1966-07-06

CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-219, to amend the Criminal Code (maltreatment of a child).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Alfred Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to call upon members of the medical profession to report to the attorneys general of their respective provinces within a week any bodily injuries to a child which may, in their opinion, have been caused by maltreatment. This move is prompted by the many cases which have been reported recently in newspapers. I believe this is a worthy amendment, and I do not believe any further dilation upon it at this time is necessary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Gundlock: 1.	What is the time allowed in Canadian ports for ships waiting to load grain for export before demurrage is charged?
2.	What is the amount of demurrage charged?
3.	Who collects the demurrage?
4.	What is the total amount paid in the last five years?
5.	Who is charged demurrage and who pays the charge?
6.	On the average how many bushels of grain can be loaded onto a boat in a day in each port?
7.	On the average how many boats per day can be loaded in each port?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Finance as follows:
1 and 2. The time allowed in Canadian ports for ships waiting to load grain for
export before demurrage is charged, and the rate of demurrage charged, is a matter of contract negotiation between the shipping company and the exporting company.
3.	The shipping company receives the demurrage.
4.	Information not available.
5.	See 1, 2 and 3 above.
6.	The volume of grain that can be loaded into an ocean going vessel in a normal working day, based on past maximum performance and favourable weather conditions, at the following ports, is: Maritime ports, 750,000 bushels; Baie Comeau, 600,000 bushels; Quebec,
500.000	bushels; Trois-Rivieres, 400,000 bushels; Sorel, 600,000 bushels; Montreal, 1,800,000 bushels; Prescott, 400,000 bushels; Churchill, 500,000 bushels; Victoria, 100,000 bushels; New Westminster, 150,000 bushels; Vancouver, 1,500,000 bushels; Prince Rupert,
225.000	bushels.
7.	The usual grain cargo requires more than one day to load. The number of ocean vessels that can be loading simultaneously, given favourable weather conditions, based on past maximum performance, is: Maritime ports, 7 vessels; Baie Comeau, 2 vessels; Quebec, 2 vessels; Trois-Rivieres, 1 vessel; Sorel, 1 vessel; Montreal, 9 vessels; Prescott, 1 vessel; Churchill, 2 vessels; Victoria, 1 vessel; New Westminster, 1 vessel; Vancouver, 9 vessels; Prince Rupert, 1 vessel.


FINANCING OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION. B.C.
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1960, has any person, government, or organization made any representations regarding the possibilities of financing the construction of Highway 16 in British Columbia (being in the area between Prince Rupert and Prince George) and the construction of a road between Prince George and Jasper, Alberta, and, if so, what is the name of each such person, government, or organization, and the date upon which each such representation was made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Prime Minister's office is concerned. Yes, four representations have been received by the Prime Minister, recommending federal financial participation, from

July 6, 1966
Questions
the following organizations: British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Vancouver on three occasions dated August 29, 1963, undated but received on August 17, 1964 and August 16, 1965; and Associated Chambers of Commerce of Central British Columbia, Kitimat, B.C., dated December 3, 1963.
In so far as the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is concerned:
Yes, the Greater Kamloops Chamber of Commerce on July 10, 1963, and the Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce on December 11, 1963.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
Yes, the following letters were received: March 9, 1960, F. J. W. Fane, M.P., March 10, 1960, P. J. Lester, Mayor of Prince Rupert; January 4, 1962, Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, Minister of Highways for British Columbia; January 24, 1962, Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, Minister of Highways for British Columbia; March 23, 1962, Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, Minister of Highways for British Columbia; March 27, 1962, Greater Kamloops, Chamber of Commerce; November 8, 1962, District "B" Farmers' Institute, British Columbia; December 18, 1962, Northern Trans-Canada Route Association; October 24, 1963, District "B" Farmers' Institute, British Columbia; December 16, 1963, Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, Minister of Highways for British Columbia; December 2, 1964, District "B" Farmers' Institute, British Columbia; November 3, 1965, Prince Rupert, Chamber of Commerce.
trois-riviSires airport


