in the proper way.


PREPARATION OF INCOME TAX PAMPHLET
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Which agency or branch of the government prepared and distributed the recent pamphlet entitled "introducing direct to you your '64 personalized income tax return"?
2.	For what reasons was the Northwest Territories not listed on the last page of the pamphlet?
3.	Where should residents of the Northwest Territories write or telephone if they require assistance in completing their returns?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The taxation division, Department of National Revenue.
2.	The taxation division has not an office in the Northwest Territories. The information on the last page of the pamphlet was not intended to indicate the area covered by a district office, but rather the addresses and telephone numbers thereof.
3.	Residents of the Northwest Territories should communicate with the Edmonton district office of the taxation division if they require information or assistance in the preparation of income tax returns.


GRANT FOR DORMITORY CONSTRUCTION, MCMASTER UNIVERSITY
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Have requests been received from McMaster University for federal grants for dormitory construction and, if so, for what amount?
2.	Has a grant been given in response to such a request and, if so, in what amount?
Questions


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1 and 2. McMaster University applied for and received approval of a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the amount of $3,451,000 to assist in the construction of two dormitory residences to accommodate 251 male and 242 female students.


APPOINTMENT OF FRENCH SPEAKING SENATOR FROM ALBERTA
Mr. Pigeon: Does the Prime Minister intend to recommend to the Governor General the appointment of a French speaking Canadian senator from Alberta to fill the vacancy created in the senate by the death of Hon. Aristide Blais and, if so, on what date?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: It is not the normal practice for a prime minister to indicate in advance to the House of Commons his intentions in regard to recommendations to His Excellency concerning appointments to the Senate.


RATES OF CORONARY HEART DISEASE
Mr. Mather: What is the rate of coronary heart disease among farmers and non-farmers?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mortality statistics by particular occupations are not available.


MUNICIPAL, PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL REVENUES
Mr. Scott: In each of the years 1954 to 1964, inclusive (a) what was the total aggregate revenue of the municipalities in Canada (b) what was the total aggregate revenue of the provinces in Canada (c) what was the total aggregate revenue of the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Gross general revenue-all governments For the fiscal years ended nearest to December 31, 1954-1962
Year	Federal	Provincial (Thousands of dollars)	Municipal1954	4,436,454	1,578,126	1,022,9431955	4,748,011	1,787,876	1,116,0211956	5,506,406	1,992,015	1,244,8231957	5,466,535	2,274,966	1,404,0421958	5,171,492	2,521,084	1,552,0881959	5,865,065	2,975,252	1,748,8831960	6,250,852	3,132,045	1,844,3611961	6,404,453	3,580,832	1,984,360
Orders for Returns
Year	Federal Provincial (Thousands of dollars)	Municipal1962	6,595,434 4,236,486	2,112,4091963	Not available	1964	Not available


MUNICIPAL, PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Scott: In each of the years 1954 to 1964, inclusive (a) what was the total aggregate spending of the provinces in Canada (b) what was the total aggregate spending of the municipalities in Canada (c) what was the total aggregate spending of the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Gross general expenditure-all governments For the fiscal years ended nearest to December 31, 1954-1962
Year	Federal	Provincial	Municipal
	(Thousands of		
		dollars)	
1954	4,644,454	1,549,355	1,432,5591955	4,754,710	1,749,053	1,477,4031956	5,234,603	1,973,276	1,647,1891957	5,529,883	2,286,380	1,896,5501958	5,997,606	2,571,389	2,026,8681959	6,318,062	3,054,948	2,324,0191960	6,583,688	3,448,678	2,543,7881961	7,177,718	3,832,433	2,849,4761962	7,336,824	4,418,536	3,085,4211963	Not available	1964	Not available



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Which government departments, agencies or commissions, require government employees or prospective government employees to fill out forms which ask questions about racial origin, creed or religious denomination?
2.	What are the reasons for asking this type of question by each department, agency or commission?
Return tabled.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many dominion-provincial conferences on the ministerial level have been held since April 15, 1963?
2.	What was the subject matter of each such conference?

3.	What members of the government of Canada attended as delegates to such meetings?
4.	How many conferences involving departmental officials of the government of Canada and the governments of all the provinces have been held in the same period?
5.	What was the subject matter of such conferences?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT WORK TO QUEBEC AND MARITIME SHIPYARDS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What was the total amount of government work awarded to province of Quebec shipyards including Canadian Vickers, Marine Industries, Geo. T. Davie Ltd. and Davie Shipyards, during the last six months, exclusive of new construction contracts?
2.	What was the total amount of government work awarded to Atlantic province shipyards during the last six months, exclusive of new construction?
3.	What government work was allocated in the last six months to province of Quebec shipyards and what were the names of the shipyards, the names of the ships involved and, the amount of the various contracts?
4.	What government work was awarded in the last six months to province of Quebec shipyards as a result of tender calls, including the tender amounts, the names of the ships involved and the shipyards who were awarded the contracts?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT FURNITURE PURCHASES
Mr. Winkler: 1.	What departments of government have the right to purchase furniture on their own initiative?
2.	Which of these departments of government have purchased furniture since April, 1963?
3.	From what companies did these departments of government purchase said furniture?
4.	What was the amount of each purchase?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the situation with regard to the request of North Viet Nam that truce commission team sites be withdrawn? What has been Canada's reaction to this request?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As I said on Friday last, the government of North Viet Nam had served a written notice on the commission asking that the team sites in North Viet Nam be

withdrawn. The commission has now given consideration to this request and has decided to withdraw the teams. This it does with the greatest reluctance. Canada, as a member of the commission, has agreed to this course together with India and Poland, the other members of the commission. We hope, however, that the withdrawal of the team sites does not mean there will be a request for a withdrawal of the representatives of the commission at Hanoi. This, of course, would cripple the work of the commission and have serious consequences.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Before the Christmas recess the Minister of Justice informed the house that the R.C.M.P. were preparing a report regarding certain allegations of excessive brutality by the police during disturbances in Quebec city at the time of the royal visit. I want to ask the Minister of Justice if he has now received that report and whether its contents will be made available to the members of the house.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to review my file on the matter, not having had notice of the question this morning. I will consider if I am in a position to answer the question further.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister tell the house whether he has received the report? It is now over four months since this incident took place. Has the minister received the report?


Guy Favreau: Well, I have received a report concerning the activities of the police, and more particularly the participation of the R.C.M.P., but I repeat that I would like to review the matter today so as to decide what answer I may give later to this question.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell whether the R.C.M.P. was in charge of all police forces that day and urged the Quebec city police to use clubs?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question will, of course, have to be dealt with in my answer to the question put to me
Inquiries of the Ministry by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. As to the second part, I have already said in the house, and have supported my statement, that without passing judgment, which is not my responsibility nor within my jurisdiction over other police bodies, the conduct and behaviour of the R.C.M.P. on that occasion were beyond reproach and, moreover, that that body had been greatly lauded for its attitude and actions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Four months after those events took place, would he be ready to have another inquiry made among members of the Quebec city police to find out who ordered, incited and urged Quebec municipal policemen to use their clubs on that day?


Guy Favreau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it is not my responsibility to pass judgment on those facts.
I know that the proper authority in this case rests with the attorney general of the province, who has jurisdiction over the provincial police and also, if not directly, at least indirectly, over police forces of a local character. In those circumstances I think that if there are any questions they could be directed to the attorney general of the province.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if it is not correct that the entire security measures taken during the royal visit at all points, including Quebec city, were under the direct supervision and control of the R.C.M.P.?


Guy Favreau: On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to reply to all those questions when I answer the first one put to me a moment ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. According to press reports

Inquiries of the Ministry over the week end the minister stated in Montreal that the prices of automobiles to the consumer would decrease as a result of the new free trade agreement arranged with the United States. Can the minister give an assurance to the house that this will actually take place as soon as the agreement comes into effect after being approved by the United States congress?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps there was a slight gloss put on the remarks I made in Montreal. What I did say was that as a consequence of the reciprocal agreement entered into with the United States, the cost of producing motor cars in Canada would be less in future than it is at present, and one would expect this decrease in cost, as a consequence of competitive forces in the Canadian economy, to be passed on to the consumer; and that over the years we could expect, and indeed do expect, to see a narrowing in the differential between the prices of motor cars in Canada and the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when he expects to submit the resolution on this matter to the house, at which time a full discussion will be possible?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is part of the normal order of parliamentary business, but I will undertake to consult with the leader of the house about it.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO VANCOUVER FILM STUDIO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to direct a question either to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; I understand they both have information on the subject I wish to raise.
Was a telegram received from the president of the Hollyburn film studios of North Vancouver to the effect that owing to the complete absence of federal encouragement and support for a film industry on the west coast they are being compelled to cease operations and are under instructions to send their electronic equipment to Montreal? If so, will the minister state what action, if any, is contemplated to save for Canada this most important industrial endeavour in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely this is a detailed question which has not that urgency which requires an answer this afternoon.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, it most certainly has urgency because the telegram was sent last week end, pointing out that this $2 million industry was closing down last week end unless it could get federal support. How more urgent can a matter be if this industry was closing last week end? With your permission, sir, I would ask that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister prepared to answer the question in view of the urgent plea of the hon. member?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that both my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and I have received telegrams. I must say that we cannot accept the premise that there has been no government business given to this particular studio.
I might also say that prior to the receipt by me of the telegram the hon. member for Coast-Capilano discussed the matter with me and brought the urgency of the situation to my attention, and I assured him that I had seen the facilities and they are very extensive. I am not enough of an artist to speak as to their efficiency, but I did assure the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that I would support them in any reasonable move which was made to get more business. Unfortunately this wire was not received either by my colleague and my seatmate or myself until late Friday, so they have not given us very much time to move. If they were being threatened for several weeks I would have thought that we would have heard from them before this. However, I have taken the matter up with the Secretary of State and have asked him whether something cannot be done. If there is any further answer to be given I am afraid that it will have to come from the Secretary of State.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the rumours that are in the air both in Quebec and elsewhere concerning the

ex-minister without portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) that a warrant for arrest was issued against him by the department of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, could the minister tell us whether he had any telephone or letter communication with the attorney general of the province of Quebec himself about those allegations concerning the exminister without portfolio?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I had no specific discussion with the attorney general of the province of Quebec as to whether or not warrants were issued, as implied in the first part of the question put to me by the hon. member for Villeneuve.
I am not in a position to give an answer to that, but there were communications between him and myself, as the right hon. Prime Minister informed the House of Commons at the resumption of the session.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether the attorney general of the province of Quebec is now in possession of a full report from the R.C.M.P.?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, let us say that up to now the attorney general of the province of Quebec has received the first and second reports of the R.C.M.P., but that the final report is not yet completed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the fact that the minister of revenue for the province of Quebec is making an inquiry to find out whether the former minister without portfolio had filed an accurate income tax return, is the federal Minister of National Revenue conducting a similar inquiry at this time, to find out if the said amounts have been filed with the federal income tax office?


Edgar John Benson: I am not permitted under the legislation to comment in the House of Commons on the affairs of individual taxpayers. However, I will assure the hon. member that the Department of National Revenue tries to collect all taxes that are due to the government of Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry



JUVENILE DELINQUENCY-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I would ask him when the final report of the committee on juvenile delinquency, which began its work in 1962, can be expected. During the past year there have been some six or seven inquiries about this report, the last of which can be found on page 9549 of Hansard of October 29 last. At that time it was indicated that it was expected the final report would be received before the end of 1964. Lest the minister himself be suspected of delinquency in this regard, I would ask him now when we may expect the final report.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said at the end of last year that the report was expected early in 1965. I shall inquire further and advise the hon. gentleman.



HAL BANKS-INQUIRY AS TO WHEREABOUTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a short question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether he has fresh news concerning Hal Banks.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, a short reply to a short question. No.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Justice tell us what happened to the $25,000 bail? Was that money handed over to the federal government or to the province?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that questions of this kind should be put on the order paper. If the hon. member will do so I will answer it.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of statements by officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the effect that they intend to abandon passenger service and, more specifically, that they have

Inquiries of the Ministry served notice on the Post Office Department that on June 23 they will abandon the mail contracts on trains Nos. 7 and 8 from Montreal to Vancouver and Nos. 3 and 4, Toronto to Sudbury.
In view of this, does the government feel it has any responsibility to make sure that the Canadian Pacific Railway does not abandon passenger service, since the company is a utility; and, if so, what steps does the government intend to take in this connection?


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


Gerald Augustine Regan: I give notice of my intention to raise this matter again at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I did not
wish to ask a question. I merely wanted to support the hon. member for Halifax in his attempt to get an answer at this time, because the minister had previously given me an undertaking that he would put forward an explanation in the house with regard to this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Perhaps, since you have heard the hon. member for Port Arthur, I might be allowed to say that I think, with great respect, this is not the kind of question which should be put on the order paper. I would point out that it has nothing to do with my responsibilities as Minister of Transport, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company not being a public corporation. The matter does, of course, raise important questions of policy upon which I should be glad to give my views at an appropriate time and in appropriate circumstances.



WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES-REPORTED STATEMENT BY NORTHERN AFFAIRS DEPUTY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister of northern affairs. Mr. Cote, his deputy minister, stated recently that the department of northern affairs were opposed to the winter games coming to Canada. Is that the opinion of the minister or the policy of the government? By the way, the winter games are coming to Banff.


Hon. Arlhur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my deputy minister, Mr. Cote, was in Calgary and was quoted by the newspapers as saying, when he was asked about the winter games, "Heaven forbid!" He denied categorically in a wire sent to the publisher of the Calgary Herald that he made any reference whatever to the winter games. I want to assure my hon. friend that the support for the Olympic winter games given by the government of Canada will be the same as that which we endeavoured to give when we were trying to get the games for 1968.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope it will be better than that.


Arthur Laing: I hope we will be more successful. But I do want to assure my hon. friend that we went to a very great deal of expense and endeavour, as did the previous government, to obtain these games, and that will be continued.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the objections that have been raised by the Nova Scotia fish packers association in a telegram forwarded to the minister, as well as to the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Labour, would the Minister of Transport indicate whether it is the intention of the government to permit the chartering of foreign registered trawlers by Newfoundland interests in order to assist the new owners of North Eastern Fish Industries to establish the relative merits of the different types of trawlers before acquiring a new fleet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that this question really comes within my administrative sphere; in any case it is more a statement of alleged facts than a question. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he put the question on the order paper and get it answered in the proper way.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. I hold in my hand a copy of a telegram that was allegedly forwarded to the minister, and it calls for a clear and definite answer one way or the other. I should like to ask the

minister whether he could tell the house what answer he forwarded to the fish packers association.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not sent any answer. I doubt whether we would get any business done in this parliament if every answer we made to telegrams, whether or not they came under our jurisdiction, had to be given in the House of Commons.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Could the minister inform me under which department this matter comes if it is not within the purview of the Minister of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Transport has not yet become the information bureau of the House of Commons.



POSSIBLE CHANGES IN LOBSTER FISHING REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is it the intention of the minister to effect any changes in the lobster fishing regulations with regard to the number of licences that will be issued or the number of traps that may be used by lobster fishermen?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under study by the department but no decision has been reached.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS JURISDICTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg asked me a question concerning the date by which ownership of offshore mineral rights would be determined as between the federal and provincial governments.
At the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on October 14, 1964, the question of jurisdiction as between the federal government and the provinces concerning offshore mineral rights was discussed. There was a wide difference of views on the legal rights of the different governments. Therefore on December 11, 1964 I wrote to each of the premiers and said that the diversity of views with respect to the questions involved confirmed the view of the federal government that it was essential to have an authoritative clarification of the legal position. This is 20220-732
Inquiries of the Ministry necessary in the national interest because of the need to encourage the exploration and development of these offshore resources which cannot be effectively developed while jurisdictional uncertainty continues.
I advised the premiers that the government had decided that the various aspects of the problem should therefore be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. I expressed the hope that the provinces would join in the preparation of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada so there could be an agreed basis if at all possible.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is preparing draft documents containing the terms of reference to the supreme court, and it is a very complicated reference indeed. These will be forwarded to the premiers for their comments at the earliest possible time.
It is not possible to give any certain date by which this matter will be determined, but I want to assure the hon. member that the federal government is anxious to have such a determination as expeditiously as possible.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: About ten weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Defence at what stage was the government's consideration of the procurement of a new tactical aircraft for the R.C.A.F., if such a body still exists. I am wondering if, in that ten week period, there has been any substantial progress in that regard.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: To what extent, Mr. Speaker?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The considerations are current, Mr. Speaker.



RELEASE OF RED ENSIGNS FOR DEPOSIT IN CHURCHES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Minister of National Defence can answer the question I asked him last Friday about the Department of National Defence refusing to release the ensigns for laying up ceremonies in some churches?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Within an hour or two of the hon. gentleman's request, instructions were issued to the navy to make ensigns available at their discretion, to churches which wished to hold ceremonies.



POSSIBLE CLOSING OF NORTHERN DISTANT EARLY WARNING STATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and arises out of an announcement by the United States government over the week end to the effect that it is closing its airborne and seaborne distant early warning facilities. Can the minister advise us as to whether there are any immediate plans known to him to close additional distant early warning sites in the Canadian Arctic?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any immediate plans concerning the closing of distant early warning line facilities.



INQUIRY AS TO TENDERS UNDER NAVAL SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house and the country as a whole any idea when he expects tenders will be called for the naval shipbuilding program which he announced late last fall?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Defence Production will perhaps be in a better position to answer that question than I, but I understand it takes about 24 months for the keel to be laid after the initial decision is made. This is to provide lead time for the heavy machinery which has to go into the ship, and to provide the most efficient method of construction. That will give my hon. friend a ball park estimate of the amount of time involved.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I wonder whether the Minister of Defence Production can add anything to what the Minister of National Defence has said with regard to what stage the program is in at the present time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is in its initial stages.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria. B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the anxiety that exists within the Canadian shipbuilding industry as a result of the suspension of federal shipbuilding subsidies, can the minister tell us when the special committee to investigate the federal subsidies will commence its deliberations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch with the chairman of the committee this morning, and I understand it is hoped to start work at the beginning of next week.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question. Can the minister give some indication how long it might take before the committee reports? Would it be a week or months?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think hon. members know that I feel that setting deadlines is not a very wise thing to do.


Mr. Ricard:: Do you recall the 60 days?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the discriminatory aspects of the present formula respecting per capita grants to universities, under which the provinces experiencing the greatest degree of growth receive a continuing decrease in grants? Will the minister say whether there will be amendments to this formula?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should say what policy the government may adopt. This, I suspect, is not something that is new, although it may be urgent in a sense. I will be glad to look into it.



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION RESPECTING INVESTMENT IN CHARTERED BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to

direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that on the same day he announced in the house his intention to present legislation which will prohibit provincial governments from investing in chartered banks, the premier of British Columbia moved second reading of an act to amend the British Columbia revenue act which is specifically designed to empower the provincial government to do that very thing? Does the minister intend to recommend to his colleagues the disallowance of this provincial legislation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the second part of the preamble to my hon. friend's question has not been drawn to my attention; therefore I am unable to answer the more substantive part of his question.



DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER AND WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Friday I asked the minister why he had flown to Winnipeg. He replied that he had been invited by the Canadian wheat board to meet with the advisory committee. I should like now to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it has become government policy to wait until officials of the wheat board invite him to a meeting before he discusses matters with them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the invitation indicates great confidence on the part of those very fine people on the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board in the present Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate whether he personally initiated discussions with the United States authorities, or whether he waited until they also initiated discussions before he took part, in the manner indicated by his reply to my question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, because of the very close and continuous consultations that have taken place between Canada and the United States I find it very difficult to decide exactly when they began. Consultation has 20220-732i
Inquiries of the Ministry been so close during recent months that one might say they have been more or less continuous.


Stanley James Korchinski: In other words, you were in complete agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question. Is the minister now prepared to tell us what the final payment on grain will be? He said the payments would be substantial and that he would indicate the amount in due course. Is the minister now prepared to give us that information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with the chairman of the Canadian wheat board this morning, but I regret that I am only able to state at this time that he indicated the payment would be somewhat larger than even he expected.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and just before doing so I want to congratulate him on his recent appointment.
Has the government of British Columbia or the British Columbia hydro authority made application for licences under the International River Improvements Act for the construction of dams on the Peace and Columbia rivers? If so, were these licences granted and were there any reservations made in Order to protect the navigation and fisheries rights in respect of those rivers?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that these requests have been made. I might suggest to hon. gentlemen that at least for some time it would be wise for them to give me notice of their intention to ask questions. I will look into the subject of my hon. friend's question and provide him with an answer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I sent notice of my question to the minister early this morning. It is my habit to do just that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am sorry, but I did not receive it.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



ALBERTA-POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAY TO GRANDE PRAIRIE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister comment on the very important statement made in the speech from the throne to the Alberta legislature to the effect that a resources development railway is likely to be constructed from the main line of the C.N.R. to Grande Prairie?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the president of the C.N.R. advised me some time ago that discussions were taking place between the government of Alberta and the Canadian National Railways in respect of this matter. I understand these discussions have not been completed. At this time there is nothing I can usefully communicate to the house about those discussions.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister is prepared to use his good offices to suggest to the president of the C.N.R. that he might consult with the members of the constituencies concerned so that no problem in respect of the choice of a proper route will arise at some later date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the president of the C.N.R. will read the hon. member's observation with great interest.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to reply to certain questions addressed to me by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning the submission to parliament of the constitutional amendment procedure approved of at the federal-provincial conference last October. This is a somewhat longer answer than is normally desirable and, if it is the desire of the house, in the absence of that hon. member I shall put it in Hansard so that gentleman can study it and then ask a supplementary question if he so wishes when he is back tomorrow. If that is not agreeable I will be pleased to read the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that suggestion agreeable to hon. members?


Michael Starr: Let us take it as read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to reply to the question which the hon. member for Greenwood first addressed to me on November 6, 1964, and which he followed up on February 16, 1965, concerning the submission to parliament of the constitutional amendment procedure approved at the federal-provincial conference last October.
Since October I have written to the provincial premiers on two occasions about this matter. On November 3, 1964, I asked their concurrence in the accuracy of the final draft of the text of the proposed "Act to provide for the amendment in Canada of the constitution of Canada", including the schedule in which the act in its French version is reproduced. On January 5, 1965, I sent them a draft of a white paper on this subject and invited their comments on it. I should like now to table copies of my letters, together with copies of the written replies that have been received so far.
It will be seen from this exchange of correspondence, supplemented in certain cases by oral communications, that good progress is being made in the complex of decisions and actions which are required at both the provincial and federal levels before the agreed amending formula can be enacted into law. The government of Newfoundland has notified the government of Canada of its approval of the proposed act. The other provinces, in conveying their acceptance of the final text as being accurate, have indicated that they are considering the course they should follow to obtain the concurrence of their legislatures. Several governments have already placed a resolution for concurrence on the order papers of their legislative assemblies.
All the provinces have now agreed that the draft white paper on the "Amendment of the constitution of Canada", which is to be published by the federal government, satisfactorily sets forth the history of the efforts to achieve agreement on an amending formula as well as the nature and effects of the plan that has now been agreed on. The white paper is now being printed in both its English and French versions. The government will be able to table it in both houses of parliament next week. Copies will then be made available to provincial governments for distribution to members of their legislatures

and for other official provincial purposes. Copies will also be available for general distribution.
It is the intention of the government to submit the amendment procedure to parliament at the next session. The timing and procedure of parliamentary action must be co-ordinated with the requisite provincial action, and the government therefore is not yet in a position to suggest precisely what timing and procedure it will recommend to parliament in dealing with this matter.
In his supplementary question of February 16 the hon. member for Greenwood asked whether consideration was being given to enlarging the scope of parliamentary consideration of the amendment procedure to include the whole question of constitutional amendment. The government believes that it would be unwise at this time to link the question of the amending procedure to that of revision of the constitution. The enactment of the amending procedure will make our present constitution fully Canadian. That is the first thing to achieve. When we have achieved it then we can better go on to consider whether there are revisions in the constitution that Canadians as a whole may wish to make.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the minister has announced the calling of tenders for a new railway car ferry to operate between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, will the minister now inform the house what steps are being taken by the government to provide employment for the several hundred stevedores who will be thrown out of work as a result of this ferry being put into operation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the activities of the government in the Cape Breton island area adjacent to North Sydney, as well as in the whole area, are such that by 1967 it is our expectation there will be much more employment there than there is at the present time.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question. For the information of the minister, the officials of
Inquiries of the Ministry the international longshoremen's association do not agree with him. Is the minister now prepared to meet with the officials of that association who have been requesting, pleading and begging with him to meet with them since July of 1964?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad to meet with any citizen to discuss any planning in an attempt to meet a situation which might arise in 1967.


Robert Muir: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Will that minister advise me whether he is prepared to meet with these officials, who have also been requesting a meeting with him since July of 1964?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, who seems to think this is a funny matter. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport this one question. Will he now stand in his place and inform this house about one project the federal government has undertaken in any part of Cape Breton that has brought about an improvement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to remind the hon. gentleman that we established a training college for officers of the coastguard at Point Edward. This will prove to be a very substantial contribution to that community.


Malcolm MacInnis: Another supplementary
question-


Robert Muir: A supplementary question-


Malcolm MacInnis: I would ask the Minister of Transport to reconsider-


An hon. Member:: One question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if I lose battles I at least get on my feet to lose them; I do not lose them from my seat. I would ask the minister whether he considers a coastguard college at Point Edward an improvement at that base, when 400 to 500 men have been laid off by the Department of National Defence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I suspect, of course, that the fact that in the hon. gentleman's own constituency we are going to build a new terminal at Sydney airport will be of

Inquiries of the Ministry great interest to his constituents, and if it were not unfair to the rest of the house I could go on and catalogue half a dozen other things.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the last few days it has been rather difficult to contain the enthusiasm of certain people from the eastern part of Canada. I would ask for their co-operation with the Chair.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question-

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding the serious situation confronting several hundred stevedores at North Sydney. Would he deal with this question seriously and not be evasive and facetious? These men who will be without employment do not find the situation very funny-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Muir: -and I ask the minister to stop acting in such a damned cowardly way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the house would expect me to leave those remarks on the record without making some observation.


Robert Muir: I am glad something will make you speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to ask the hon. and agitated member to withdraw anything he said. I am going to say, however, that I take this very seriously indeed, and that this government has done more than any other government in the history of Canada to build up the economy of Cape Breton island.


Robert Muir: Leave out the politics and get down to earth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe that a situation which is going to arise in 1967, of an unpredictable character, is one that has related to it the kind of urgency that is envisaged in the rules concerning questions on orders of the day. If the hon. gentleman wishes to put some precise and detailed questions on the order paper, capable of concrete answers, so they can be properly considered by the officials and replied to, I shall be glad to see that that


is done without any amount of delay. However, I suggest, sir, that anyone who attempts to prophesy what the situation may be over two years from now is very likely to be wrong.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for the many words he uttered, but there was not much information conveyed by them. May I ask him, will he not attempt to do something about this situation instead of just making political statements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we have had four or five questions on the same subject.


Robert Muir: I have tried for many months to get an answer to this question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer the hon. member to standing order 39. If he will carefully consider the wording of that particular provision I am sure it will be of great assistance.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the municipal winter works incentive program. In view of the fact that the coastal area of B.C. did not enjoy the usual mild, warm winter expected in that region, and in view of the fact that the rather abundant snowfalls in December and January delayed winter works projects, will the minister extend the term of the municipal winter works incentive program beyond April 30, as requested by certain local councils?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not intended at this time to make any extension in the municipal works incentive program. In the course of past winters we have experienced variations in weather conditions, and it is very difficult to adjust the time period of the program to this kind of variability, but we will observe the situation later on to see whether at that time an extension is justified.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if the minister is making any inquiries regarding the abnormal situation in B.C. in areas where normally there is no snow, or at the very most three or four inches, and which have had at least 60 inches of snow this winter, areas in which many of the contractors are invoking the

"act of God" clause in agreements to justify their failure to complete work projects? Will the minister give the house an assurance that he will have some of his people on the spot to take a look at this situation with reference to certain municipalities most hard hit in the B.C. area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give that assurance to my hon. friend.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Even though the Gill report on unemployment insurance has not been implemented, would the minister be in a position to say whether consideration will be given to the long overdue legislation to have farm labour brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture and the unemployment insurance commission with respect to the possibility of extending unemployment insurance coverage to farm labour. No recommendation has yet been made. When any such decision is made I will be glad to communicate it to the house.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister been successful in securing a commitment in regard to a statement by the Minister of Labour following my four questions on unemployment last week?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Labour is going to make a statement tomorrow.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for making these strong representations for me. He has more vigour than I.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Veterans Affairs and it concerns the status of Sunnybrook hospital. Would the minister advise whether this hospital has been transferred from the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs to any other authority and, if so, what provision has been made to ensure that the treatment of veterans in the future will be as good as it has been in the past?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to answer that question briefly. The reason for this arrangement is to guarantee and ensure a standard of care that will be continued in the years ahead. That is the sole purpose of the arrangement. I can assure my hon. friend that at Sunnybrook we will have not only one of the better hospitals in all Canada but one of the best teaching hospitals in Canada as well. I think the results of this arrangement will be beneficial not only to the public but will also certainly enable us in the department to discharge our responsibility to the best possible effect.


John Chester MacRae: I take it there has been a change made. Exactly what change has been made?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am afraid I did not catch the purport of that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper? It requires a detailed answer.



REPORTED CHARGE FOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF CEMETERIES OF WAR DEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is he aware that when requests are made to his department by the parents of war dead for a photograph of the cemetery where their sons are buried, such requests are referred to an organization in the veterans affairs building known as the commonwealth war graves commission, which charges 75 cents for a picture? Would the minister consider changing this procedure and forwarding a picture of the cemetery to the parents at no cost, and with the gratitude of the people of Canada?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be very pleased indeed to entertain such a proposal and have a look at it.

Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



ALASKA HIGHWAY-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is he in a position to report to the house on the outcome of the negotiations between the governments of Canada, the United States and the Yukon Territory regarding the Alaska highway?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker,
I think I would prefer to take this question as notice and probably make a statement later.



FLOOD CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Danforth asked me a question in which he implied there had been a stall with regard to the work of the metropolitan Toronto conservation authority in respect of the building of dams.
I want to assure him that so far as we are concerned there is no stall whatsoever, nor is there any shortage of funds. The most recent claim received from the province was for the month of December 1964. A cheque in full payment of this claim, in the amount of $166,318.68, was sent by registered mail to Toronto on February 1, 1965, 10 days after the arrival of the claim in the department. No claim for January 1965 has been received from the province, but such a claim will be paid as soon as it is received and will be processed within 10 days of arrival.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has an answer to the question I posed to him on Thursday regarding the charge made by striking workers of Chrysler Canada Limited that under the new agreement between the United States and Canada, automobiles were being imported by that company duty free.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think my hon. friend the Minister of Industry is in a position to say something about that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There are two parts to the answer to this question. The first is that an inquiry has been made and it has been discovered that the Chrysler corporation is importing motor vehicles from the United States, on the bulk of which duty has been paid. They are not all entering duty free.
Second, under the terms of the new tariff item relating to this agreement it is not possible for a motor car manufacturer in Canada to import motor vehicles duty free from the United States, unless he continues to maintain a ratio of production in Canada to his domestic sales not lower than the base year 1964. It would not, therefore, be possible for the Chrysler corporation, under this agreement, to do what has been alleged, namely to import from the United States on a duty free basis rather than produce in Canada.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give us an assurance now that the Chrysler corporation are not importing cars duty free during this period of time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot and will not give such an assurance. The agreement contemplates the right of the Chrysler corporation, along with other Canadian car manufacturers, to import duty free motor vehicles provided they meet certain tests. One of those tests is that their production in Canada, in relation to total sales, shall be not less than it was in the base year 1964. So long as the Chrysler corporation or any other corporation continues to maintain that ratio they have, and will continue to have, the right to import duty free.


Michael Starr: Will the minister explain to the house why this agreement can be put into effect without a reciprocal agreement by the congress of the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The agreement with the United States, Mr. Speaker, is an agreement by the administration of the United States to seek from the congress of the United States the retroactive removal of tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts entering the United States from Canada. The administration is now in the process of executing its part of that agreement, namely seeking congressional authority. In the case of Canada, in order to allow the substantial improvement made under the earlier incentive plan to continue

without interruption we have removed, for Canadian manufacturers of motor vehicles, the tariff on the entry of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts.


Michael Starr: May I ask a further supplementary question on this important matter. If the congress of the United States does not approve this agreement within the next six months, would not the minister think this would be a one way street under this agreement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am being asked for an opinion. The administration is seeking the removal of this tariff on the basis that its removal will be dated back to the signing of the agreement. If this is not done for six months but the removal is still dated back it will make no difference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the event that the legislation passed by the United States is not back-dated to January 1, 1965, may I ask the minister if it is the government's intention to collect duties retroactively up to the time the United States removal date becomes effective?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister, then, is there any provision by which this agreement will be cancelled in the event the United States legislation does not conform with the original plan the two governments had in mind?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is provision in the agreement for both termination and a review. I do not believe this is exactly the right time to try to explain in detail what the agreement does contain. It is, in my view, a very advantageous agreement for both countries.
In reply to the particular question the hon. gentleman has asked, I may say it is a hypothetical one. However, it is extremely unlikely that the United States congress will not follow the recommendations of the administration in respect of the removal of the United States tariff.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the minister agrees that the questions indicate the great advantage it would be to the house if this resolution were introduced fairly early so the house could get the full information. May I ask the minister if we could have his assurance, in view of the strike situation, that the Chrysler Corporation will not be allowed to bring into Canada any larger percentage of their total sales for 1965 than was the case in 1964?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I have explained, the provisions of the agreement under which a manufacturer is allowed to import duty free impose precisely that condition. If the Chrysler Corporation brings into Canada, or endeavours to bring into Canada, a higher proportion of vehicles than the ratio of manufactured vehicles to total sales in 1964, duties will be collected.


Michael Starr: Can the minister explain to the house, Mr. Speaker, what advantage there is to Canada in implementing our part of the agreement before the United States is prepared to implement its part?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can, but I do not believe this is the right time to try it. I should like to ask the hon. member to wait until such time as there is a discussion on this resolution. I can assure him that in so far as Canadian manufacturers and Canadian labour are concerned, the implementation of the agreement is being very successful and very well received.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you, sir, the subject matter is of immediate interest and concern in British Columbia. Will the minister comment on a matter which in our estimation should be clarified without further delay; namely, is the minister on behalf of his department taking or considering taking action of a legal nature in view of the disclosure in the British Columbia legislature that a letter is in the possession of the federal immigration department, allegedly signed by the premier of British Columbia, relating to landed immigrant status for one Harry Stonehill, the same having been declared by Premier W. A. C. Bennett to be a forgery? Is his department, having a false declaration in its files, going to take or is considering taking any legal action?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take the question as notice. It would have been helpful if my hon. friend had given me notice of it. I have some knowledge of the matter but to give a detailed answer I think I would need a little time.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE QUEBEC-PAYMENT OF PROVINCIAL BONUS ON MILK PRODUCTION
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to a statement made by the Quebec minister of agriculture to the effect that the Quebec government was granting a 10 cent subsidy per pound of butterfat on liquid milk for the months of November, December, January, February, March and April, and that the federal government would grant a similar subsidy during the other months of the year?
Is it the government's intention to follow up that statement of the Quebec minister of agriculture?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is government policy in respect of which I cannot make any comment at the present time.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture supplementary to the one I asked him a few minutes ago about the 10 cent subsidy on milk given to the farmers for a few months of the year by the Quebec government. The minister replied that the federal part in this program was a matter of government policy. May I ask him when he expects to announce this new policy?


Harry William Hays: I have nothing to add to what I have already indicated to the hon. member.



EGGS-REQUEST FOR PRICE INVESTIGATION BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I refer to the fact that the other day the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale asked me a question about the importation of eggs and I told him I would get the information for him. In 1964 we imported 16,724 cases of eggs. In 1963 we imported 190,173 cases. Our exports in 1964 were 50,208 cases and in 1963 some 31,167 cases.


Reynold Rapp: As a supplementary question can the minister inform the house whether these eggs which were imported from other countries were subsidized eggs?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I do not believe the eggs that arrived in Canada were subsidized.



CLARIFICATION BY MINISTER OF STATEMENT ON FARM INCOME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: While I am still on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I also refer to a question asked me the other day by the hon. member for Shefford, which he believed was urgent. I would like to clarify the situation now.
There seems to have been considerable misunderstanding and misinterpretation of a comment I made on the subject of farm income during a news conference a few weeks ago, and perhaps I can clear it up at this time. During the debate on my department's estimates in October, 1963 the hon. member for Qu'Appelle presented a bunch of figures to illustrate what we already knew, that many of our farmers need a better living. The comment he made that stuck in my crop was a reference to a set of figures which he said indicated that 25 per cent of the farmers across Canada earned less than $1,200 from their farms.
At the news conference I was trying to make the point that I just could not accept these figures, whatever their source, as an accurate reference to the gross income of any Canadian farmer who can honestly call himself a farmer. I was not suggesting that $1,200 a year or $2,400 a year in gross income is anywhere near enough for any farmer to live on decently. I was only arguing that any farmer with two hogs and six cows had a potential gross income of more than $2,400 a year, whatever economists and politicians, more at home in ivory towers than in barnyards, might argue to the contrary.
I reasoned in this way. If a farmer has only two sows they would each have two litters of pigs a year, and if they just made the national average of eight pigs per litter that would come to 32 pigs in a year. If they were sold on the Montreal market when they were five or six months old and weighed about 200 pounds they would bring something like $40 apiece. That is a gross income of $1,280, and he still has the two sows.
If, in addition to the two sows, he has six cows each giving the national average of 8,000 pounds of milk per year, that is 48,000 pounds of milk. At the current Quebec price of $3.20 per cwt. that is a gross income of

$1,536, although figuring it in my head at the news conference I just used a round figure of "over $1,200." So if you add the hog gross of $1,280 to the milk gross of $1,536 you get a total gross income of $2,816 for a farmer with two sows and six cows.
My contention at the news conference was, and still is, that anybody who does not have a couple of pigs and half a dozen cows around his place just should not consider himself a farmer. That kind of rural dweller should not be included in statistics intended to give an accurate picture of our farm problems.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order to protest the use of the question period by ministers to explain silly statements they have made outside the house. Under what rule has this minister the right to take up the time of the house with the explanation he has just given the house?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a supplementary question with reference to the one I asked a while ago. The minister did not answer the Canadian farmers. This is just about the kind of reasoning you will find on the part of a minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see this abuse of the rules of the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a point of privilege, because we cannot go on accepting only one side in the minister's statement, when we have to consider the other side. What about the expense side of that story? That is the part we did not hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Now that the minister has told us of the possible income from six cows and two pigs, could he take notice of the following question and tell us tomorrow how much it costs to raise six cows and two pigs and to sell their products?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the third reading of Bill No. C-126,
Canada Pension Plan
respecting hours of work, minimum wages, etc.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA


Guy Favreau: the third reading of Bill No. S-2, respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Guy Favreau: the third reading of Bill No. C-145, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.



COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of Bill No. C-147, to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.



PENSIONS


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee to consider 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 (as amended).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


The Chairman:: Clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
On clause 2-Interpretation.


Mr. Monteith:: Before this clause carries I should like to make one or two comments concerning the bill. I think it is fair to remind

Canada Pension Plan
the committee that there has been an extensive study of this measure in committee. I believe some 51 meetings were held, in the course of which a great deal of evidence was heard and many briefs were presented. These have been helpful.
It can also be said with fairness, I think, that this is one of the most complex pieces of legislation ever to come before the house. It is also one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before us for consideration, inasmuch as it is bound to have long term effects on the future of Canada.
Before I continue with my general remarks, let me say this. I was under the impression at one stage, perhaps through inadvertence, that the resolution which the Prime Minister tabled on Wednesday or Thursday would probably be discussed first of all as we returned to this particular piece of legislation. I understand now that it is to be discussed when we reach part IV of the bill, the part which has to do with old age security.
I am taking it for granted that when part IV is reached and this resolution is discussed, it will pass the house. I do not think there is any doubt about that; I am taking it for granted. At the same time it is important that we should know just where this projected expenditure will take us. In the committee we were, it is true, given an actuarial report. In addition we were presented with an economic report in relation to the Canada pension plan. But I am suggesting now that the government should be prepared to make available an economic report on the effects these proposals will have on old age security benefits.
I am sure the department must have some figures on this already. Prior to the new resolution it had been suggested the amendments were to provide that old age security payments could be reduced to $51 a month and that other amounts would be reduced on an actuarial basis depending on the age at which a recipient or beneficiary wished to benefit. We would like very much to see a report showing the effects not only of the escalation which was in the bill prior to the recent resolution but also what the effect of the recent resolution will be on the old age security fund. I am referring to the escalation, the reduction of the qualifying age to 65, and the $75 pension. I make this request now to make sure that we may have an economic report before us by the time we discuss the resolution, when part IV is reached.
At the time the Prime Minister made his statement it was indicated in newspaper

clippings and so on-I did not see the actual press release, and I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman mentioned it in the house-that the additional cost might be in the neighbourhood of $180 million or $185 million by 1970. I refer to this now so that when we come to the resolution we shall have before us information showing exactly what this will mean to the old age security fund in the years to come.
I am sure all members of the committee will agree with me when I say this is one of the most complex pieces of legislation which has ever come before us. I believe that ample debate on this measure is called for, and in this connection I should like to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail on February 18:
The plan is of vital importance to every Canadian. Almost the entire house is in favour of it in principle, and every member has a duty to play his part in seeing that it is the best plan possible within our means. The real calamity would be if they did not.
If it takes time, well, important matters cannot be rushed, and surely on such an issue no government retaining its senses would consider closure.
I am simply putting forward the thought that this measure is of fundamental importance to the economy of Canada. We want to get the best out of it we possibly can for all people. I would refer briefly to one sentence in the minister's statement in the white paper, where she said:
This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that as soon as possible in a fair and practical way all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
It was for this reason that the bill received such an enthusiastic reception on second reading and that it was endorsed in principle. But only after our long deliberations in the committee has it been possible to determine the weaknesses of the measure. I propose to ask some questions concerning these weaknesses.
I should like at this stage to return to item No. 8 of the third report of the joint committee which was tabled in this house on February 16. Appendix D which is attached thereto contains certain definite amendments, some important and some really only technical amendments-changes in wording and that sort of thing. Item No. 8 recommends, however, that consideration be given to many other suggestions, and I should like to point out that we have many ideas about ways in which this bill can be improved. When the appropriate time comes we intend to suggest amendments for the consideration of the

house. However, I should like to ask now whether the minister would table the amendments or give them to the committee orally so that there would be on the record some indication of the actual amendments that she is going to propose. I think this would be very helpful and would only lead to a proper discussion of the bill as we go through it clause by clause. I wonder whether the minister would consider that at this stage?
I do not see the minister voluntarily rising from her seat at the moment, Mr. Chairman, so I will continue.
I should like to point out that as of this morning, at least, the minutes of the final committee meeting had not arrived in my office, and I think that they should have been available to the house at large before we came back to committee stage. As we all know, only a certain number of members can sit on a committee, and only those members who attended fairly regularly and dutifully could be in a position to discuss the clauses with some knowledge, in view of the complexity of the bill, all the cross references to be made, and that sort of thing. However, I would come back to the point I was making, that I should like the government to give us an opportunity to see what amendments they are going to make.
The Prime Minister said either last Wednesday or Thursday that he had one further suggestion to make on top of several rather inconsequential amendments, I think he said. However, even though they be inconsequential I am sure it would be advantageous to a reasonable discussion of the bill if we had some idea in advance of what the government are proposing by way of amendments.
I am not going, Mr. Chairman, into the history of the Canada pension plan. However, I would point out in a very few words that it has had many alterations. I think it is sufficient to say that we are now on what I would call the sixth plan. Others would call it the fifth, and I am not going to quibble about whether it is the fifth, the sixth, the third or the fourth, but I do know that we have had many alterations to it. The latest was the proposal made by the Prime Minister the other day. However, I should like to mention what I feel, and what we as the official opposition feel, are very definite shortcomings in the plan, and at the appropriate time we will make some suggestions concerning them. We feel there are so many shortcomings that if we are going to make amendments to it, as we propose to do, it would be much more beneficial and save time
Canada Pension Plan
for us all if the government would see fit to present to us their amendments at this time.
There are, Mr. Chairman, two general questions I should like to ask. It was pointed out in the Ontario brief that the royal commission on taxation had been meeting for more than two years, and it was suggested that at least a preliminary opinion from that commission on the implications of the Canada pension plan as it affects the incidence of taxation should be obtained. This request was made on February 1, which I think is three weeks ago today, and I am wondering whether the royal commission on taxation has been asked for a preliminary opinion in order to ascertain what they feel about the impact of the Canada pension plan on the over-all taxation picture. I think this is even more important, now that the Prime Minister has made this further announcement, with which we all agree but which we believe should be set out in more detail.
One other question which I should like to put to the minister is this. Have there been any conversations or contacts with the Ontario government in order to discuss the possibility of meeting that government at least part way in their attempts to improve the present plan? We feel that the Ontario government submitted a very good, in fact excellent, brief. We feel that it goes a long way toward meeting the shortcomings which we feel are in the bill. While I do not say that these suggestions should be accepted in full, I do believe that this government should at least have some discussions with the Ontario government to see whether there is any meeting ground on which the two views could come together.
A third question which I might ask, and which I also think was suggested in the committee-I think the evidence would show that this question was asked of government members of the committee-is this. It was pointed out that originally the province of Quebec had asked for a 20 year transition period, as had the province of Ontario. It was suggested in the committee that it might be possible to discuss this further request from the province of Ontario with the province of Quebec. Quebec, having originally asked for this particular consideration in the plan, I should like to ask whether the government has at any stage since the committee, discussed this matter with the province of Quebec.
I should now like to return to my own ideas about this bill. I have one personal view as to one particular shortcoming. I must admit

Canada Pension Plan
that this view did not get a great deal of support in the committee, and while I am not suggesting that it should be acted upon now,
I am of the opinion that this question should be studied very carefully in the near future.
I just wish to throw this out to the government for consideration at some time in the * near future. My thought is that pensions should increase as age increases. There is a clause in the present part IV for escalation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member will no doubt realize that I interrupt him at this stage with some hesitation, as his contribution to this debate up until now has been very interesting, and I am sure it will continue to be so. However, as he pointed out last Friday evening, there is a question involved as to the extent we should have a general discussion on clause 2 of the bill. I realize the hon. member wishes to make some introductory remarks, and that is why I have not interrupted him during the last 20 minutes, but in view of the fact that his contribution to a great extent relates to points of procedure, I think I should point out that standing order 59(2) suggests that discussions at the committee stage should be strictly related to the clause being considered.
Perhaps I should also bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that the special committee on organization and procedure recommended the postponement of our consideration of clause 1 of a bill until the end of our considerations in order to prevent general discussion at the committee stage.
1 would therefore urge the hon. gentleman, if he has completed his introductory remarks, to deal specifically with clause 2, now before this committee for consideration.
I can assure the hon. member that I desire to be as lenient as possible with him and with other members of this committee, particularly in view of the importance of this piece of legislation. On the other hand, I am sure that all hon. members of this committee want me to bring to their attention those standing orders with which we must contend.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I appreciate the points you have brought to my attention, Mr. Chairman, but I think it should be pointed out to this committee that at the second reading stage of this bill we agreed to a time limit primarily to avoid unnecessary repetition. I must admit that I was not aware of this special ruling and its implications earlier than this week, and I certainly am not sure when it came into effect. The implications of that ruling have given me some difficulty, as was
[Mr. Monteith.l
perhaps indicated by my remarks in this house of Friday evening. It is my understanding, however, that the change was agreed to in order to eliminate unnecessary repetition at the time the committee returned to a consideration of clause 1. Mr. Chairman, I certainly can guarantee that what I have to say will not be repetitious, but I must point out that only now are we in a position to appreciate what is involved in this bill. At any rate, sir, I will continue my remarks in conformance with your ruling.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on this point of order before the hon. member continues. As the hon. member suggested, the purpose of the amended rule was to prevent two consecutive general debates. Previously during consideration of a bill an extended debate has taken place on second reading, and consideration of the general principles immediately following, in some cases, led to an extended debate on clause 1. It is my feeling that the committee thought this could be avoided under similar circumstances by deferring the consideration of clause 1.
We are now faced with an entirely different situation. This bill was given second reading some considerable time ago, after limited debate, because of the fact that the details of the bill were to be studied by a special joint committee. That committee has been studying the bill for two months and its report has now been tabled in the house. Surely on this occasion, if that amended rule of procedure is to be applied it should be applied leniently, in view of the tremendous changes which have been suggested. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that if we are going to apply this rule strictly, clause 2 being the interpretation clause contains some 40 interpretations and definitions in relation to the complete contents of the bill, and it will be almost impossible to rule any remark directed to clause 2 as being out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak to this point of order, Mr. Chairman. Your Honour was quite right in drawing our attention to the amended rule adopted earlier in this session. However, the circumstances leading up to that action are somewhat different from the circumstances surrounding our consideration of this bill.
We dealt with this bill rather quickly last November, commencing our consideration at that time late on a Monday, continuing throughout Tuesday and Wednesday and then

referring it to a committee. At that time we could quite sensibly have extended our consideration of the bill because of the magnitude and importance of it; however, we were quite reasonable at that time in consenting to the suggestion that the bill be sent to a committee for study. That study has been carried out and the bill is now again before us for consideration. At this time, we should be completely free to comment generally on the contents of the bill and the changes proposed by that committee. From my experience in matters of this kind I am led to believe that this bill will be processed more rapidly at this stage as a result of this freedom of comment than could be the case if a strict application is made of the amended rule.
I appreciate the fact that the chairman was justified in drawing our attention to this rule, but I am sure this is an occasion on which hon. members will agree to allowing the chairman to turn a blind eye, at least temporarily, to the rule.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I was about to point out one shortcoming of this proposed measure. I believe that consideration should be given to the suggestion that the pension should increase as the age of the recipient increases. While the bill does contain an acceleration clause, a suggestion was made to the committee studying this bill that a reasonable figure in respect of acceleration would be $3 per month per year.
I understand there are two reasons behind this suggestion. As individuals become older their retiring benefits lessen in value. Their savings also decrease as a result of being used for doctors' bills and hospitalization, or in other ways.
At the present time I am not proposing that the government amend this bill in such a way as to adopt that suggestion, but I do feel that the government should give some future consideration to it.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member, whether or not, since he is asking the government for a projection in respect of the costs of this measure, he will provide us with a projection of the costs of adopting a plan as suggested by his remarks.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to provide the minister with figures of that kind. I am not at this time suggesting any specific amount in relation to accelerated pensions, but merely suggesting that evidence of this kind was presented
Canada Pension Plan
to the committee, suggesting an amount of $3 per month per year, to be adjusted perhaps every five years. I urge the government to give some consideration to that evidence. If the minister had been in attendance at the meetings of that committee he would be aware that this suggestion was presented on the first day of its sittings. I questioned many other witnesses about this proposal and, although I did not receive the most favourable response possible, I was left with the impression that they also felt something should be done along this line, though perhaps not in conjunction with the bill now before us. Such a proposal would require a great deal of study before it could be accepted.
I should now like to mention briefly some of the areas of this bill in respect of which I feel there are shortcomings. First of all, there is nothing in the bill for those now retired. There is nothing in the bill for those between
65	and 70 who do not receive old age security. Most serious of all in my estimation is the fact that there is nothing for those in the low income earning bracket. Certainly there is nothing for those earning less than $600 and, if self-employed, less than $800. There is nothing in the bill for these people. I have been given to understand there are a great many farmers or self-employed people in eastern Canada who will fall into this bracket, and we sincerely believe that something should be done for this group of people.
I would point out that on Thursday, October 15, a brief was presented by the province of Nova Scotia to the Senate committee on aging. I am not going to read from the brief, but they point out that there are a great many people in that area who will not receive one penny from this bill. These are the people about whom I am concerned.
Evidence in this regard was given to the committee and those who produced the evidence asked that their figures be verified or denied. I do not think there has been any denial. Their evidence was to the effect that of all those retired by 1976, 11 years hence,
66	per cent will receive absolutely nothing from this legislation, 32 per cent will receive an average of $45 a month and 1.5 per cent will receive $119, which amount is over and above the $104.17 static rate because of escalation.
I claim that the bill does nothing for close to two million people in this country and I would refer to an editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 19, 1965 in which it is estimated that something like 2| million people will receive nothing under the bill. What we
1X586

Canada Pension Plan
want to see is everybody receiving $100 per month from now on, and those between 65 and 70 who are not entitled to old age security receiving something. We also feel that those in the low income earning bracket should receive at least $25 per month, and for a married couple $40 a month.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he also provide us with cost estimates in relation to these figures he is putting forward?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I believe cost estimates are available in the minutes but we will be glad to do that. There are one or two other shortcomings which I think should be mentioned briefly. I want to refer to students, those who are trying to remain in institutions of higher learning and educate themselves in order to meet the competition of the world in which we live today. We are concerned about the dropout period for these students. There are maybe only 5,000 people who are employed by foreign governments in Canada, but at the moment they are excluded from the bill. We suggest they should be allowed to elect to be regarded as self-employed for purposes of this legislation.
We also believe that the penalties provided are arduous. The plan is supposed to be one under which an individual will receive a retirement pension based on 25 per cent of earnings. We believe that the present penalties are too harsh and we will suggest a modification.
To sum up, under the plan there are huge windfalls or bonuses for those earning the most and little or nothing for those earning the least, who are the ones who need help the most. I repeat what I said in the beginning, that when the proper stage is reached we intend to propose amendments to improve the legislation and to do so in a responsible way.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the outset that I appreciate, as I am sure the committee as a whole does, the dilemma that faces you in the chair on clause 2 of this bill. I am inclined not only to agree with your interpretation but to wish that it might be implemented, and that we might get on with the various clauses of the bill. I also know that there is some point to the argument made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in that if you try to cut off the debate too much we will get into procedural arguments and probably make less headway than we might make otherwise. I suggest as a compromise that we who speak on the first
[Mr. Monteith.l
round try to make our remarks brief. I will certainly do my best toward that end. I would suggest that we not have too many of these general statements, but that we try by general agreement to get on with the clauses as quickly as we can, for after all it is in the handling of the various clauses that we can deal with the points that were raised by the hon. member for Perth, and other points, as they arise.
Briefly, I should like to join with the hon. member for Perth, and with others who I know will follow me, in saying that it was an excellent committee on which we had the privilege of serving in December, and during the Christmas recess that most of the members enjoyed in their constituencies. I have seldom been on a committee that worked as hard as this one did. The attendance was tremendous and members read the briefs and did their homework. The delegations, whatever their points of view, were very helpful and I think our discussions of the bill itself were most useful and that we came up with a number of very constructive suggestions. Some of these suggestions were accepted by the committee. Some of the better ones that I made have yet to be accepted, but at least we are moving in the right direction.
I know that all members of the committee would want our thanks to be expressed to the delegations that appeared before us, and also to our own committee staff and others who assisted us while we were in session, but in particular to the civil servants of the many departments of government who sat with us by the hour and helped us understand the bill and enabled us to suggest some improvements on the basis of our understanding of it. If therefore we have a reasonably good bill before us, credit has to be given in many places, in particular to the very capable civil servants from many departments who worked with us.
I had a letter a few days ago from a person who does not like the bill. In it he complained that any attempt to rush the bill through would be akin to a slap in the face to those who had worked hard to produce reasoned criticism of it. I did not deny my correspondent's right to that view, but I wrote and told him that there was another side to the story, that not only are there some critics who have tried to work out criticisms of the bill but that many hours, many days, many weeks, many months had been spent in producing it, and that we would be engaging in irresponsibility if we did not see

this piece of legislation through, rather than dropping it because there is some opposition to it.
We in the New Democratic party think there are some shortcomings in Bill No. C-136. We think that there are some shortcomings in the total package for security in old age that is before us, in a combination of the Canada pension plan and a revision of the Old Age Security Act. We will deal with those shortcomings as we go along.
I must say in all fairness that most of the shortcomings, in our view, relate to the failure to make adequate improvements in the Old Age Security Act. We think that the Canada pension plan proper, the new contributory earnings related element, by itself, stood up fairly well to the criticisms that were made by the delegations that appeared before the committee. There are flaws even in it, and we have corrected some of them by the amendments we moved and by the proposed amendments we have offered in paragraph 8 of our report. Like the hon. member for Perth, I would be interested in knowing as early as possible how many of our recommendations the government is going to accept.
As I say, in the main we feel that the contributory earnings related Canada pension plan has stood up fairly well to the criticisms that were made of it, and that if the house will make the improvements that we suggested, it will be doing a good job. There are those gaps to which the hon. member for Perth referred, as well as some others. Notably there is the fact that although we are doing something to improve the amount of pension people in the future will have when they pass 65 or 70 years, we are doing nothing now to improve the pension position of those who are today 70 years of age, and over. Until the Prime Minister made his announcement last Wednesday, we were doing nothing to improve the pension position of most of those between the ages of 65 and 70. The Prime Minister's announcement of last Wednesday alters that picture, and it was a most welcome announcement. We are going to improve the position of the people in that bracket. However we are going to take five years to complete the process.
Our feeling, as a party, is that what most of all needs to be done to round out the package and make it a good pension program for the Canadian people, is to raise the amount of the pension under the Old Age Security Act to $100 a month and to make it available at age 65. We will come to this when we reach the details, but I want to make the point
Canada Pension Plan
that our approach to this is different from the approach suggested by the Progressive Conservatives. I do not think I am doing them an unfairness when I say they want $25 additional to be given the recipients of old age security but they want that paid out of the Canada pension plan fund. They have certain other details they will lay before the committee when we get to that part of the discussion. Our position is different. We want the old age security pension itself increased. We want this, not just because we think we must now do something for people 70 and over, for people between 65 and 70, but because we also feel that it will make a better balanced package if the flat rate benefit is that much higher.
As I have said, we will suggest some changes in the Canada pension plan itself. We are still unhappy about the regressive feature of the taxation being imposed by this bill. It is removed to a considerable extent by the $600 exemption, but it is still regressive in that those people with incomes below $5,000 will be paying, instead of everybody paying on all their income. We are still unhappy about people in the lower income bracket having to pay a portion of this contribution into the building up of a fund to be lent to the provinces for investment purposes. There are things like that about which we will talk as we go along. In the main, as I say, we regard the Canada pension plan proper as a good piece of legislation. We feel it is desirable to get it enacted as early as possible and to get it on the statute books.
Along with our acceptance of the Canada pension plan, improved as we shall suggest, we urge very strongly that the government not just think of us as voices crying in the wilderness, but pay attention to our insistence that at the time the Canada pension plan comes into effect, particularly when its benefits start to flow, we simply must be doing something for the people already over 70; we simply must be doing something more than is now proposed for the people between 65 and 70. I say to the government in this house, as I said to the government members in the committee, you simply will not get away in Canada with this piece of legislation if you do not complete the job.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I said at the start I thought we should try to make our initial statements brief; that we should not reveal all our arguments at this point. I shall therefore heed my own advice. I think that in these few words I have indicated the general view of our party. We have waited a long while