Mr. Isabelle: 1.	What was the total amount spent for Trois-Rivieres airport?
2.	What was the amount spent for (a) the air terminal (b) the landing strip (c) the land and who was the former owner (d) the cost per acre and the extent or area of the acquired land (e) the evaluation of the land according to the municipality's records at the time of the acquisition?
3.	How long is the landing strip?
4.	How many of Air Canada's daily flights stop at Trois-Rivieres, and (a) where do these flights come from (b) what is their destination?
5.	How many commercial planes stop at Trois-Rivieres every day and to what companies do they belong?
6.	Can jets of the Boeing 707 or DC8 type land on the strip?
[Miss LaMarsh.l
7.	What was the revenue of Trois-Riviferes airport in 1963, 1964, 1965?
8.	What were the operating costs in the same years?
9.	By whom and for what reason was the airport built?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. $773,727.00.
2.	(a) $25,940 by the Department of Transport. The terminal building was actually built and financed by the city, (b) $747,787. (c) The land was purchased by the city and sold to the federal crown for $1. (d) and (el Information not available in the Department of Transport.
3.	6,000' X 150'.
4.	The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada has one eastbound, daily except Saturday and Sunday service (flight 450) operating from Ottawa to Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, and one westbound, daily except Saturday and Sunday service (flight 443) operating from Quebec to Trois-Rivieres and Montreal.
5.	This airport is operated by the municipality and not by the Department of Transport. This information should therefore be obtained from the municipality since it is not a matter of record with the department.
6.	No.
7 and 8. See answer to part 5 above.
9. The Trois-Rivieres airport was built by the Department of Transport in order to provide a suitable airport for Trois-Rivieres and to permit Air Canada to serve this community with Viscount aircraft.


SUBSIDIES TO AIR CARRIERS
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Does the federal government in any direct or indirect way subsidize any air carrier in Canada, other than Air Canada in (a) the domestic mainline service (b) the regional regular and non-scheduled service field?
2.	If so, in what manner and to what extent?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Post Office and Transport as follows:
Insofar as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	(a) Air Canada is the only carrier providing a complete domestic main line service on a transcontinental basis (b) Numerous regional air carriers convey mail on routes licensed by the Air Transport Board. In some
July 6, 1966	COMMONS
instances the licensed air carriers have a virtual monopoly in the region. The Post Office Department negotiates tor the most realistic rates for mail conveyance. Generally these rates are related to the charges established by the carriers for other commodities and for passengers, but take into account the priority requirements of mail traffic. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to ascertain what might be interpreted as an indirect subsidy. The Post Office Department pays no direct subsidies.
2.	Not applicable.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1 and 2. The federal government has provided direct subsidies to air carriers on an interim basis on a few occasions. At present, the payment of a direct subsidy has been authorized for one carrier, TransAir. This subsidy has been authorized to reimburse TransAir for losses sustained in continuing to operate its class I scheduled service to points in the prairies, which it had applied to suspend from April 16, 1966. The subsidy will be provided on a temporary basis for such time as is required for the Air Transport Board to hold a public hearing and determine the future operation of these services.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Have any new or amended regulations, by or under the direction of the Department of Transport with respect to community antenna television, been prepared or are any being prepared?
2.	If so, will the Department convene a meeting of interested organizations and holders of C.A.T. licences before any new regulations are put into effect?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the regulations made under the Radio Act are kept under constant review by the Department of Transport.
It is not administratively feasible to arrange formal meetings with all interested organizations and all licence holders every time an amendment in regulations is contemplated, but it is the practice of the government to consult regarding major policy development and representations have been received on several occasions from the Community Antenna Television Association of Canada, and any further such representations will be welcomed and given full consideration.
DEBATES	7259
Questions WILLIAM NEVILLE


Mr. Ormiston: 1.	Is Mr. William Neville at present filling a position in the government of Canada and, if so, what position?
2.	Was his appointment made by order in council and, if so, what was the date of the order?
3.	What is his present salary?
4.	What was the nature of the four previous positions he held outside of the federal government prior to his present position?
5.	What specific training or experience has Mr. Neville had as a writer, producer, director, story editor, or researcher or interviewer since 1953?
6.	What undergraduate and graduate university degrees does Mr. Neville hold?
7.	What oaths of office or of service has Mr. Neville been sworn to, if any, and upon what dates were the declarations taken?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes. Executive assistant to the Secretary of State.
2.	No. The appointment was made under the provisions of section 71(1) of the Civil Service Act.
3.	$15,000.
4.	February, 1965 to September, 1965: staff writer, Canadian Press; February, 1964 to February, 1965: Canadian news manager, United Press International; June 1962 to February 1964: Ottawa bureau manager, United Press International; June 1957 to June 1962: parliamentary reporter, United Press International.
5.	All 4 positions mentioned in part 4 involved continuous work as a writer, producer, editor, researcher and interviewer, of parliamentary and other national news.
6.	Bachelor of Journalism 1957, Carleton University.
7.	Declaration under the Official Secrets Act, September 20, 1965.


EXPENDITURES ON PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCES
Mr. Skoreyko: What was the total expenditure in each year since the first of January 1960 to date for (a) materials and fixtures (b) repairs and alterations (c) labour (d) furniture (e) bathroom fixtures and other equipment at the official residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive, and at the country residence of the Prime Minister at Harrington Lake?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 24 Sussex Drive
COMMONS DEBATES	July 6, 1966
	Questions				
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)1960-61	$1,430.00	$ 5,343.10	$ 2,066.40	$ 833.39	$ 619,601961-62	609.00	4,660.00	2,165.60	252.26	1,532.001962-63	398.00	1,857.67	1,786.40	-	1,935.001963-64	318.00	9,268.76	2,129.54	3,578.80	558.001964-65	282.00	5,899.62	3,543.62	692.90	2,481.001965-66	585.00	4,945.00	3,550.00	-	-TOTALS	3,622.00	31,974.15	15,241.56	5,357.35	7,125.60Harrington Lake	1960-61	-	519.00	-	-	-1961-62	27.00	828.65	-	-	-1962-63	-	326.25	-	-	-1963-64	-	9,747.46	55.00	8.00	-1964-65	-	4,176.45	-	-	337.401965-66	1,312.00	8,893.69	36.00	-	2,299.76TOTALS	1,339.00	24,491.50	91.00	8.00	2,637.16


NATO-MILITARY COSTS TO CANADA
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What is the capital investment to date, since Canada joined the NATO Alliance infrastructure in all countries in Europe?
2.	What is the capital cost of the squadrons of the R.C.A.F. stationed in Europe?
3.	What is the annual cost of maintaining these squadrons in Europe?
4.	What is the annual cost of maintaining one brigade of the Canadian army in Germany and other countries?
5.	What is the annual cost of transporting defence forces and their dependents between Europe and Canada?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Total contributions paid by all NATO nations to the NATO commonly financed infrastructure program since it began in 1951 have amounted to approximately $2,694,000,000 up to March 31, 1966. Canada's contributions paid during the same period have amounted to $152,300,000.
2.	The estimated capital cost of the aircraft presently supplied to No. 1 air division as at April 30, 1966, amounts to $211,600,000. Additionally, the capital costs of the fixed facilities at the Canadian bases of No. 1 air division are estimated to have cost $14,700,000, of which $11,000,000 was spent in France and $3,700,000 in Germany. These costs do not include the costs of those facilities commonly financed by the NATO infrastructure programs referred to in 1 above nor do they include the cost of facilities in Germany financed by Germany as a charge to occupation and defence support costs.