Canada Pension Plan
for this kind of legislation. Several years ago our party proposed this two stage type of program, a flat rate benefit and an earnings related benefit. We want them integrated. We want them built in such a way that people will get as high a percentage of their working income as possible, so that the people in the lower brackets will get close to 100 per cent or even more than 100 per cent of their income during their working years. This is our position.
We support two things. We support the Canada pension plan proper, almost as it is. We support the idea of the two programs being put together. We think it would be a much better plan if the old age security pension itself were increased to $100 per month and made available at age 65. This is the aim for which we will be working the hardest as we go through the bill. I hope I have not transgressed on what I suggested might be the ambit of general remarks to be made at this stage. The committee of course will hear from us as we move along.


Mr. Olson:: In keeping with the suggestion that we probably should not go into a wide ranging discussion of all the clauses of Bill No. C-136 I, too, intend to be very brief. I feel there is some validity in the argument that this is the first opportunity members of this house have had to discuss this subject since the bill came back from the standing committee, and that it would be in order for perhaps one member from each party to advance some of the opinions of that party at this time.
First, on behalf of this party, I want to express our appreciation to the members of the joint committee for the long hours they worked during the recess listening to the various people and organizations from across the country who wanted to make their views known in respect of this bill. I feel that we, in common with the other members of this house, owe a great debt of appreciation to the committee. As a matter of fact, the member from our party who was on that committee, and who attended most of the meetings, was the hon. member for Cariboo. Unfortunately he is unable to be here today. If he had been, he would have been making these remarks.
At the outset I want to say that, in so far as we in this party are concerned, we believe that the Old Age Security Act and the Canada pension plan envisaged in Bill No. C-136, should be considered separately. We agree with the principle that there ought to be

introduced in Canada a national contributory pension plan, and that the potential benefits built up should be related to the contributions made. This is in keeping with the position we have taken for a number of years that there ought to be a pension plan available to Canadians that is portable and that is universally available to all Canadians. This, in our view, should not be confused with the right that has been established in Canada, that Canadians reaching a certain age will have some pension available to them such as we have now, under the Old Age Security Act. We realize that in years to come, as the cost of living increases it will be necessary to change and amend the Old Age Security Act in order to take care of those people who now have passed their 65th year, and to take care of those now aged 55 to 65, because they too will be unable to make the contributions necessary to gain a full pension under the Canada pension plan.
Without going into a lot of detail I merely point out that we think we have not reached the end in so far as making adjustments and amendments to the Old Age Security Act is concerned.
There are still a couple of weaknesses in the bill as presented, in spite of the fact that it was amended many times. We believe there should be provision in a national contributory pension plan whereby self-employed people, and others, can undertake to pay a certain amount into the plan over and above the percentage of income set forth in the bill. If the figures now used are actuarially sound there can be no argument about the fact that if a person pays in 1.8 per cent, or 3.6 per cent in the case of the self-employed, he has made his full contribution to the plan, but if such a person wants to pay in more he should be allowed to build up larger potential benefits. In other words we do not agree that contributions should be limited to 3.6 per cent if people wish to pay in more.
The other thing we are most concerned about is that approximately 20 per cent of the workers in Canada will be completely excluded from the opportunity of making contributions to the Canada pension plan. These include casual, seasonal and migratory workers. I can understand the problems involved in keeping track of these people who move from one job to another and whose incomes are not uniform throughout the year. But I do not think there can be any objection made to people in these occupational groups contracting into the pension plan by paying a certain amount into it, and I believe the

potential benefits built up from their contributions should be equal to the benefits that will accrue to people on a uniform wage or salary.
Conversely, if the figures now used with respect to potential benefits are not actuarially sound, and in the event that some subsidy will be required from the federal treasury, then it must be accepted that each Canadian citizen is equally entitled to the same subsidy paid into the fund to keep it going.
There has been a lot of discussion about what will be done with the fund that will be built up, and about some of the problems that may arise from having such a large investment fund built up over the years. We do not accept the argument that such a fund will cause any hardship for private industry in obtaining its capital requirements.
If the fund is going to be made available to the provinces, then to the extent that it is made available for their capital requirements and those of their municipalities, they will be able to withdraw from the private money market and private industry will have that much less competition in seeking its longterm capital. In fact there will be that much more investment capital available to both the private and public sectors as a result of this fund being accumulated.
Further, we take the position that it may be well for Canada to have some of her social capital requirements met out of the universal contributory pension plan fund rather than having the provinces and municipalities go to the private money market to borrow all their long term capital requirements.
With these few brief remarks, Mr Chairman, we generally endorse the provisions of Bill No. C-136. There are some other weaknesses in it which we will discuss as we reach various clauses. We think some amendments may be necessary during the months and years to come, as a result of the experience gained in administering the plan, but we hope we can get this bill passed into law as soon as possible.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say about clause 2 of Bill No. C-136. I really thought we would be allowed to express our opinion during the discussion of clause 1, but in view of your earlier ruling, we shall follow your suggestion and restrict ourselves to clause 2, while referring to two specific points.
First of all, it is a known fact that our group and the people in Quebec are not particularly and directly interested in the
Canada Pension Plan
Canada pension plan, since the province of Quebec will have its own pension plan. However, Mr. Chairman, it must be realized that the two plans are quite different.
We now have the old age pension of $75 a month at 70 years of age, which those who are now 65 years old will get in five years. The two plans should not be confused, as some hon. members seemed to have done a moment ago.
The old age insurance plan should be considered independently from the others.
On the other hand, an increase in old age pension is desirable, we think, if we are really to have a piece of legislation favouring Canadian citizens and not what I would call a Canadian "barbotte". If we propose to help every citizen, from the one who has no income to the one who earns $20,000 a year, we must have a pension plan whereby, sooner or later-and I hope it is sooner than later- the pension would be set at $100 a month payable at 60 years of age.
Then we would be in a position to help and protect fully our senior citizens across Canada and in each of the provinces.
We are in favour of this particular old age pension plan, but we do not accept the pension plan in its present form.
I see that section 2 mentions "applicants". Therefore this plan does not leave one absolutely free. It is really a plan being added to the original old age pension plan which we already have. Let us not impose on one class of workers a burden they do not deserve.
Those who receive from $500 to $5,000 or $6,000, I do not know exactly, will contribute under the plan. I find this plan too restrictive. Once again, it is the pockets of the average worker that are being picked to obtain the amounts needed by the treasury, amounts which could easily be obtained elsewhere. But no, once again money is being obtained from the worker, who is called upon to make sacrifices beyond his powers. Every attempt is being made in Canada to exempt the big corporations and trusts with the largest income in the country and make the small workers supply the money needed by the government for investment in other fields.
Mr. Chairman, the alleged purpose, which I call the fictitious purpose of the government, is to provide a pension for workers at the age of 70. But that is only a smokescreen. The real purpose-be honest with the people, spell it out-the ultimate purpose of the government is to have in ten years $8 billion available for investment in other fields. Where will they get those $8 billion? Not where

Canada Pension Plan
they are at this time, although it would be very easy to get them from our natural resources, from the big companies, from the taxation of foreign capital, particularly American capital which amounts to some 80 per cent. That is not where that money will come from, but from the pockets of the workers as if that class of people had to be maintained at such a low level that they could not raise their voices to speak about their misery.
It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that we take very strong exception to this so-called scheme to assist workers, to this sham scheme whose purpose, we are told, is to assist persons at the age of 70, while in fact, the intent is once again to come to the rescue of big interests and give a new push to those who come here to take over all our natural resources and the best part of our income.
We had many reports to read because this is the sixth report presented to us. Some 50 years ago, there would have been only one report because the people were not informed but today, the people are informed, they can see things as they are and they know that once again they will be the scapegoat in this matter. The people know that.
The people should be free to contribute to that plan, so that those who want to get coverage from a secondary plan may do so; we have no objection to that. But let us not make it compulsory with a new tax of 1.8 per cent, which within three or four years will have reached 5 per cent-we know the government-for the average worker. It is a second tax which the taxpayers are required to pay; the income tax is enough and the middle class people cannot afford to pay any more. It is not an insurance premium but rather a tax imposed on the average taxpayer.
That is why we object to this bill. I hope that we shall have an opportunity, when we discuss clause 1, to explain the real reason for our objection, to reveal the government's hypocrisy, for once more the middle class is being subject to taxation. That is the type of hypocrisy the two old line parties have always resorted to in an effort to impoverish the worker in order to control him better.
I will say no more, Mr. Chairman. However, you can be sure that even though this plan does not directly concern the province of Quebec, we know that a similar sham scheme will be introduced in our legislature and we insist on expressing the views of the workers. An end must be put to this bragging of governments and to those smokescreens which cover the underhanded schemes of

financiers who seek to get richer in order to better control the people.
That is why I say once again, Mr. Chairman, that we will vote against this bill.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I might rise on a point of order. It has to do with the rule which was adopted on October 9 last and which has been in effect for the latter part of this session. After listening to the remarks which have been made in the debate so far by the leaders of each party, it appears to me they have been concerned, in the main, with possible amendments to the Old Age Security Act. I would point out that it has been made known to them-though this may not be on the record-that this subject will be dealt with at the time part IV of the bill comes before the committee.
It occurs to me that this might well be a suitable opportunity to inform the committee of the proposals the government has in mind for dealing with the amendments suggested and passed by the parliamentary committee, as well as with certain other amendments which may come up later. The technical amendments, most of which will not change the intention of the bill, but rephrase it, with one exception, were passed, and those appear in Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, February 16 last as appendix D. These amendments, the first being an amendment to clause 2, having been adopted by the committee, will be moved as a part of the individual clauses as amendments. The other amendments which were suggested in the committee report were not, of course, suggested in the language of amendments, but those which the government is prepared to accept and move will be moved as the individual clauses are reached. It was concluded that this would give an opportunity for better attention to the individual clauses of the plan, would direct debate toward the bill which is before us, now, and would leave for debate the simpler matter of the old age security amendments to be commenced by resolution and followed by individual amendments.
I cannot take the floor without joining in the remarks made on all sides about the way in which the members of this house and of the other place worked, for almost five weeks out of the six of the recess, without regard for their responsibilities in their own constituencies and elsewhere and without regard for much needed rest. Nor can I permit the occasion to pass without making

reference to the great helpfulness of the briefs presented. These were obviously the result of a great deal of work and they allowed a rapid and better understanding by members of that committee of the legislation in hand.
I would also join with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre respecting the public officials and civil servants who have worked very hard in connection with this legislation for at least the past two years, and who prepared from time to time to speak to the committee at its request.
The amendments then, I should like to tell the committee, will be dealt with in that way, the technical ones being moved from the Chair, and the others being moved by the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for a large section of the bill, and by myself, as we proceed along through the clauses. Some suggestions have been raised with respect to figures which might be presented at the time we begin dealing with clause 119 and following, and consideration will be given to obtaining these projections. I hope that when hon. members propose amendments on which they have already settled, as I understand my hon. friends opposite have-I did read in the papers the other day that they said publicly not in the chamber but outside, that they were going to move certain amendments-that they too will have some figures at that time, so that the committee will be able to make comparisons. I am interested to see the different suggestions which are made regarding O.A.S. from various party groupings, but in deference to the rule which was adopted in this house on October 9 last I will reserve my remarks until the O.A.S. comes under review after the C.P.P. may have been dealt with clause by clause.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just one question of the minister. Do I take it then that the amendments which are set out in appendix D are the only amendments the government propose to move?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No. As I said, those amendments having already been accepted and adopted by the committee will be moved clause by clause. I understand the chairman will submit "clause so and so as amended". Other amendments will be moved by my colleague and by myself as the appropriate clause is reached.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the minister, I must say I regret that the minister did not take note
Canada Pension Plan
of the reservations which were put forward a few minutes ago from this side of the house. Let us be reasonable and fair about this matter. The resolution which introduced this bill was brought before the house on November 9. Twelve people participated in the resolution debate. We hurried it along and it was passed on that day. Then on November 16, 17 and 18 we had second reading and 26 members participated at that stage. However, that limited time was arranged through the house leaders in a package deal. We had the redistribution bill to complete. We had this bill to refer to a committee. We had an arrangement for seven days to be spent on the main estimates to wind them up. We had reached the 190th day of a very long session. Having made that arrangement with the understanding that this bill would go to a committee and then come back to the house, all I am suggesting is that we have some freedom of discussion now without any restriction, or any invocation of a rule passed in October. This works both ways. We co-operated with the government on that occasion. All I am asking now is that the government be a bit lenient and not press the chairman to invoke that rule.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was interested in having the rule invoked. He spoke on the resolution stage, on second reading and again today. All I am suggesting is that a bill of this magnitude, consisting of 85 pages, a bill affecting every man, woman and child in the country, a bill which has consumed so much time in committee and on which so many representations have been made, should receive full and adequate debate in the House of Commons. This we could have had last fall on second reading, but we passed up that opportunity for the reasons I have already given. We should not now be denied a chance to make general statements at this stage. I hope the chairman will not press the point raised by the minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: On the point of order raised by the minister, the minister was echoing perhaps the remarks made by the Chair when this debate started. It is not only the rule of the committee-that is 78(1)-that the Chair has to take into account, but also the standing orders of the house. Standing order 59(1) says that in committee of the whole discussion must be strictly relevant to the matter being discussed. It is for the very purpose of trying to enforce this very im-

Canada Pension Plan
portant standing order that the committee on procedure and organization decided to postpone consideration of clause 1 to ensure that whenever a piece of legislation comes before the committee we will respect standing order 59(1).
If it is the desire of the committee that we have a general discussion on clause 2 it may be that the committee on procedure and organization will want to have clause 2 postponed to the end of the bill so that eventually we will be studying each bill backwards, and the last clause will be the first. The Chair is entirely in the hands of the committee, and if it is the desire of the committee to have a general discussion on clause 2, and eventually another discussion on clause 1, I will abide by the direction which I receive. But unless this direction is given the Chair, as the servant of the committee I have no alternative but to ask all hon. members to abide by the rules.
I recognize at the same time that some leniency and leeway has to be granted, and that has been the case with hon. members who have taken part in the debate up to now. I have no objection to hon. members making introductory statements in their remarks on clause 2; but I am asking for the co-operation of all hon. members to respect the rule of relevancy, and I am sure that when we have completed the study of 124 clauses in this bill during the course of our debate in committee, all hon. members will have had an opportunity to take part extensively in the debate.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I rise with some difficulty at the moment because of the point that has been raised. I spoke earlier on the point of order and I do not intend to repeat my previous comments, except to say this. Clause 2 of this bill is, in my opinion, an omnibus clause. It touches almost everything across the face of the bill, and if the hon. lady thinks at any point that I am out of order I think I can point to something in clause 2 which relates to my remarks. And I have several particular clauses to which I wish to refer.
This is the first opportunity we have had to review the work and the report of the special joint committee. In going back over the two and a half months or so during which the committee sat I wonder whether the work was really justified. I know that the hearings were very good and edifying for hon. members who were fortunate enough to sit on the committee. I think they understand in some measure the complexities of the bill. But even
[The Chairman.]
after those two months of study it is quite obvious that we are still in the dark about a lot of its provisions, particularly the cross references and details of the bill.
The members of the committee gave their time during the recess very faithfully, as has been stated. I think the committee was good for the witnesses because they had the opportunity to get their words into print in the transcript of the committee's proceedings, which amounts to many, many pages.
I think the proceedings of the committee were of assistance to the departmental officials who attended. Their thinking in respect of this measure was tested, and in a number of cases they came up with certain amendments which improved the wording of the bill, and others which changed its effect.
Perhaps I should indicate at this point that all of us who were members of the committee were tremendously impressed by the great amount of work that had been done by the people involved. The three individuals who have done the greatest amount of work are those who now sit before the minister. The committee also received some very excellent assistance from the special assistant, Mr. Osborne. We feel that these people have done a tremendous job in putting this bill together.
Having made those remarks, I must say that in spite of the time we spent studying this bill there has been no change or improvement made to the bill itself as it is now presented to us. This bill is practically the same as the bill submitted to that committee for study. Several small changes have been made but nothing has been done to close the great gaps that were disclosed during the committee hearings. Many of us felt from the beginning, right through the committee hearings, until the final report was presented, that there was very little progress made toward filling the gaps apparent in the bill.
Unfortunately the proceedings of that committee have not yet been printed and hon. members who were in attendance at the final hearing can only work from recollection of the statements that were made, the amendments which were proposed and turned down and the undertakings made on behalf of the government. It is unfortunate that we do not have those reports, and I presume this is in no way the result of shortcomings on the part of the committees branch, which worked very hard to keep the evidence up to date. However, we are working under this very great difficulty at this time.

Some changes were made which I think will improve this legislation. For instance, the dropout period of 10 per cent was increased to 20 per cent, meeting the difficulties facing certain individuals such as teachers and firemen, and will go some distance along the road of assistance to students. There was an improvement made in the provisions concerning late marriages. This aspect of the bill was considered at some length by the committee. There were also a number of drafting improvements made to the bill.
I would suggest that one result of the committee's hearings and recommendations was the announcement made last week by the Prime Minister to the effect that old age pensions, instead of being reduced on a graduated scale, will be reduced in stages to $75 across the board. These things are all helpful and I am sure the bill as it now stands is better than it was. However, as I have stated, no changes of substance have been made.
It will be apparent when we deal with this bill clause by clause that any amendment that is accepted will require consequential amendments to several other clauses of the bill. Therefore, it is rather important that we outline at least to some degree the amendments we propose to make. In that way perhaps certain details will be understood. It is my hope also that the government will outline what it proposes to accept in the way of changes. For example, we made a recommendation to the effect that the provisions of the bill be extended to the armed forces and the mounted police. I do not know whether or not the government will accept that recommendation. We are still left in the dark about various other proposals of a similar nature.
Mr. Chairman, I should like now to enumerate several gaps the committee found in the provisions of this bill. The first gap is in respect of individuals over 70 years of age who will continue at the present pension rate and will not be affected in any way by the Canada pension plan. We feel that as time passes this will make a great difference to that category of individuals over 70 years of age. There is also an apparent gap in the provisions of this bill in respect of the group between the ages of 65 and 70. The Prime Minister's announcement in this regard has gone some distance toward closing that gap, but certain individuals will still not be covered in the next four or five years.
There are no provisions in respect of persons who have very small incomes, commonly referred to as the marginal group.
Canada Pension Plan
No provision is made for individuals whose earnings are not discernible because they do not pay income tax or keep accurate account of their expenses, and therefore do not know exactly what their income is from time to time. There is also a large group of individuals who have acknowledged incomes of less than $600 who will not be covered by the provisions of this bill. The proposals we intend to put forward attempt to close these gaps and make the bill as efficacious as it was supposed to have been at the time we commenced our hearings.
Mr. Chairman, if anyone has any doubt as to the position to which I have just referred, relating to the gaps which must be filled, I think it would be desirable for me to read an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Before the hon. gentleman proceeds to read the editorial, will he assist the Chair by relating his remarks to the clause now before us for consideration. At the outset of the hon. gentleman's remarks he said it was possible for him to relate his remarks to one or other of the subclauses of clause 2. It would assist the Chair in enforcing the rule if the hon. member could find it possible to confine his remarks to clause 2.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I intended to proceed with certain general remarks in the manner suggested to the committee at the commencement of its consideration of this bill today, at the time the hon. member for Perth was speaking.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not think the agreement we reached was as all-embracive as you are now suggesting. As far as the Chair is concerned, this rule is still in existence and must be respected by all hon. members. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said that he could relate his remarks to this clause. I hope he will find it possible at this time to do so.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks are related to clause 2(1) (d), which relates to beneficiaries as defined by the bill. I want to point out those beneficiaries who I think should be brought in under the terms of this bill and those I think were left out. That is what I am attempting to do, Mr. Chairman.
An editorial appeared in the Ottawa Citizen relating to this question of beneficiaries.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is now attempting to define beneficiaries in such a way as to include individuals who have no previous record of contributions?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps the hon. member will be kind enough to wait until I have made my point. I am trying now to lead up to it. This editorial is very pertinent to the question of beneficiaries under this bill, and although I do not wish to read the complete editorial, I should like to read the last paragraph. Obviously the intention of the editorial is to press for the bill to proceed through the house as rapidly as possible and it refers particularly to the proposals of the Conservative party to add certain persons to the bill as beneficiaries who are not included now.
1	think the editorial makes the point crystal clear, much better than I could myself. The last two sentences read as follows:
The important thing now is to get the pension program on the statute books. There will still be an opportunity to bring forth measures to help Canada's aged poor at a later date.
1 believe a good many people understood that was what the provisions of this bill were intended to cover. My point is that the bill does not cover these people and that they are not included as beneficiaries under its provisions. I am skipping over my notes, Mr. Chairman, to try to keep my remarks at least vaguely relevant to clause 2, and I see there are one or two references I will have to omit.
There have been various changes in the bill itself since the Canada pension plan was first proposed. I think that when the bill is passed we will have a better bill. Last year widows, orphans and disabled persons were included in the bill for the purpose of drawing benefits, and I think this was an improvement. Last week there was an announcement by the Prime Minister which will go some way to fill the gap, but we feel not sufficiently.
The committee has made some technical improvements but I think we should know at this point what amendments are going to be made. For example, I should like to know whether the government proposes any amendment to clause 2 which will be required by reason of other amendments they may introduce. So far as our group is concerned, when we come to the appropriate subsection we propose to move an amendment to clause
2	to define a person as a resident. Some of our proposals go toward enlarging the group of persons who may be included in this pension plan.

There are two particular groups about which we are concerned in addition to the aged. One is the group which has a consistent income of less than $600. Our proposal will be that these people shall be able to file the same return that others do but will not be required to pay the contribution. The contribution even for the maximum would be something like 90 cents a month. We are going to propose that these contributions not be required to be made and that a person in that income group be permitted to be credited with the amount which he declares as income for that year. For that reason we have to move some consequential amendments.
There is also the other group which is not consistently under $600 but is often under $600, and would not normally be permitted to make contributions. They would be classified as people with zero earnings. We will make a proposal in this regard which was not only put forward in the special committee on the last days of the hearings but was also proposed in a press statement made after the committee report was tabled in the house. In both of these cases we feel that the contributor should be a resident. Otherwise the plan does not involve residence. If they are to receive a benefit for one year or many years without making contributions, we feel they must be residents and we intend to propose an amendment along that line.
We also intend to propose an amendment in connection with the dropout period for students.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this amendment have reference to clause 2?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, it has. I am not proposing it at the moment but it will be an addition to paragraph (cc) on page 3. The student dropout period mentioned in the bill is 10 per cent and the committee recommended 20 per cent. I trust there will be a specific amendment by the government when we come to this point because such an amendment was recommended in the committee report. Assuming that the government is prepared to accept an increase to 20 per cent, we still feel there should be special provision for students who are attending institutions of higher learning.
The lifetime of the pension plan to get full coverage is roughly 47 years, from when a student is 18 until he is 65. A 20 per cent dropout period would merely permit him to exclude years in which he has a very low income to the extent of 20 per cent, which is a little over nine years. Our belief is that a student should not be placed in the position

of continuing his education with the fear in his mind that he may be losing benefits under the Canada pension plan. He should not be under such a restriction. We feel that a special provision should be made for students permitting them, if they so desire, to drop out the years between 18 when they enter the plan and 25 so that they may continue without concern that their average lifetime earnings will be reduced because of their attendance at school. All governments and the public generally are encouraging students to continue with their education. We want technical and trained people in this country. Because of the way in which the Canada pension plan is now set up a student may lose benefits under the plan if he continues his education, and every year he continues at school his benefits may be reduced. We feel it is a desirable thing that the period of dropout should be extended beyond the normal dropout period in the bill.
There is one other situation that we intend to cover but I believe it relates to another interpretation section farther along in the bill. It has to do with employees of foreign governments in Canada. I will not go into that at the moment. When we get to the second interpretation clause, I should like to raise a particular point. There are many other things I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, and undoubtedly I will have an opportunity as we go through the various clauses of the bill. I will wait until then for my general remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall be quite brief, as usual, Mr. Chairman. I rise to ask a question which I believe is completely in order on clause 2, paragraph (e), which mentions the benefits payable under this bill. If I remember correctly, some years ago the Public Service Superannuation Act nearly became bankrupt and this house had to vote $100 million to put it on an even keel. We were told the reason for this situation was that the calculations which had been undertaken by the officials of the Department of Finance many years ago were not sufficient to cover the benefits that were given under the act.
I should like to ask the minister this question. Can she assure the house that the calculations upon which this bill are based are actuarially sound and will not require to be altered?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps we can deal with this question at this moment. We have had four actuaries of the Department of Finance working on the projection of this plan. The forecast
Canada Pension Plan
contained in the actuarial report was that the rates would hold good for a period of about 20 years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does that mean it is expected there may be some adjustment required after 20 years?


Edgar John Benson: It is expected there will probably be adjustments required. There might not be if the most optimistic view of the actuaries holds true. If the most pessimistic view turns out to be the case in regard to population growth, national product and so on, there would have to be an adjustment in the rates. Perhaps if the situation turns out to be one which is in between the most optimistic and most pessimistic view in 20 years time, probably that would also call for an adjustment of rates at some time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to explain that I support wholeheartedly the principle of the bill. However, I asked the question because it has been brought to my attention by a number of persons who were interested in making certain the bill was actuarially sound.


George Louis Chatterton: I, too, want to endorse the request made by the hon. member for Perth with regard to the interim report by the royal commission on taxation. This was recommended in the brief presented by the Ontario government. On page 2 of the brief it is stated that the federal government should obtain the opinion of the royal commission on taxation on the implications of the Canada pension plan on fiscal policy and the incidence of taxation. As the hon. member for Perth has said, this request was made and a motion to that effect was moved in the committee by the members of the Conservative party. The chairman, possibly quite rightly, ruled the motion out of order because he felt it was not within the competence of the committee to request such a report. It was indicated that perhaps the government would request the commission to make an interim report on the impact of financing the Canada pension plan, and any recommendations that they may have. The people who gave evidence on behalf of the Ontario government were of the opinion that such a report could be obtained in about 10 days. There need not, therefore, be any delay caused by such a request.
We all welcomed the announcement made by the Prime Minister last Wednesday. Incidentally, I can say that I feel the committee has done a good job by bringing forcibly to the attention of the government the big

Canada Pension Plan
gap that exists, but which is partially filled now as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister. In so far as I am aware, we have not been given any indication of how the additional cost to the old age security fund will be financed. Will there be an increase in the 3-3-4 formula, or will that not be necessary? One knowledgeable person told me that 30 years from now by far the major part of the payments under the Old Age Security Act will be by way of escalation. I imagine the government must have had some kind of economic report before deciding upon the reduction in age of those eligible for old age security. I hope that by the time we get to part IV and clause 119, the minister will tell us that she will ask for the preparation of such a report and make it available to us.
I shall try to abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and limit my general remarks to clause 2. It was obvious to me before the joint committee had met for very long that the government was not disposed to consider any major amendments to this proposal. I know many of the government members on the committee were impressed by the evidence given. I want to start off by saying that the white paper which the minister issued on the Canada pension plan indicates that this shall be a contributory pension plan to ensure, as soon as possible and in a fair and practical way, that all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity. We wholeheartedly endorse that statement.
Then the Prime Minister, following the federal-provincial conference on September 9, 1963, made a statement to this effect, according to the press, that the purpose of the Canada pension plan is to make it possible for all Canadians to retire in security and with dignity. Again, Mr. Chairman, we wholeheartedly support that statement by the Prime Minister. It became obvious to us, after hearing evidence in the joint committee, that the government proposal does not meet the statements made by the minister and by the Prime Minister. There are large gaps which are not filled by the Canada pension plan. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has said, we propose to fill some of those gaps.
Hon. members opposite will no doubt say that this is an earnings related plan, so that those people who are now retired and who are drawing the old age security pension should not get anything from the Canada

pension plan because they have not contributed to it. This is an earnings related plan and the benefits are related to the contributions made. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that in most cases the actual benefits received are only remotely related to the contributions made. For example, a person who has contributed for 10 years and then retires, if he has been at the maximum earning level of $5,000, would have paid into the fund through the employee-employer contributions something like $2,000. Yet the benefit that person receives when he retires at age 65 will be over $18,000; so that there is very little relationship between the contributions and the benefits. Furthermore the government itself provides that in practically all of the supplementary benefits there is a flat payment, in most cases of $25, which of course bears no relationship to the contributions or the earnings. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, that the argument that we should not pay anything under the Canada pension plan to those who have not contributed is defeated by the very provisions of the bill itself.
There has been ample evidence presented to the committee that the people who are in greatest need today are those already retired, and particularly those in the older age brackets. These are the people who acquired the greater part of their earnings during the depression and the war years, while their shorter period of earnings was in the postwar period when wage levels increased very rapidly. Therefore these people were less able to provide for their future retirement; and yet under the Canada pension plan this group, a very large group comprising some one million people, get no benefit whatever, while on the other hand another group get very large windfalls or bonuses.
Keeping in mind this last group of people over 70 who receive no benefits, we must realize that there is the other group of people who are in the fortunate position of retiring after contributing for 10 years, and for that particular group the windfall to those at the maximum earnings level, or the unearned income, is $18,000. That is the sum that is represented not by what was contributed by the employee and his employer, but a benefit which he did not pay for, and yet those other people over 70 get nothing.
Therefore I sincerely hope the government will consider this because it is obvious, with the fund building up to some $8.5 billion by 1975, there is going to be great pressure by this large group of people to get some benefit

out of the plan. The unemployment insurance fund is an example of how this happens. Obviously until such time as these inequities are remedied the Canada pension plan will become a political football in every election from now on, because these people who do not benefit will say, "Here is a fund built up to $8.5 billion. Why can't some of this money be given to us"? I am saying that we should take the Canada pension plan out of politics and, by making these improvements-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am wondering if the hon. member would not agree with me that his remarks are a bit general in nature. I doubt if the proposal he has put forth could be implemented by an amendment to clause 2. I doubt whether that would be possible, although that should be the test to determine whether remarks such as those made by the hon. member are relevant or not. It seems to me that for the last 15 minutes or so his remarks have been introductory in nature, have been very general and have touched on the principle of the bill. I would ask his cooperation to make them a little more relevant.


George Louis Chatterton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my remarks can be related to clause 2(v) referring to a pension payable under the act, and also to clause 2(d), which defines "beneficiary." When we refer to a beneficiary I believe we can also refer to those who are not beneficiaries, but I am subject to correction. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe my remarks are fairly well related to clause 2.
I believe I have described how the group of people who are now retired and who are age 70 receive no benefit under the Canada pension plan, no benefit as defined in clause 2; but what happens in the future to this particular group who are retired and will not receive benefits out of the Canada pension plan? Let us take 10 years from now, in 1976, and see what has happened to this group 75 years of age, who are retired.
At that time we find that some 66 per cent of the people over age 65 who are retired receive no benefit under the Canada pension plan; some 33 per cent of the people in that group receive a benefit of an average of $45; and a very small group, namely, 1.5 per cent of those aged 65 and retired in 1976 receive a pension from the Canada pension plan of $119 a month.
According to the figures presented by the department of insurance, which was done at the request made by members of the committee, even in 1980 some 51 per cent of
Canada Pension Plan
Canadians 65 years and over who are retired will receive no benefit under the plan.


Mr. Munro:: I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I take it the figures he has quoted do not take account of what would happen if the proposed amendment to the Old Age Security Act, announced last week, were adopted?


George Louis Chatterton: I am referring to pensions under the Canada pension plan, not benefits under the Old Age Security Act. I grant the hon. member it is true that the payment of old age security in due course at age 65 will help those people, but the Canada pension plan will not. The Old Age Security Act will, and more power to it.
The amendments which we will be proposing in due course will try to fill this gap, will try to level out, will try to deal with the fact that a large group get nothing and another small group get large bonuses. We feel there should be a general evening out, so that those who need it most get something out of the Canada pension plan.
There is another group who get no benefit under the Canada pension plan, the group who earn consistently less than the minima of $600 for the employed and $800 for the selfemployed. I have had one estimate given to me with respect to the self-employed. I am not saying it is correct and perhaps the government can correct me. It is to the effect that some 50 per cent of the farmers in eastern Canada would have a net income of less than $800 a year. Under the government proposal these people who are not able from such income to provide for their future retirement will be completely excluded from the plan. These are people who most need help on retirement and I point out that this is supposed to be a retirement plan to help people on retirement.
Again I hope the government will consider our amendments whereby these people who would not benefit under the Canada pension plan because of consistently low earnings and also because of chronic unemployment and illness, could be brought under the plan. There is no question but that, once these people find out they will not benefit from the plan, great pressure will be put on politicians to have some of this benefit extended to them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an impression among the people of Canada generally that this plan is good in all respects. They have swallowed part of the propaganda put out by the other side,

Canada Pension Plan
that this is something that seems to come directly from above and therefore benefits everybody. I addressed an old age pensioners group in my area and I was amazed to find they actually thought they were getting a benefit under the Canada pension plan.
Now is the time for the government to consider these weaknesses in the plan. I repeat that we are in favour of the principle of a contributory pension plan and that we voted unanimously for it. But we feel, now, we should do everything in our power to improve the plan and fill in some of these major gaps. We hope the minister will lend a sympathetic ear to our proposals in order that the plan when it is finally determined may be the best this house can devise.


Mr. Barnett:: There is one aspect of this bill which I believe stands in need of clarification. I say this with one important group of Canadian workers particularly in mind, namely the commercial fishermen. I have been looking through the interpretation clause closely and I feel there is considerable ambiguity in at least one respect, that is to say, whether or not the fishermen of Canada are included as employees within the meaning of these definitions. I find that in the terms of the bill-
"business" includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever, and includes an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment;
This would definitely include a fishing business. But when one considers the definitions of "employer", "employee", and "employment", it becomes clear that there is, at any rate, considerable room for doubt as to whether or not fishermen are to be considered employees in respect of contributions to the plan.
I was not a member of the committee which considered this bill. I understand that certain representations with regard to this aspect were made, but this was toward the end of the hearings and the minutes are not yet available to us. I have spoken to members of my party who did serve on the committee and I understand it was agreed that the government's advisers would take this question into consideration, as a result of which an announcement might be made. Although I was not a member of this particular committee, I did serve on the committee which dealt with the Unemployment Insurance Act and I say at once I do not want to see a situation which would perpetuate the ambiguous position of fishermen under the

measure now proposed for as many years as it existed with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It may be that this clause, dealing with interpretation, is not the correct clause upon which to call attention to, or correct, this need for clarification; that may be better done when we come to clauses 6 and 7 which are closely parallel to certain clauses in the Unemployment Insurance Act. But I raise the matter now in the hope that before clause 2 has been dealt with we can be given some statement as to what is in the mind of the government.