3.	The total estimated annual cost of maintaining No. 1 air division is $85,300,000. This figure includes certain elements of annual cost incurred in Canada in support of the air division such as operational training and airlift support.
4.	The estimated total annual cost of maintaining No. 4 CIBG in Germany is $64,500,000. This figure includes the cost of ammunition supplied from Canada and air-lift support costs.
5.	The estimated annual cost of transporting defence forces and their dependants between Europe and Canada is $7,500,000. This amount includes costs of moving and storing household goods in Canada and air-lift support costs for passengers.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	What is the total staff of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission?
2.	How many of these are professionally trained in the fields of economics, law, business administration, engineering, accounting and planning?
3.	How many of these have post graduate training?
4.	What are the salaries in each of these fields in the commission?
5.	What vacancies exist in each of these fields in
the commission?
6.	Is it the intention of the commission to enlarge its staff?
7.	How many of the staff are engaged in economic
research and planning?
8.	What research projects are in progress by the commission?
July 6. 1966


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: 1 and 2. The restrictive trade practices commission has a staff of five of whom four are secretarial and one is an economist.
3 and 4. The economist has postgraduate training and is paid a salary of $13,006.
5.	None.
6.	Not at the present time.
7 and 8. The commission does not carry on economic research except with reference to statements of evidence placed before it by the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION BRANCH
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What is the total staff of the Combines Investigation Branch?
2.	How many of these are professionally trained in the fields of economics, law, business administration, engineering, accounting and planning?
3.	How many of these have post graduate training?
4.	What are the salaries in each of these fields in the branch?
5.	What vacancies exist in each of these fields in the branch?
6.	Is it the intention of the branch to enlarge its staff?
7.	How many of the staff are engaged in economic research and planning?
8.	What research projects are in progress by the branch?


Guy Favreau: 1. Permanent staff: 72 (officers: 32; other: 40)
Temporary, technical or special assistants (sections 24 and 25 of the Combines Investigation Act): 16
(Includes 6 students employed for the summer who have as yet no degree in the professional subjects referred to in part 2 and one
technical assistant).		Temporary or	
2. Officers*		Special Assistants	
Economics:	13	Economics:	6Law:	11	Law:	1Accounting:	5	Accounting	-Business adminis-	Business admin-	tration	10	istration	2
In some cases persons are trained in more than one field and are shown in each field.
3.	Postgraduate training: Officers: 8; temporary or special assistants: 2.
Questions
In addition there are a number who have more than one undergraduate degree.
4.	Salaries of permanent officers range from junior executive officer to director and officers in different fields may hold the same position. The range of salary, as at June 15, 1966, in each position is as follows:
J.E.O.,	$4,920-$7,200; C.I.O. 1,	$4,920-
$7,200; C.I.O. 2, $6,798-$8,000; C.I.O. 3, $8,014-$9,158; C.I.O. 4, $10,081-$11,800; C.I.O. 5, $12,055-$13,600; C.I.O. 6,	$15,778-$16,900;
SCIO, $18,000-$19,000; Deputy Director, $20,250-$21,250; Director, $22,680.
Range of salaries will be changed as of July 1, 1966.
Students are paid in accordance with the salary schedule established by the Civil Service Commission (T.B. 648683) and these range from $400 to $430 per month depending on length of university training.
Other temporary and special assistants are paid according to qualifications. Some are paid on a per diem basis and others on a monthly basis.
5.	There are two vacancies in the professional staff. Steps are being taken to fill these vacancies.
6.	Yes. See report of the director of investigation and research, Combines Investigation Act, for the year ended March 31, 1965 at pages 77 and 79.
7.	In every major case some economic research is involved but in addition there are 9 persons working full time on economic research.
8.	General inquiry into mergers in Canada in the period of 1945-1961. Study of services presently not within the purview of the Combines Investigation Act.


SATELLITE APPLICATION. STATION CJCH TV
Mr. Coales: 1 Did the government impose a freeze on the consideration of an application by CJCH TV to the B.B.G. for an increase of power for its satellite that serves the Cumberland-Westmorland area of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will such an application be considered by the B.B.G. from CJCH TV and, if so, when?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The freeze on the extension of alternative television services was in effect prior to the receipt of this application.
2.	See statement by the Minister of Transport on July 5, 1966, in response to an oral

July 6. 1966
Questions
question from J. B. Stewart, M.P., parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works on page 7187.


ELECTRONIC LECTURE SYSTEM. NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Stanbury: Is consideration being given to the installation of an electronic lecture system in the National Gallery of Canada, similar to that in the National Art Gallery in Washington, to enhance both the educational value of the exhibits and their enjoyment by the public?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the National Gallery of Canada as follows: Yes.


BARLOW-COTE LABORATORY, QUEBEC
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Has the government knowledge that the Barlow-Cote Laboratory situated in Quebec city distributed S.D.M. tablets containing sulfamethoxy-pyridazine when they should have contained sulfa-dimethoxine as per the label?
2.	Have any measures been taken against this laboratory?
3.	Have legal proceedings been instituted?
4.	Who are the owners of this pharmaceutical company?
5.	How long has it been in business?
6.	How many products classified as "new drugs" have been put on the market by this company?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Barlowe Drug Laboratories, Registered, previously known as Barlowe-Cote Drug Laboratories, distributed a product containing sulfameth-oxypyridazine which was labelled as containing sulfadimethoxine. This labelling error has now been corrected.
2.	Not for the situation referred to in Question 1. However, measures against this company have been taken on several occasions.
3.	Yes.
4.	Mrs. Jeannine Cote Van Ular is the sole owner of Barlowe Drug Laboratories, Registered.
5.	Since 1961.
6.	Five.


RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRUG PATENT LICENSING
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Has the government decided to follow the recommendations contained in the Hilliard report 'Mr. Byrne.]
on patent licensing tabled in the House of Commons on May 12, 1966?
2.	Has the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare advised anyone that the recommendations of the above-mentioned report cannot be enforced under the Food and Drugs Act and, if so, what measures, if any, does the government intend to take to enforce them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Hilliard Report contained recommendations which related to both the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The Department of National Health and Welfare is prepared to implement the recommendations as far as the authority provided in the Food and Drugs Act will permit.
2.	The recommendations of the report have been discussed with appropriate officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Commissioner of Patents and representatives of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, as well as individual pharmaceutical manufacturers. While not all these recommendations can be implemented in the exact form proposed by the Committee, it is considered that their general intent can be met under the present Food and Drugs Act. Action has already been taken in regard to several of these proposals and the remainder are under study.


ANTI CIGARETTE SMOKING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Noble: What action has been taken since January 1, 1966, by the Department of National Health and Welfare in respect to the promotion of the anti cigarette smoking campaign?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The health educational material intended for the long term Canadian smoking and health program requires a lengthy production schedule but is progressively becoming available for distribution. Since January 1, 1966, two films produced for the Department of National Health and Welfare have been completed and released. One film is now being shown to the general public in theatres across the country; the other, a documentary film of the Canadian youth conference on smoking and health of May, 1965, is being distributed through public health and educational channels. In addition, the Department of National Health and Welfare has continued its experimental series of
July 6. 1966

display advertisements in a national monthly publication, Canadian High News, directed to high school students across the country. The distribution of pamphlets, reprints, fact sheets, films and bibliographies as well as the exhibition of special displays has also continued. A number of new items have been initiated including publications, posters and short films for television showing and will become available later this year.
The promotion of research into the extent and nature of smoking habits in Canada and the motivational aspects of smoking has been continued. A number of reports have been received since January 1, 1966 and are being reviewed or analysed.


INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the Canadian government given consideration to joining the world health organization's international agency for research in cancer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The relationship of Canada to the international agency for research on cancer has been under active and continuous study since the original initiative was taken in 1964 by the five founding governments and the agency was established by the 18th World Health Assembly in May 1965. The present position is to observe further developments and to reassess the question of membership on the basis of additional information to be made available in future reports of the agency and the World Health Organization.