Edgar John Benson: I would prefer to make a full statement on the position of fishermen when we reach clauses 6 and 7, which are pertinent to the subject. However, I can say at this point that without involving the rights of the minister under clause 7, the position of the fishermen would be this: Those who are employed by others would be employees, and those who are in business for themselves and selling their catch would be deemed to be in business.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is the whole point. Is the minister saying there is no intention to place in the Canada pension plan a proposal similar to that embodied in the Unemployment Insurance Act when section 29(2) was put into that legislation? Does the government propose to do this so as to put the fishermen in a similar position, as far as the present measure is concerned?


Edgar John Benson: I would say there is no intention on the part of the government to follow the policy which was followed in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act in which, as I recall it, fishermen were not deemed to be employees but were, rather, made insured persons under the act. There was a solid reason for doing this, since otherwise some fishermen would not have been able to draw any unemployment insurance. The situation under the Canada pension plan is not the same, because whether a fisherman is employed by someone else or is in business for himself he will still be entitled to benefits under the plan. The only thing the hon. member is really arguing about is whether or not someone other than the fishermen should pay part of the premiums. If his argument were accepted in the case of fishermen, the same contention might be put forward by many other people who are in small businesses in Canada. For example, if I were a farmer selling beef cattle, and selling them to one broker, might I not argue that I

should not pay the whole of the contribution but that part of it should be paid by the broker? This is one of the factors which led to the conclusion that the bill should remain as it stands at the present time, namely that fishermen in business for themselves should be treated in the same way as other people in business for themselves.


Mr. Canfelon:: I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that it is six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform hon. members that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this day is the following: the hon. member for Halifax, Canadian Pacific Railway, reported decision to abandon passenger and mail service.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned the debate at six o'clock I had hardly said anything. In rising to speak to the committee on this matter this evening I want to give the government every credit for introducing legislation to pension the Canadians who need a pension. But-and this is a big but-there are some large questions as to the handling of the whole question by the government from the first instalment to the third.
I should like to add my words of commendation to those of every other member of the Canada pension committee who has spoken so far about the departmental officials who assisted us in the committee and who, I would judge, are mainly responsible for doing such a superb job of drafting this legislation. While I think there are some parts of the legislation which are poorly conceived, certainly no one can blame the civil servants for that.
I believe, and I think all of us believe, in the need to improve the living conditions of retired Canadians. I believe that the wage related principle in paying pensions is a good one. But I do not believe that this bill does what it has been so widely heralded it does. I sat through 48 of the 51 sittings of the Canada pension committee and I must confess that sometimes I was pretty badly snowed under by the weight of evidence and statistics with which we were confronted. It is for this reason that I have the temerity, I suppose I might say, to speak rather generally this
Canada Pension Plan
evening and I hope the chairman will permit my general remarks on the Canada pension legislation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that when other members of the committee took part in the debate this afternoon they were invited by the chairman to be as relevant as possible and to make their remarks pertinent to clause 2. I would ask the hon. member kindly to heed this suggestion which the Chair has made.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to do so. It is very plain that without many major changes this bill will not succeed in doing what the Liberals have been loudly proclaiming it will do. We do not yet know what amendments the government intends to present. I hope there are many, and the indications we have had are that this is so. I hope they will not only correct the many minor faults suggested in the various submissions to the committee, but I hope that the amendments which will be presented will also deal with the major faults.
The Canada pension plan as it is detailed in Bill No. C-136, with its various definitions and interpretations set out in clause 2 of the bill which we are now discussing, is a very complicated attempt to set up a national pensions act. We have been told again and again most emphatically by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that its purpose is to enable Canadians to retire in security and with dignity, and certainly we all agree with that. Unfortunately it seems to me that the details as set out in this brute of a bill indicate that this plan will hardly perform as one would hope. In my view, all Canadians will not retire with sufficient pension; many will be omitted entirely from the provisions of the bill.
Many of us are much disturbed by the lofty expectations which this bill has aroused. Consequently, I should like to review very briefly what the bill does, and then outline what the bill does not do, hoping that the bad omissions and faults in it which have not been corrected by the special committee will be largely corrected by this committee. Although the Conservative members of the committee struggled to make suitable recommendations which could correct the major faults in the proposals made in the committee report, at the conclusion of the hearings I made the following statement:
May I state our position. We consider that the rejection of our suggestions leaves the Canada

Canada Pension Plan
pension plan with serious omissions. Nevertheless we support the principle of the plan and intend to vote in favour of the report in spite of its inadequacies. We make this statement because we wish to maintain our right to criticize these inadequacies when the bill is before the house.
And indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is what we hope to do. I have not changed my view that in essence it is a good bill, but there are inadequacies that do require improvement.
The bill, as everyone knows, sets out to collect from all employed Canadians 1.8 per cent of their earnings, the employers matching that 1.8 per cent, while the self-employed such as farmers, fishermen and manufacturers will have to pay the full 3.6 per cent out of their net earnings. One would suppose, under those circumstances, that everyone would be covered by the plan, but this is not so. For there are many who will never contribute and there are many others who will contribute at such a low rate that it is doubtful they will ever receive any very substantial benefits from this plan.
The first earnings related pensioners will be receiving their pensions in January of 1967. That year pensions will be paid to those who are aged 68, 69 or 70 and over. But these people-and this is something that is often forgotten-will be eligible for only one tenth of the full pension that they or others will be able to draw in the later years. To draw this benefit a pensioner must have been making the maximum contribution for ten years, and he must have made it on an income of $5,000 or better.
If I may put it another way, if his average monthly wage is $416.67 or higher he will draw $10.41 monthly from the plan in 1967 if he becomes superannuated at that time. A newly retiring pensioner in 1968 could draw $20.83. This process continues until finally in 1976, when the pension plan matures, a pensioner could get the full rate of $104.17. But remember, this is for those at maximum contributory rates and drawing maximum benefits allowed.
If we consider the case of the pensioner who had a $100 average monthly salary for his contributory years we find that if he retired in 1967 he would only draw $2.50 monthly. This rate would continue upwards until by 1976 he would draw $25 per month. It seems to me that few Canadians realize how low the benefits are, and the press- probably because few of them actually know what the bill does, because indeed it is com-[Mr. Cantelon.l
plicated-have not circulated the preceding facts.
Once a pensioner begins drawing his pension his rate remains at the amount set. However, all pensions once set may be improved somewhat by multiplying by the cost of living index, provided the cost of living index rises sufficiently.
In 1967 contributors may retire at age 68, in 1968 at age 67, in 1969 at age 66, and in 1970 or later at the age of 65. However, a pensioner is allowed to receive an old age security pension at the above retirement ages.
1	think that represents a very worth-while change, as announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday last. The $75 monthly payment would be added to the payment which will be provided through the Canada pension plan, but in order to receive these payments the pensioner must be retired. If he receives casual earnings between the ages of 65 and 70 a reduction factor is applied to his Canada pension payment and an income tax penalty is applied to his old age security payments.
It may help hon. members to understand just what this means by reference to a table of pensions payable during the first 10 years.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am very curious to know how these remarks can be related to clause
2	of the bill which is now under consideration.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member has expressed the feeling of the Chair. I have been listening intently to the hon. member for Kindersley for several minutes and I have some doubt as to whether it is possible for him, even with some imagination, to relate his remarks to clause 2. I am willing to listen to him, but I suggest that his remarks should in some way relate to the clause now being considered by the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to appeal again to the members of this committee to allow hon. members to enter into a general debate on this clause. It is true that we have a ruling in this regard, but surely this is an occasion when the rule could easily be waived, allowing hon. members to make preliminary and across-the-board statements. With this degree of leeway we might find one speech being made by an hon. member rather than several in respect of various clauses of the bill in a piecemeal fashion. I think it would be conducive to the good conduct of debate to allow this latitude of discussion. I realize that Your

Honour is bound by the rules the committee has adopted, but I do appeal to hon. members to refrain from rising on points of order, and allow a degree of relaxation in the application of the rules.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two remarks on this point of order. Without agreeing entirely with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I believe we might achieve the objective he desires. Perhaps the hon. member for Kindersley will not be offended by my remarks in this regard if I say that, with some skill, he could relate his remarks to some specific paragraph of the clause.
Clause 2 of the bill is the interpretation clause and defines terms such as "application" and "benefits", as well as many others. In view of the terminology used in this clause of the bill it seems apparent that wide latitude of debate can be allowed. I think it would be beneficial to allow some latitude during our consideration of this clause, because when we reach the more specific clauses of the bill latitude will not be possible and hon. members will have to direct their remarks in a restricted manner to those clauses.
I hope the hon. member will forgive me for making this suggestion, but it does seem to me that if he relates his remarks to clause 2, in the sense that it is an interpretive clause, there will be no breach of the rules. It seems to me the hon. gentleman's purpose can be achieved quite nicely if he relates his remarks to that clause in that way. I think this will also meet the point raised as well by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council may I remind the committee that I referred this afternoon to the fact that it would not be difficult to relate general remarks to specific parts of the interpretation clause. What has bothered me and other hon. members this afternoon is the continuous interruption by hon. members who have asked us to relate our remarks to this clause. I am sure the remarks of hon. gentlemen could be related to this interpretation clause, but I feel that this debate will proceed more expeditiously if hon. members accept the fact that a broad general debate is acceptable during our consideration of clause 2.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have already spoken twice on this subject today, and I am prepared to speak as often as this kind of point of order is raised. A very reason-
Canada Pension Plan
able request was made at the commencement of our consideration of this bill at this stage, having regard to an open and general debate on clause 2. I thought hon. members had agreed to that request. Certainly there was no objection expressed by members in any part of this house to that original expression of my understanding.
I pointed out several reasons this afternoon in support of the suggestion that we should be allowed to debate this clause on a general basis. By agreement we limited our debate at the resolution stage of this bill as well as at the second reading stage. Both of those debates could have been prolonged to the disadvantage of the government. All we are asking now is that we be allowed a little freedom during our consideration of clause 2 in return for the concession we made last fall. Co-operation is not a one way street but a two way street, and those individuals who have had some experience in this house must be aware of the fact that debates proceed much more expeditiously when hon. members refrain from constantly interrupting speakers by rising on points of order.
Mr. Chairman, I think my suggestion is reasonable. Allow us some leeway in the debate in respect of clause 2 of this bill so that when we are considering the other clauses we can and will restrict our remarks to the specific subjects contained therein. In view of the great importance of this measure to this House of Commons and the people of Canada we should be granted the privilege of speaking in general terms on this interpretive clause. Others have enjoyed this privilege during the resolution stage of this debate, which was restricted to one day, and during the second reading stage which, by agreement, was restricted to two and a half days. Surely hon. members are not now to be ruled out because of those restrictions which were agreed to last fall.
I think this is not right at all. Some members of the house have already spoken three times, at the resolution stage, on second reading and again today. Yet if there is a restriction applied tonight there will be some of our members who will not be given the privilege of speaking in general terms on a matter of this magnitude. In the interests of co-operation, let us do it that way. We co-operated with the government on Friday and the house leader would be the first to admit it. We passed the labour standards bill and six other bills the other day in a co-operative spirit. Today on third reading I could have raised a point of order and prevented the passing of

Canada Pension Plan
the labour standards bill, but I did not do so because I thought we should get on with the business of the house. Let us have co-operation both ways. This is our request and I hope there will be no further interruptions of any of our members who want to participate in the debate.


Mr. Pugh:: May I add one word, Mr. Chairman. Since the house rose for the recess last December the committee has done a tremendous amount of work and the results of its work are now available to all members of the various parties. It seems to me that at this time we should have a coherent debate on the whole subject. We should not have to deal with this matter in a piecemeal way. The views that are being put forward now, which I hope will be read with interest throughout the country, should be given in their totality. If a very narrow restriction is imposed on the debate, it can only result in a chopped up presentation by members of all parties, and I am sure the minister would want a full discussion of the bill as we go along. Members have different ideas on various points and it seems to me that great latitude of debate should be allowed. It has been mentioned that the subject we are discussing is of national importance. Of course it is. It is of tremendous importance and will affect the lives of all Canadians for many years. It seems to me that when a member gets up to make his presentation he should be allowed to cover the whole subject and not be forced to chop up his remarks and deal with the subject in a piecemeal fashion.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it will be recalled by the committee that I spoke on the point of order this afternoon only because of the very clear wording of the standing order which was adopted by the house on a trial basis in October. I am sure the house leader of the Conservative party and the house leader of this party never thought of it at that time in its particular application to the Canada pension plan. There is no question that the new rules gave the whole house the advantage of one day's debate only at the resolution stage of the bill, and that this was not a matter of agreement but rather a matter of the new standing order which was to apply for this session.
This afternoon the hon. member for Perth mentioned that it was only yesterday it occurred to him what the procedure might be, but if he will think back I believe he will remember discussing the matter with me on Friday when I indicated what the rule was.

I pointed out that in so far as I was concerned and in so far as I could persuade any members on this side of the house we would stick to that rule, since we could only assume that the committee which brought it in had a reason for doing so and since it also had received unanimous approval. As expressed in Votes and Proceedings the reason is that by standing clause 1 we would have much less debate and the Chair would have much less difficulty in applying the very rule of relevancy which we have been discussing.
I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Perth and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said. I understand perfectly that inasmuch as the committee held many hearings where a great deal of information was produced resulting in all members of the committee having a much better understanding of the bill, members would now like to bring in package proposals and discuss the whole matter at length. It will be noted I have made no objection whatsoever. The Chair intervened and the chairman told us that we could not treat the interpretation section the bill, any more than that of any other bill, as a general section. The second clause of every bill is usually the interpretation clause and if we were to so treat the interpretation section the effect would be that the standing order, which is temporarily part of our rules and which the committee brought in for a purpose, would have no purpose. However, because of the particular circumstances I sat here this afternoon and made no objection to fairly wide ranging speeches. I think all of the members who spoke were members of the committee and I believe none of them can say that they were limited by any kind of narrow interpretation of the section. Indeed, I think only two of them even used the subterfuge of mentioning a subclause of clause 2.
As the government house leader has pointed out and, indeed, as the Chair has pointed out, whether or not it appears to have relevance it is a simple thing for any member to stand up and say that he is talking about paragraph (o) or (p) or (r) and throw such references in every now and then presumably to pass off his remarks as being relevant. But it seems to me there are two things we have to consider. The first is the bill and the way in which it is dealt with. What we are trying to do is deal with the Canada pension plan, not with the second part having to do with the old age security amendment. The bill has been before a committee and has had more careful consideration than any other

piece of legislation in the four years or more that I have been in the house. If delayed much longer, obviously will not be passed at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't say that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think all members have indicated by a unanimous vote at the resolution stage that they are in favour of the principle. I have no objection, nor do I think other members of the government do, to any reasonable latitude with respect to the debate on this clause. As has been pointed out on at least two occasions and as was originally noted by the hon. member for Perth, the clause surely does give some latitude, although not as much as on clause 1. It seems to me that all hon. members who have dealt with the bill in great detail and at great length in the committee will be able to relate their remarks directly to a specific section of the clause. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that we on this side are very happy to abide by the ruling which the Chair made this afternoon and which it seems to me cannot be raised again and again in the committee. That ruling was that the rule of relevance should be applied on this particular section as on all others.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the remarks of the minister that she is not in favour of the co-operative attitude I suggested. We will take full note of her remarks and carry on accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Prime Minister himself told me it would be all right.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), I wonder how she could say that she would not let the house consider all the aspects of the bill because it was considered in detail in committee.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, this is not by any stretch of the imagination what I said. I said that the rule was there and that throughout the whole of the afternoon there had been no objection from this side to the course which was followed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I ask you to look at Hansard. There was not one objection to the major
Canada Pension Plan
Conservative speakers throughout the whole of the afternoon, not one objection. It was the Chair only which objected on the grounds of relevancy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You raised the point yourself.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have indicated that we are quite prepared to allow a reasonable amount of latitude.


An hon. Member:: You are, eh?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would ask my hon. friend in the far corner on that side of the house not to try to put words into my mouth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member raised the point of order herself this afternoon. Now she is blaming the Chair. Take the blame yourself.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I raised it, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I wonder whether we could allow the hon. member for Ville-neuve to participate in the debate on the point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this afternoon the charming lady seemed to have the approval of all corners of the house, and when I say that, I am not speaking of anyone in particular. However, when the minister speaks of all corners of the house, it must mean that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) was not here at that time. That is why her proposal was accepted unanimously by the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was present all afternoon. What are you talking about?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it does not look as if the hon. member was here all afternoon, because he seems completely off the subject tonight.
In any case, I understand we are now dealing with clause 2 of Bill No. C-136 and we cannot, therefore, discuss the bill generally. If I may, I would say that we have here a paradox in that we are allowed to refer to its details one after the other without being entitled to deal with the measure as a whole.
On clause 1 each member may voice his own opinion or that of his constituents freely. It is impossible for us to do so at present because we have to stick to clause 2 of Bill No. C-136.

Canada Pension Plan
With regard to the province of Quebec or Canada-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member for Villeneuve now speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard?


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: In that case, I would remind him that the hon. member for Kindersley has the floor.


George Louis Chatterton: The minister spoke at some length on the point of order, and I thank her for her co-operation. However, I am wondering if she could indicate to us at what stage she will accede to some of the requests that were made this afternoon, such as the request for an economic report and the request concerning the proposed amendments the government is prepared to consider. Can the minister say at what stage she will indicate this to us?


Lucien Lamoureux: With all respect, I must say those remarks have nothing to do with the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I think hon. members will recognize that this type of situation puts the Chair in a rather difficult position. The rule is there. Certainly I did not make the rule, contrary to what the minister suggested a moment ago. The rule of relevancy is in the standing orders and unless it is the wish of the committee that the rule be suspended it is the duty of the Chair to request the co-operation of all hon. members to respect it. I think that a large degree of leeway has been granted to all members up until now, and I am prepared to continue to grant this degree of leniency, provided hon. members co-operate with the Chair
by making an effort to relate their remarks to the clause before the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like you to let us know exactly what the point of order is that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard raised, so that neither the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre nor I can go astray. I should like to know exactly what the point of order is that the committee has been discussing because nobody seems to understand anything about that point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair cannot enter into a discussion with hon. members, but I must call the attention of the hon. member for Villeneuve to standing order 59(2), which provides:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
This is the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I might say at this juncture that if it had not been for this hassle I would have been finished 15 minutes ago. I want to thank the government house leader and the minister for their suggestion that I should relate my remarks to specific clauses. I have been discussing clause 2 (1), paragraphs (e) and (g) which deal with benefits and contributions. I should like, Mr. Chairman, with your permission to table a listing of pensions payable for the first 10 years.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member cannot table a private paper. He can read it so it will be part of his speech, but it cannot be tabled.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: The table is as follows:
Table of pensions payable for first 10 years
Ages allowable	69	68Year	1966	1967O.A.S.	$	75	$ 75Canada pension Fraction of Canada-	00	$ 10.41pension allowed	-	1/10Total	$	75	$ 85.41
I am sorry I had to take the time to read that. If one substitutes the figures I gave earlier for the $100 monthly income in place of those given above for a $416.67 income, then the totals for the $100 monthly income are readily obtained. tMr. Caouette.l
67	66	65	65	
651968	1969	1970	1971	
1976$ 75	$ 75	$ 75	$ 75	
$ 75$20.82	$31.24	$41.65	$52.06	
$104.172/10	3/10	4/10	5/10	
full$95.82	$106.24	$116.65	$127.06	
$179.17
In addition to these general conditions which apply to everyone, the bill also makes provision for disability pensions, for survivor benefits, for orphan benefits and a death benefit. This again relates to clause 2(1), paragraph (e). The disability pension may be

drawn before age 65 on proof of disability. A flat $25 is paid and a maximum of 75 per cent of the retirement earnings or a total of $103. Children of the disabled contributor will receive the same benefits as those paid for orphans. Survivors' benefits are paid for widows if the contributor had paid for at least two years and for one third of his working years. Orphans' benefits are paid to children who are still at school up to age 18. They are ordinarily paid on the death of the father, but may be paid on the death of the mother, if the mother was the main support of the family.
A new amendment proposed in the report provides for a payment of $25 per month per child for the first four children and $12.50 for each child thereafter. The death benefits may amount to as much as $500. These are good provisions, but it is too bad that again the government does not truly consider this measure as social legislation. If it did, these benefits would start not later than January, 1967, instead of being deferred for widows for two years, for orphans for two years and in disability cases for five years.
What does this bill not do? First, and certainly most important, it deceives the Canadian people into thinking that they will have an adequate pension plan. It misses badly on two counts. First, a large number of Canadians will never derive any benefit from the plan as it is constituted today because they will not earn enough to be recorded. Their pensions are going to come solely from old age security legislation. It is a most regrettable fact that many hundreds of thousands of Canadians earn at such a low rate that they may never be contributors, and hence never draw a cent from the plan as presently constituted. Then there are many millions of earning Canadians who earn enough to be recorded but who are going to find that a 25 per cent of average earnings pension will be extremely low.
For example, we have seen how very low the pension will be for those whose average earning rate has been $100 a month-in 1967 $2.50 a month, rising to $25 a month in 1976. The fellow who retires in 1967 should be forgiven if he feels bitter about what this much advertised universal pension plan does for him. If it were not for the Old Age Security Act he would be in desperate condition indeed with his $2.50 per month for life.
Those already retired are not going to be happy about a plan which does nothing for them. It does give them small increases through the multiplication of their pensions 20220-73ii
Canada Pension Plan
periodically by a cost of living index. The full increase if given would be $1.50 a month, and the first such increase would not be payable until 1968-some raise, and quite some wait.
The senior citizens advancement committee emphasizes a more serious complaint about this fixed amount and cost of living factor. I quote from their submission to the special joint committee on the Canada pension plan:
Price increases constitute a direct cut in pension benefits, reducing all incomes, especially of those living on private, small pensions. Cost of living bonuses limited to two points annually cannot compensate for price rises.
In our opinion, the cost of living bonus as proposed tends to freeze the federal old age pension at $75 a month at age 70.
I might interject that at that time the government had not made its announcement that the $75 old age security would be paid by progressively reducing the age from 70 to 65 years.
We strongly object to this provision and urge that it be struck out. We believe that the federal old age pension and the new pension plan must be adjusted upwards as the national wealth increases, at regularly spaced intervals-something to look forward to-and should be tied to the gross national product and taken out of politics altogether.
I must confess I agree with them that this is one of the worst features of the plan. It is a tacit acceptance of the fact that the old age assistance of $75 is sufficient pension for those already retired. This I cannot accept.
Evidence was presented to the pension committee which showed that in 1976-the first year when the plan is fully operative- there will be 1,880,000 Canadians who will be retired at the age of 65 or over. Of these nearly two million Canadians, 1.5 per cent will be drawing the by then increased benefits of $119 a month, and 32 per cent will be drawing average benefits of $45 a month. This figure was arrived at before we heard the change which the Prime Minister announced, and I expect it will now be somewhat more, but unfortunately I have not been able to calculate that. What will the remaining 66 per cent be getting? The 1,250,000 left will be getting exactly nothing from the Canada pension plan. In other words, two thirds of all Canadians retired in 1976, 10 years after the plan begins, will be getting no benefits from the plan.
The plan is not universal because it does not include people whose incomes are less than $600, or $800 if self-employed. It is not universal because it will not include the un-

Canada Pension Plan
employed. It is not universal because it will not do anything for persons who are now aged, widowed or disabled.
A good national pension plan should be based on social justice. Obviously it should do the most for those most in need. This plan does just the opposite, in some respects anyway. To quote the Canadian association of social workers in the brief they presented to the Canada pension committee, at page 3 they said:
It does little for those who are on marginal or substandard wages or whose employment is irregular. Despite the steps taken in the plan to reach these groups and to ease them into the benefit stream the end result is totally inadequate. As so frequently happens in social security legislation the poor are left in their poverty and the major benefits accrue to the stronger income groups.
This is a pretty strong statement but I believe it is justified.
Many submissions to the committee pointed out that those who retire in the years just after the plan matures, that is to say, the years 1976-78, will have contributed very little and will draw a pension which will have a value several times what they contributed. If we want to take the worst example, that of a man making maximum contributions and drawing maximum benefits at age 65 in 1976, he will have paid 10 times $79.20, or $792, as will his employer also, into the plan and will have a pension, as pointed out at page 149 of the proceedings of the committee, of the value of $12,295. That is a pretty nice windfall.
I want to point out here that I do not have an inherent objection to this fact. As I said before, this is a social welfare measure and some inequities must be expected, but I do think they should be less blatant. The young people of today should not be expected to pay for gross inequities like this, especially since they could be reasonably reduced if we extended the maturity period.
The proposals of my party are eminently sensible and we believe within the compass of the funds provided, as we hope to show when we propose our main amendments which deal with the financial part of the Canada pension plan. Naturally if these amendments are accepted the funds will not accumulate at as rapid a rate as they would under the present bill's terms. However, are we instituting this scheme primarily to produce capital for the use of the provinces, or are we creating a pension plan for Canadians who need help in old age? The answer is easy. I maintain it is the latter, and that 
purpose should not be subordinated to produce capital for provincial uses.
Thus far all of our provinces have been able to borrow the money they needed at reasonable rates on the money market. My own province, so-called socialistic government or not for 22 years, did very well indeed. I do not think it is the function of the dominion government or of this parliament to overtax the contributors to produce provincial capital. This bill provides for over funding.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association had this to say about the level of the funds produced, and I quote from page 5 of their brief to the committee:
The association takes the position that the Canada pension plan as presently proposed provides for too high a level of advance funding. This will result in accumulation of an unusually large pool of funds which apparently will be diverted for use in provincial and municipal works projects of one kind or another.
The association supports advance funding of private plans because there is no guarantee the employer will continue in business and always earn enough money to pay private pensions out of current earnings. This view does not extend to a pension plan which is underwritten by taxing authorities such as provincial or federal governments. In such cases the need for a high level of advance funding is virtually eliminated or substantially reduced.
However, we have this type of funding, so unless we are to throw out the plan and start over again it looks as if we must live with it. One may feel, though, that steps which will reduce the level of funding are not to be opposed for that reason alone. Consequently, I support the suggestion of my party that a flat rate-


Lucien Lamoureux: I have to interrupt the hon. member, not because he is irrelevant but because his time has expired.


Mr. Howard:: I have a few remarks to make following those which were made before six o'clock by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni about the relationship of commercial fishermen to the bill before us and the manner in which they will make contributions. The definition clause which we are considering at the present time will have some effect on the manner in which commercial fishermen will make contributions to the plan.
At the outset, though, I certainly hope the government does not see fit to prorogue this session of parliament before the Canada pension plan is passed. This was the import of what the hon. lady said earlier-that there is every likelihood that the present session will end before the bill is passed. This would mean that at the next session we would have

to start all over again. As I say, I hope the government does not take that course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is shaking her head. That should be on record in Hansard.


Frank Howard: No, I don't think so. That does not mean anything.
Before six o'clock the hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised the question of commercial fishermen and their position under this bill. I took it from the reply made by the Minister of National Revenue that it is the intention of the government not to propose any alteration in the present structure of the bill as far as commercial fishermen are concerned and that, as a result, any particular commercial fisherman might find himself in two different positions in the course of a fishing year. At one stage he may pay merely an employee's contribution, his employer paying the other half, and at another stage he may be obliged to pay the entire amount, depending on the nature of his work, in accordance with the definition of "business" to be found in this clause. If what I have just stated is a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what the minister said, I wish he would correct me because I intend to argue along those lines.


Edgar John Benson: A commercial fisherman in this instance would be in the same position as anyone else who was employed part of the year and in business for himself during part of the year. He might find his total income did not exceed $5,000. He would pay at the rate of 1.8 per cent on his wages income, and on the balance he would have to pay at the rate of 3.6 per cent.


Frank Howard: In other words, it is correct, as I stated, that the government has no intention of making any alteration in the bill before us to the end that commercial fishermen might find themselves in a different position.
The minister also referred to the Unemployment Insurance Act as far as commercial fishermen are concerned. He told us that under this act no determination was made about fishermen being employees, but merely about their being insured persons. This is not exactly what the Unemployment Insurance Act says. Perhaps I could quote briefly from it so that my contention may be on the record. This is from chapter 50 of the statutes of Canada 1956. Section 29(2) reads as follows- I will only read paragraphs (a) and (b) which are the relevant paragraphs for the sake of
Canada Pension Plan
this argument. Certain regulations may be made-
- (a) including as an insured person any person who is engaged in fishing (hereinafter called "a fisherman"), notwithstanding that such person is not an employee of any other person;
The minister's comments were correct to the extent that no determination was made to the effect that a fisherman was an employee as such; merely that he was an insured person. However, paragraph (b) is revealing. It deals with employers and it says:
(b) including as an employer of a fisherman any person with whom the fisherman enters into contractual or other commercial relationship in respect of his occupation as a fisherman;
Here is a determination by statute that an employer of a person in a fishing company is an employer as far as his relationship to the fisherman is concerned. So while the minister was correct, in one sense, that no decision was made to classify a commercial fisherman as an employee under the act, nevertheless paragraph (b) of section 29(2) does declare that a person can be an employer of a fisherman who is not classified as an employee.
What we seek to propose with respect to the Canada pension plan is that a similar arrangement should exist. We suggest we cannot use legal jargon or legal terms, or twist plain meaning to try to make a commercial fisherman other than what he is-to try to make him into a businessman, to try to determine that he is not a workman working for a particular fishing company. This has been the course followed over the years by the drafters of the workmen's compensation act in British Columbia, and by those who argued against the inclusion of commercial fishermen under the Unemployment Insurance Act a few years ago. Their attitude has been to use semantics or legal jargon to legislate commercial fishermen out of the benefit of the opportunities available under certain statutes and put them at a disadvantage as compared with other workmen in basic industries. It is not so much that the government does not want to include commercial fishermen as employees. It is not so much that the government wishes to put the full load of pension plan contributions on the shoulders of the commercial fishermen, but that it is revealing the government's hand or its intentions with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The minister shakes his head, indicating that that is not so. May I take it, then, that the government does not intend to follow the recommendations of the Gill commission in this regard?

Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: That is a matter ol government policy which will be announced when there are amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think the hon. member is trying to do exactly what he says we are trying to do, namely twist the law to such an extent as to say that a person who is not an employee is an employee.


Frank Howard: The Unemployment Insurance Act twisted the law, and it was my hon. friend's own party that did it, if what he is saying is twisting the law. But what I submit is the correct state of affairs is this: Because of the nature of the fishing industry both on the east and west coasts, and undoubtedly the inland fisheries as well, a commercial fisherman is a workman who works for wages. But also because of the nature of the industry people in the past have given him a designation which makes him neither an employee nor an employer but which puts him in some middle class. This has been the difficulty which has confronted the commercial fisherman ever since parliaments and legislatures started to enact legislation in connection with the relationship between workmen and companies. That is where the twisting of the situation came about both by parliaments and legislatures which either did not understand the full situation or did not want to understand the situation, but instead wanted to enact legislation which would put the commercial fisherman in a much poorer position vis-a-vis his relationship with other workmen.
That is all we are attempting to do-to put before the minister and the government the full details of what is a commercial fisherman, the problems with which he is confronted, and why he should be considered in the same class as other people who work for wages. Whether you can call him an employee or a workman or something similar really does not matter so long as you are interested in making the determination that a commercial fisherman is a person who works for wages, and as such should be in no different position than the minister himself, that is to say, one who pays a portion of his income, within the maximum limits set out in the bill, toward the Canada pension plan and who likewise has somebody called his employer who pays an equal amount toward the Canada pension plan.
As I have said, because of the similarity between the wording in the bill before us and that in the Unemployment Insurance Act, it naturally follows, to my mind, especially in view of the recommendation of the Gill commission that fishermen be excluded from the

provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, that if the government is taking the position, by using substantially the same language, that it is not willing to recognize commercial fishermen as true workmen working for wages, it seems to me that at some subsequent date they also intend to take them out of the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Act and to follow up the recommendations of the Gill commission, even though the two are really not comparable.
At some subsequent stage of this bill, if we are able to acquire the technique of draftsmanship and can fit it within the rules of the house, we intend to prepare some sort of amendment in the hope of putting this point across in a formal way. Because we think that if this matter were put clearly before the house in a formal way the house would (1) have the opportunity to support it and (2) would undoubtedly support it. There are members both on the government side of the house and on the opposition side who are thoroughly familiar with the operations of the fishing industry. Some of them were fishermen themselves and they realize perhaps more than others what is involved here. Likewise there are some members on the government side, including, as I understand it, the Minister of Fisheries himself, who have said that for the purposes of the Canada pension plan commercial fishermen should be classified as employees and should only have to pay 1.8 per cent of their wages, in the same way as everyone else who receives wages.
In view of this statement, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is not so much that we want to pull them out in the open particularly and expose the way these people think about something, but rather that, in view of these statements, there is a bulk of the membership of the House of Commons who would support an amendment or proposal to classify commercial fishermen in such a way that they pay only their fair share of contributions to the Canada pension plan, in the same way as other people in Canada who work for wages and who will also be contributing to the plan.
I realize that this is not perhaps the stage at which to move an amendment. Although there are references in the definition clause to an employee, an employer, employment, and business, none the less perhaps the definition clause is not the correct place to put forward such an amendment. But when we do reach the relevant stage I or one of my colleagues, perhaps the hon. member for

Comox-Alberni who is also vitally interested in the matter, will be able to present a formal proposal on which a decision can be reached by the committee itself. If we do that and the arguments which are marshalled are sufficiently strong to support such contention, parliament might very well decide that it is appropriate and fair to classify commercial fishermen as workmen.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, seeing that the hon. member for Skeena has raised this point I thought I might say a word on it myself. It is unfortunate that the proceedings of the last meeting of the special joint committee on the Canada pension plan have not yet been printed, because had they been printed the hon. member would have seen that this very subject was raised and discussed by the committee on its last day of sitting.
I should like to second some of the things the hon. member has said. I think we must clearly understand that as Bill No. C-136 is presently drafted it has within it the powers and the necessary provisions to enable the governor in council to classify west coast fishermen as employees rather than self-employed persons. The brief of the united fishermen and allied workers union makes this very clear on page 10 of its brief, where it says:
Perhaps we should presume that since the powers of the cabinet are identical-
That is, identical as between the Unemployment Insurance Act and Bill No. C-136.
-there will be identical regulations in respect of commercial fishermen. Since all commercial fishermen in Canada are deemed to be employees engaged in suitable employment, and since all fishing companies and co-operatives are deemed to be employers of commercial fishermen, then it is axiomatic the cabinet will include all fishermen within pensionable employment and require the fishing companies and co-operatives to make the regular employer's contributions-
I think the brief of the united fishermen and allied workers union makes it clear that under the bill as presently drawn fishermen on the west coast, and probably on the east coast although I am not familiar with the east coast situation, can by regulation-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In relation to the section of the brief from which he has just quoted, I am wondering whether the hon. member would make the picture complete by reading the
Canada Pension Plan
next paragraph of the brief which makes reference to past experience in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act and the inclusion of fishermen under section 29(2), to which my colleague from Skeena referred a little earlier.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member is well taken. The brief goes on to say that these provisions were in the Unemployment Insurance Act before the fishermen themselves were actually included within the act by regulation. That was the very point I was coming to, just before the hon. member asked his question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is not misinterpreting that, and does he not agree that it makes clear that they were included only after the amendment to the act? Perhaps I should state that I remember that well, because I was in attendance here when that amendment passed, after the subject was argued for three or four years.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the brief makes it clear that after the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act the terms became identical with those proposed in respect of Bill C-136.
The point I wanted to make for the benefit of the Minister of National Revenue is that the brief makes it quite clear that Bill C-136 is wide enough to include, by regulation, the commercial fishermen of Canada, and that they can by regulation be included within clause 2(l)(q), in relation to employment.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to undertake that he and his officials will receive representations from the united fishermen and allied workers and other fishermen's groups before the governor in council draws the regulations pertaining to fishermen. I am sure that if the minister and his officials examine closely the situation relating to west coast fishermen they will find that there are many circumstances surrounding the way by which they make their employment and operate, which would indicate contract services rather than self-employment. I ask the minister to listen to the representations of the west coast fishermen before these regulations are drafted. I hope the officials now sitting before the minister will examine the methods by which these west coast fishermen make their living, and I am sure having done so they will clearly understand that their positions are positions of employment rather than self-employment.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the debate this afternoon I am reminded of previous debates of this committee. I am at a loss as to how I should approach the subjects I have in mind, because I do not intend to bring forward a package proposal but instead wish to direct the minister's attention to specific aspects of the application of this measure. I hesitate to bring these things to the minister's attention, but feel I must do so because of something the minister stated previously. In this regard I feel that we should be allowed some leeway during our consideration of clause 2. It was my understanding that we would be allowed to discuss various topics in a general way during our consideration of clause 1, as is the normal situation. However, it seems we are to be limited in our consideration of clause 2 to subjects relevant to that clause.
Mr. Chairman, the minister while speaking about this biil said that our remarks must be related to the specific subjects under consideration. I hope the minister will draw my attention to the fact that I am irrelevant, if and when I wander from the subject under consideration. I intend only to present arguments in respect of certain clauses of this bill which I think should be amended before they can be accepted. I am not suggesting in any way that we on this side of the house are in opposition to this measure, but I do intend to make suggestions in respect of certain improvements that obviously are necessary.
The first point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is related to the self-employed category. Perhaps I am interested in this category for personal and selfish reasons because I have the selfemployed farmers of Canada in mind, but I certainly hasten to state that I include fishermen in this category. In view of the fact that the hon. members for Skeena and Van-couver-Burrard have dealt with this aspect of the pension plan I do not feel it necessary to cover the ground again.
Mr. Chairman, I am specifically interested in the application of this bill, or the lack of it, to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen in Canada. To quote from a pamphlet I have before me, which states that the prime test of any pension plan is its relation to equity. Certain Canadian citizens in Canada will not be included for coverage under this proposed pension plan. Any pension plan which is properly conceived and
[Mr. Basford.l
executed must be related to equity. That being true, Mr. Chairman, why are certain categories of Canadian citizens in Canada not covered by this plan? Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister why individuals who are elderly, disabled, widowed or poor-by "poor" I mean those people who are in the lower 10 per cent earning class in Canada-should be left out of all considerations as far as this plan is concerned? Why should an individual who is an Indian, an Eskimo, or one who makes his living from the land, an orphan or a retarded or handicapped person, or frequently unemployed, be left out of consideration in respect of a Canada pension plan?
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that I am probably wandering from this section of the bill but, as I said earlier, we as legislators in this house are concerned with legislation which may mean a great deal to Canada. I admit quite frankly that a great deal of it does. I support much of what is in the bill but, as I have said, a bill of this kind should contain more equity. This is why I have put forward the reasons that cause me to wonder why the bill is not as equitable as it should be.
I want to bring something else to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, in a broad way, and I would appreciate your co-operation and that of the minister concerned. I should like to refer to a paragraph of a brief that was submitted to the committee by way of another plea for some sort of amendment to the bill that will provide the kind of equity I have tried to bring to the attention of the committee. The brief has the following to say with respect to the bill:
It cannot be looked upon merely as a social security measure. The very fact that it has gone through so many versions not only attests to the constitutional problems but serves to emphasize the economic implications involved.
I appreciate very much what the economic implications are. I attended the committee meetings as often as I could and I thought I got some grasp of the situation. If the things I mentioned earlier were incorporated into the bill by way of amendment and benefits were paid from the returns under the bill I maintain, and I think others will agree with me, that the plan would cost less. In other words, it would be very much cheaper to the taxpayers of Canada to do it this way by adding to the present bill and taking the money from the pension plan fund than