ONTARIO AND QUEBEC MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many Canadians from (a) Ontario (b) Quebec were members of the Canadian armed forces from 1939 to 1945?
2.	Of this number, how many have left the armed forces and receive a pension (a) with respect to the province of Ontario (b) with respect to the province of Quebec?
3.	How many Canadians from (a) Ontario (b) Quebec were members of the Canadian armed forces during the Korean war?
4.	Of this number, how many have left the armed forces and receive a pension (a) with respect to the province of Ontario (b) with respect to the province of Quebec?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 413,364; (b) 179,705.
Questions
3.	(a) 46,278; (b) 22,307.
2. and 4. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to these questions and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


PAY OF ELECTRICIANS. DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Madill: 1.	When was the rate of pay per hour for electricians in the Department of National Defence last reviewed?
2.	Are staff requirements being filled by unskilled labour as a result of the rates of pay being below that of electricians in the surrounding industrial area?
3.	Are carpenters and plumbers being paid a higher rate of pay per hour than electricians by the Department of National Defence and, if so, is this resulting in transfers within the Department?
4.	Will a review of the wage status of civil servants working for the Department of National Defence be made in the near future?
5.	Has any adjustment been made in the past three years?
6.	Is the quality of maintenance and construction in the Department of National Defence falling short of requirements because qualified electricians cannot be obtained owing to rates of pay?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. The rates of pay for
electricians and other prevailing rate classes are reviewed annually by the Treasury Board and the Department of Labour, each locality having its own date of review. Consequently the rate of pay for electricians in each locality has been reviewed within the past year or is about to be reviewed.
2.	No.
3.	(a) Depending upon the locality, the rate of pay for electrician may be equal, higher, or lower than the rate of pay for carpenters and plumbers, (b) No.
4.	As the previous questions deal with prevailing rate employees it is presumed this is what is meant by "civil servants" and the answer is the same as in 1 above.
5.	Yes. In the last three years, there have been at least three reviews at each location and adjustments approved where warranted.
6.	No.

July 6. 1966
Questions


RAIL DIVERSION, SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM PROJECT
Mr. McLelland: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the diversion of the C.P.R. railway track between Brownlee and Elbow, Saskatchewan, due to the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?
2.	What is the estimated cost for the overpass being constructed over the C.P.R. line on No. 19 highway?
3.	What engineering firms were hired for this project?
4.	Were tenders called for this project?
5.	Who was responsible for determining the location of this diversion?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. $1,552,000.
2.	$105,000.
3.	Underwood McLellan & Associates limited, Saskatoon, were hired by the Province of Saskatchewan to design the highway overpass.
4.	Yes.
5.	The general location was developed by engineers of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the department. At the request of the province of Saskatchewan three alternatives on the north side of the valley were considered by the South Saskatchewan river development board, having regard to the effect on the recreation development and project cost. The present location was agreed to by the two governments and was subsequently approved by the Board of Transport Commissioners on application of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


FOREST ACCESS ROAD, CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What was the cost to the government for the clearing and construction of the forest access road built in the townhsip of Megiscane in the constituency of Chapleau?
2.	How many men were employed in the construction of this road?
3.	What contractors took part in the construction of this road?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1. The cost to the federal government for the clearing and construction of the forest access road in the township of Megiscane in the constituency of Chapleau between April 1, 1962 and March 31, 1966, amounted to $144,572.24.
[Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne) .1
2.	The number of men employed in the construction of this road were as follows: 1962-63, 26 men; 1963-64, 17 men; 1964-65, 24 men; 1965-66, 24 men.
3.	Nil-Construction of road by use of day labour.


R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, HAMPTON, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police renting or has the government purchased, the building they occupy at Hampton, New Brunswick?
2.	If the building is rented, what is the monthly rent and, if the building is owned by the government of Canada, how much did it cost?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.
The R.C.M.P. are renting the building they occupy at Hampton, New Brunswick.
2. $180 per month.