it would be to adopt the bill in its present form.
I will only take another moment or two, Mr. Chairman, and I know that someone is going to be very happy about that. I should like to put another quotation on the record:
Some people and active workers for a number of years were concerned at the recent action in the House of Commons in giving second reading unanimously without amendment to the proposed Canada pension plan bill. Many responsible people in this country are very concerned about the possible long range and immediate effects of this proposed piece of legislation. In particular, we feel that there are two aspects of the problem which require careful consideration: (a) The compulsory aspect of the plan and (b) the result of placing enormous sums of money for investment in the hands of the provincial and federal levels of government-
And so on. I read this only to emphasize to the minister what I said earlier with regard to the seven main categories not included under the bill which will receive no benefits whatsoever under the bill as now proposed. If these categories were definitely considered, particularly some of them, and payments were made from the Canada pension plan we would not be building up these huge sums of money and it would be cheaper in the long run to the taxpayers of Canada.
I only want to add one more thing. Something was said about amendments. At the moment I have not heard anything about amendments but I should like to suggest something concerning flat rate benefits without increasing taxes. As I said earlier, all persons over 70 receiving the old age security benefit should receive an additional payment of $25. It may be that not many members of the committee agree with this, but I suggest it very sincerely. I come back again to the fact that if the bill were amended and such a payment was made from this very fund we are talking about it would be very much cheaper than under the present plan. It would be paid from the Canada pension plan fund, as I said, Mr. Chairman, when the first benefits under that plan become payable on January 1, 1967.
I have two or three more things I should like to refer to but in deference to your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and that of the minister, I will not do so. I hope the minister will consider at least some of the proposals I have put forward.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, the house is called upon now to consider in committee one of the most important pieces of legislation which any parliament of Canada will be
Canada Pension Plan
called upon to consider for some time. The national pension plan is very far reaching in its effect and is going to affect every family in Canada. For that reason the house should take its time and devise a plan which, as the hon. member for Lethbridge has just said, contains the utmost possible degree of equity as between citizens of this country.
We are dealing with clause 2, which is the section containing the definitions for purposes of the interpretation of the act. I am very glad that the government house leader and the minister have consented to considerable latitude of debate under this section. The purpose of the pension plan is to enable our senior citizens, disabled persons and others who are barred from earning a living in the normal way to share more equitably in our national production. No party in the house has a monopoly on this purpose. All parties in the house are deeply interested, and over the years party conventions and party caucuses of all parties have dealt extensively with this problem. Now, it has come nearly to fruition. May I repeat that this house should take the time that is necessary to devise the best possible plan.
We have given this bill first and second reading and then it was referred to a special committee of the Senate and House of Commons for consideration. May I point out that it was rushed through the house during second reading. After sitting through all the months that this house sat last year without a break, it was found most desirable to curtail the general debate on second reading in order to get the bill before the special committee that had been promised, so that evidence from individuals as well as corporations across this country could be presented to that committee, thus serving the purpose of enlightening all those who are interested in the legislation. As I have said, the debate on second reading of this bill was curtailed and we got it to the committee.
I am very glad to note the attitude on the part of the government, namely that a free and full discussion of this measure will be permitted. Discussion is needed. We have heard the hon. member representing one of the Vancouver seats and the hon. member for Skeena raise points in connection with the fishermen and the different categories into which the fishermen may fit. These matters need to be threshed out so we know where these different classes of contributors and beneficiaries stand under the scheme.
I have saved a few clippings from some of the newspapers indicating the need for fur-

Canada Pension Plan
ther study of this bill. In an editorial appearing in the Globe and Mail of February 18, 1965, I find this, and I agree wholeheartedly with it:
The special Senate committee which studied the proposed Canada pension plan during the recess has not been very lavish with its recommendations for improvements. It has presented a body of information and some technical amendments, but its major recommendations, while moving in some of the right directions, wear a wishy-washy air.
This irresolution will ensure what was already a virtual certainty, that the plan will be exhaustively examined in the house.
Finance Minister Walter Gordon was talking nonsense at the week end when he suggested to a Toronto audience that failure to whip the pension legislation through parliament would be a calamity and the result of efforts by pressure groups that had been against it from the beginning. The plan is of vital importance to every Canadian. Almost the entire house is in favour of it in principle, and every member has a duty to play his part in seeing that it is the best plan possible within our means. The real calamity would be if they did not.
If it takes time, well, important matters cannot be rushed, and surely on such an issue no government retaining its senses would consider closure.
I am glad to note that the minister and members of the government have taken this attitude toward a free discussion, and therefore avoided any suggestion of closure. I continue quoting from the editorial:
Only parliament can have the final word, and it should be a reasonable compromise of all the viewpoints involved. The federal government may yet have to engage in extensive negotiations with the provinces before this is achieved.
Mr. Gordon cannot obliterate these necessary steps to a sensible pension plan by crying obstruction.
Then, I should like to quote from this editorial which appeared in the London Free Press:
Few measures in Canadian legislative history have been rearranged and altered more than the Canada pension plan. It is to come up for final consideration when parliament resumes.
In spite of the changes which have been made many reservations still come from responsible quarters.
Then, there is another dispatch from the Canadian Press which appeared in the London Free Press of February 11, 1965. It quotes the life underwriters association president, Mr. Etherington, as saying that one of the main faults in the plan is that more than one million Canadians now receiving old age security would never benefit from it. Mr. Etherington said that in order to provide a minimum income for this group, old age security payments should be broadened in scope and increased. Widows, orphans and the disabled should receive payments.

Then, the past president of this association, Mr. Donaldson, said that a mark against the proposed plan is that no one has thoroughly assessed it. He asked why the government had not appointed an impartial, well qualified financial expert to assess the feasibility of the plan. He said that almost everyone had attacked it, but had it been approved by an expert there would probably be little criticism. Mr. Donaldson said that Canada should study the United States social security plan and also try to find out whether we can afford a pension plan. The social security plan in the United States started with payroll deductions of 2 per cent. It now is up to 7 J per cent, will increase to 9 per cent in 1968 and 11 per cent in 1971. Canada proposes to offer greater benefits, but to take in less money. How can we do it when the United States which has had 30 years experience, cannot?
These are very important points which have been raised by other people who are experienced in the financial field and in the insurance field. Certainly this house should take cognizance of these objections and make sure that we avoid any of the pitfalls of which they may warn us. The life underwriters association raises some other criticisms. They say that the plan would provide nothing for today's aged. I quote from their criticisms:
Canadians not employed and those with low earnings would receive nothing.
Benefits would rise with earnings and thus provide the most for those least in need.
The hon. member for Lethbridge dealt on this point as well. I continue to quote:
It would provide the largest bonuses to those with the highest pensionable earnings.
The plan would push costs forward from one generation to another.
Its structure is complicated and would be bound to become unstable.
Pressures to use the fund to fill gaps in the plan's coverage would certainly develop, and if they succeeded the fund would have to be rescued by a tax increase.
The administrative problems would be substantial.
While integration of the old age security and private pension plans would be straightforward, integration of the Canada pension plan and many private plans would be complicated.
The reason behind that is stated to be that pension plans in industry generally are sound actuarially, whereas the national pension plan, which contains social security aspects, to some extent would not be actuarially sound.
The indexing of benefits would be an admission that inflation may not be controllable.

Here again we come to an idea which is somewhat frightening. We cannot admit that inflation is uncontrollable. If we admit it is, then how can we ever hope to sell Canada savings bonds and long term government bonds?
The addition of the plan to the old age security program would result in nearly one half the population having little incentive to supplement their savings privately.
I would not agree with that. I do not think a national pension program would have that effect. Far from discouraging savings, the present old age security program has proven to be an incentive to savings.
The brief said the proposed plan cannot be considered universal when some 2,000,000 Canadians fail to qualify because they are unemployed, earn too little, are in "excepted unemployment," do not receive cash remunerations or are now aged, widowed or disabled.
Again there is a plea that the pension be made to cover everyone.
Dealing with some of the subclauses in clause 2, I wish to make a plea that the entire clause be stood until such time as other clauses are dealt with, and I do this because many of the subclauses deal with other clauses in the bill. For instance, subclause (i) says that the "contributory period" of a contributor "has the meaning assigned by section 49." Subclause (j) says that "contributory salary and wages" of a person for a year "means an amount calculated in accordance with section 11." There may be good reason to amend section 11 but if we adopt clause 2 as it now stands it looks to me as though we could not then deal with clause 11. Subclause (k) states " 'contributory self-employed earnings' of a person for a year means an amount calculated in accordance with section 12." Subclause (m) states " 'disabled' has the meaning assigned by section 43," and subclause (n) says " 'Earnings Index' has the meaning assigned by section 21." If we adopt clause 2 as it stands, will we deprive ourselves of the opportunity of giving further consideration to the other clauses? In my opinion it would be wise to deal with these subclauses later.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question? Does he not agree it is normal procedure to pass the interpretation clause at the beginning and then, if there is anything in it that would not make sense later, following some substantive amendment of another clause, to return to the interpretation clause and make appropriate alterations? This is the way it is always done and it does not preclude the committee from dis-20220-735}
Canada Pension Plan
cussing all the clauses and moving all the amendments it wishes.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: If we can have a clear, hard and fast understanding to that effect, then possibly we could go ahead.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, if we did not proceed in that way it would not be possible to pass any legislation. I should point out to my hon. friend that of the 24 members who were on the committee, aside from the one amendment we have made, there has not come one suggestion from those members of the committee to amend any of the subclauses of clause 2.


Frank Howard: Before proceeding to pass clause 2, I have an amendment to propose. Contrary to what the hon. lady has just mentioned about 24 members being on the committee and none proposing any amendments, with respect to commercial fishermen there is a very valid reason why this was so.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard made reference to the fact that if the proceedings of the committee had been made public by now, we would have seen this aspect of the matter was dealt with in the committee on the last day. The record will show that it was only at the insistence of my colleague from Burnaby-Richmond that the subject of commercial fishermen came before the committee in the first instance, and this in its dying days. Further, I am given to understand by other members of the committee that at that stage there was not the opportunity to study fully this particular subject matter.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard also suggested that in a subsequent clause of the bill there is a provision giving the governor in council authority or power to regulate in some way, and thus bring commercial fishermen within the terms of the Canada pension plan as workmen or employees, and that we should defer our thoughts at this time until we see what the governor in council might or might not do with respect to the powers proposed to be given to him. He said, also, that the government would have to receive and study the submissions of the united fishermen and allied workers as well as submissions by other fishermen and groups of fishermen on the west coast. If this undertaking were given it should perhaps be sufficient for the time being.
I submit, however, that it is not sufficient, and I say this because the Minister of National Revenue made a clear statement just before six o'clock to the effect that the

Canada Pension Plan
government did not intend to make any alterations in this bill so as to change any of the provisions which it presently contains, as far as fishermen are concerned. I took that to indicate it was a matter of policy on the part of the government that the position of commercial fishermen under this bill is to remain unchanged. If that is government policy there is no need for us to plead with the government to receive and study representations, a decision having already been made to the contrary.
It might be well to have these amendments moved, or at least perhaps I should move one of them and indicate that there will be a subsequent amendment. Unfortunately I do not have copies in sufficient numbers to distribute to representatives of all the parties as well as to the Clerk at the table. But there are still a few minutes remaining before ten o'clock and if these amendments were put on record now, the committee would have a chance to study them. Then, when we meet tomorrow it will be possible for hon. members to argue one way or the other as to the merits of the proposals. The two amendments I have in mind refer to paragraphs (o) and (p) which contain the definitions relating to an employee and an employer. I think I should read them so that they may be on record in one place in Hansard. As far as an employee is concerned we propose:
That clause 2 be amended by adding in paragraph "o" of subclause (1) at the end thereof the following:
"and includes any person who is engaged in fishing who, for the purposes of this act, shall be referred to as a fisherman."
I would formally move this amendment, seconded by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, so that it may be before the committee.
I wish to mention also the amendment I hope to move subsequently. This involves a change to the definition of "employer" and it would read as follows:
That clause 2 be amended by adding in paragraph (p) of subclause (1) at the end thereof, the following:
"and in relation to fishermen includes any person with whom the fisherman enters into contractual or other commercial relationship in respect of his occupation as a fisherman."
I would point out that the amendment before you, Mr. Chairman, and the proposed amendment to the definition of "employer" are cribbed from the present provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act section 29(2) which was enacted in 1956.

I do not wish to prolong the discussion unduly. I will merely repeat that this is a matter of extreme importance and substance to fishermen on the west coast as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Bur-rard who is familiar with the fishing industry out there and knows at first hand the importance of this subject matter to those engaged in the fishing industry. I understand there are other members of the Liberal party who expressed support in the committee for the concept that a fisherman should be classified as an employee within the meaning of this bill, or in any event dealt with in such a way that his contribution would be 1.8 per cent of his earnings-the same as the contribution of any workman in other industries-and that the remaining 1.8 per cent of that total contribution should be contributed by the industry or by the company which employs the fisherman, or which buys the catch.
I wonder if I might at this stage call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gerald Augustine Regan: The question I asked today concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway and its proposed abandonment of passenger service across this country, and its determination to follow through such a policy, is in my view of great importance to members of parliament and to all Canadians. I think there are a great many members who are receiving representations on this subject day by day.
I would preface my remarks by saying that a national railway, even if it had not received vast governmental assistance in the years gone by-as it has-cannot, in a country whose population is strung out along a narrow belt 4,000 miles long, ever be considered as just an ordinary private company engaged in competitive free enterprise. A national railway in this country must be part of the very holding together of our nation and its operations must, to some extent at least, be directed in consequence of this fact.
We have a situation where the top officials and the president of the railway have been

going around the country saying quite openly and blatantly that which for years they said secretly, namely that they were plotting to get rid of their passenger services and carry only freight.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Regardless of the profits of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.


Gerald Augustine Regan: My constituency of Halifax is only slightly involved. We are concerned with the continued service of a dayliner on the Dominion Atlantic Railway, which is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway, from the Annapolis valley into Halifax. However, my main concern is a national concern. My attention has been directed to the subject because of the fact that the C.P.R. has served notice on the postal department that on June 23 they are going to abandon their mail contracts on trains 7 and 8 from Montreal to Vancouver and on trains 3 and 4 from Toronto to Sudbury, which is just one more step in drying up the revenue so that they can later on justify the abandonment of the service. This is the sort of program which this railway has been following.
I said earlier that this railway had received substantial governmental assistance over the years, and of course they have. In addition they received a strip of land across the country, some of which has been sold off. They found minerals on some other parts, received subsidies and have built up the vast prosperity of the empire known as the Canadian Pacific Railway on the strength of these governmental gifts. And now, like the son who receives an inheritance from his father on the basis that he is to maintain his mother, and then throws her out into the cold winter night-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -the C.P.R. would keep only that part of its service for which it is responsible to the Canadian public that it feels like keeping. It wants to cast off its passenger service and other services which are of such great importance to keeping this country of ours tied together.
I say only this, Mr. Speaker, that the C.P.R. does have a duty to Canada, and that we in this parliament on both sides of the house to whatever party we belong have a duty to Canada to see that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not allowed to operate like the pirates they sometimes picture themselves, but rather that we see to it that they fulfil their responsibilities to the Canadian
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion people and are not allowed, despite the fact that they are a privately owned company, to carry on this process of abandonment of contracts and services on such a wholesale basis. I suggest that the minister give full consideration to taking the matter up with the officials of the C.P.R. so as to see to it that at the appropriate time hon. members of this house have an opportunity to delve more deeply into the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax, who is a member of the railway committee, I am happy to say, will have opportunity quite soon, I hope, to delve into this matter. I really do not think that it is my business to defend the C.P.R. because, as the hon. gentleman has rightly said, it is a private company and is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. However, because of these rumours perhaps I should read an article written by a very respected journalist in the Winnipeg Free Press for February 13-


Mr. Turner:: Who is the author?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The author is Mr. Victor Mackie. He says:
The Canadian Pacific Railway is moving to improve the service on The Dominion for passenger traffic by transferring express and mail to fast merchandise freight trains, a spokesman for the railway said Friday.
Rumours have been flying that the C.P.R. was going to eliminate The Dominion. They have originated, the railway believes, from misinformation over the new plans the company is working out now for The Dominion.
Then the next is in direct quotes:
"These rumours undoubtedly have arisen as a result of our plans to improve the service on The Dominion by transferring head-end traffic (express and mail) from The Dominion to fast merchandise freight trains", the spokesman said from Montreal head offices of the C.P.R.
By transferring the express and mail to fast freight trains this will mean that The Dominion service is not subject to slowdowns and interruptions as has been the case in the past. It should mean faster, more regular trips by The Dominion, on schedule.
The Dominion in the future will carry just passenger traffic as does the other crack C.P.R. train, The Canadian, during much of the year.
There is no doubt that it has been late often recently. I know that, because I wake up to the C.B.C. broadcast which informs us which Air Canada flights are on time and which are not, and which C.N.R. trains are on time and which are not, and today it was announced that The Dominion was going to be eight hours late. I just happened to hear
11616	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that announcement today, perhaps in anticipation of the hon. gentleman's question.
I do not know whether this article is accurate or not, but it did appear in the newspaper and was written by a very reputable journalist. For those reasons I felt it

ought to be put on the record. Perhaps it will strengthen the hand of whoever in the Canadian Pacific Railway offices issued the statement.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.08 pun.

Tuesday, February 23, 1965