GNU DEVELOPMENT'S LTD., BANKRUPTCY
Mr. Macaluso: 1.	Is the superintendent of bankruptcy taking steps to investigate the bankruptcy of Gnu Developments Limited, Hamilton, Ontario, and its mortgage dealings with Traders Realty Limited?
2.	Is the Department of Justice actively investigating the same matter to determine whether charges of fraud or other criminal charges may be laid?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: As the hon. member for Hamilton West knows, Mr. Speaker, the superintendent of bankruptcy has a number of investigations under way at present. However, I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose which of the estates in bankruptcy is presently under investigation.

Question No. 1,775-Mr. Bell (Carleion):


SPECIAL SECRETARIAT ON BILINGUALISM
[Stage Direction]
1.	What are the names of the officers appointed to the special secretariat on bilingualism in the public service?
2.	What previous experience has each such officer had?
3.	Does any such officer have duties in the public service other than those appurtenant to the special secretariat?
4.	If so, what duties?
5.	To whom does the special secretariat report and which minister will report to parliament for its activities?
6.	Have any terms of reference or other statement of duties and functions been formulated for the special secretariat?
7.	If so, in what manner and what are such terms of reference or other statements of duties and functions?
July 6, 1966
Mr. P. E. Trudeau (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. John S. Hodgson,
director. Robert Elie, associate director.
2. Previous experience is outlined in the following biographies:
John S. Hodgson was born in Montreal, March 1, 1917, and educated at Montreal High School and McGill University. He was selected as a Rhodes scholar in 1937 and attended St. John's College, Oxford University. He was awarded his D. Phil, degree in economic history in 1940.
During 1940-41, Dr. Hodgson was in the Department of Labour where he worked on the drafting of the Unemployment Insurance Act. He served in the Canadian navy during the second world war 1941-45, for part of that time as assistant director of naval plans. He was awarded the O.B.E., and when demobilized held the rank of commander.
In 1946 Dr. Hodgson joined Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and in 1957 was appointed executive director. In 1959, he was appointed assistant secretary to the cabinet, a position he held until September 1, 1963, when he was appointed assistant deputy minister of national defence. He became principal secretary to the Prime Minister January 6, 1966.
From 1946-52, Dr. Hodgson was secretary of the Rhodes scholarship trust committee of the province of Quebec and in 1953 was its chairman. He is a director of the centennial commission and of Defence Construction Limited. He is Canadian government representative on the Canadian Council on Urban and Rural Research. He is an officer of the Canadian Club of Ottawa, the Boy Scouts Association of Canada and member of the Canadian Political Science Association and the Institute of Public Administration.
Robert Elie was born in Montreal, April 5, 1915, received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Montreal in 1935 and studied literature at McGill University 1936-1940.
He was a member of the founding group of the newspaper "La Releve" and was associated with the publication from 1935-1944. He was a reporter and arts critic for "Le Canada" and "La Presse" 1940-1943. He then joined the C.B.C. as editor of the information service and later became director of conference services.
In 1947-48 Mr. Elie was chief editor of the Montreal publication "Architecture". He returned to the C.B.C. in 1949 as assistant
Questions
director of the press and information service for the province of Quebec. In 1953 he became the director. In 1957 he left C.B.C. to become director, Ecole des Beaux Arts of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Elie was appointed cultural counsellor to the agent general of the province of Quebec in Paris in 1961.
He is the author of several novels and plays and was co-editor, with Jean LeMoyne, of "Poesies completes" and the "Journal" of Saint-Denys Garneau.
3 and 4. Yes. Mr. Hodgson is principal secretary to the Prime Minister.
5. The Prime Minister.
6 and 7. Yes. On April 6, 1966, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister outlined the government's policy and program on bilingualism in the public service of Canada. In that statement the Prime Minister announced that the secretariat on bilingualism was being established within the Privy Council office, and indicated that "working in close consultation and co-operation with the Civil Service Commission, the Treasury Board and all deputy ministers and heads of agencies, it will be responsible for ensuring the co-ordinated and progressive implementation of the government's policy and program regarding bilingualism in the public service".


P.F.A.A. EMPLOYEES UNDER CIVIL SERVICE ACT
Mr. Soulham: Is it the intention of the government to bring the permanent employees responsible for the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act under the provisions of the federal Civil Service Act, and as a consequence provide a much better sense of security for these valuable employees?


John James Greene: This is a matter of government policy and when a decision is reached, an announcement will be made.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, affecting those members who have questions on the order paper now, as well as myself. We have continuously asked the government to cooperate with members who ask questions which are ruled out on orders of the day and which have to be placed on the order paper. We expected these questions would be answered within a reasonable time. Many of these questions have been on the order paper for months, far beyond a reasonable length of time. We plead again for the government to concentrate upon answering these questions.

July 6. 1966
Motions for Papers
In my own case I want to direct attention to the fact that question No. 1,692 was placed on the order paper on June 14. It is a very straightforward question that does not necessitate any great deal of research, yet it has remained on the order paper for approximately three weeks. I would ask the government whether they would co-operate and answer these questions.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, respecting question No. 1,777, while it has not been on the order paper for a long period of time I understand that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is intending to close something like 30 to 40 offices during the summer months. Inasmuch as this may be the last day before the recess when questions will be called, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour will give some consideration to giving us this information so that by the time the question is answered all these offices will not have been closed.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I will give the suggestion very serious consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I too along with the other hon. members should like to bring to the attention of the house leader or whoever is responsible question No. 894, which has been on the order paper since March 1. This is not a complicated question by any means and does not require any research. I was wondering whether I could have a reply to it as soon as possible.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 145?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


CORRESPONDENCE TO, FROM AND RESPECTING A. G. HEAKES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of (a) letter of May 19, 1963, from A. G. Heakes to the Honourable Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Justice together with its covering letter of May 21, 1963 (b) letter from Miss Marguerite Ritchie, Executive Assistant to Honourable Lionel Chevrier of

July 16, 1963, acknowledging the said letter from A. G. Heakes of May 19, 1963 and its covering letter of May 21, 1963, to Mr. Chevrier (c) all other letters listed in Miss Ritchie's leter of July 16, 1963, to Mr. Heakes (d) complete dossier of court records relating to Mr. Heakes' proposal No. 37-1955 SCM as held in Department of Justice and in particular (i) original proposal of February 7, 1955 (ii) amended proposal of May 31, 1955 (iii) report of the debtor's proposal of September 14, 1955 with its attached record of creditors' meetings and minutes of said meetings (iv) judgment of November 22, 1955 ratifying said proposal (v) petition of Trustee Dansereau of June 3, 1958, to cancel proposal (vi) judgment of June 9, 1958, cancelling proposal; also attached envelope adressed by registered mail and returned as evidence that Mr. Heakes had moved from his place of business (vii) Trustee's motion for discharge of July 2, 1959 (viii) Trustee's petition to cancel unreinstated proposal of August 8, 1963, together with its attached exhibits of minutes of creditors' meetings held on March 8, 1955 and April 15, 1955 (ix) judgment of September 11, 1963, cancelling the unreinstated proposal for a second time (x) judgment of September 12, 1963, discharging Trustee (xi) notice of discharge hearing on September 12, 1963, if any (e) correspondence covering arrangements for postponement of discharge hearing as referred to by the Honourable Davie Fulton in Department of Justice estimates of June 9, 1961 (f) reports by Registrar Gerard Deniger to Department of Justice re cancellation of proposal including all correspondence with and/or reports on other contacts with Registrar Deniger (g) all correspondence and/or other communications with Trustee J. Alexandre Dansereau and/or reports on same (h) report on investigations into cancellation as recorded in speech by the Honourable Davie Fulton in Department of Justice estimates of June 9, 1961 (i) telegram of October 15, 1959, from Mr. Heakes to Mr. Favreau requesting production of papers relating to proposal (j) letter of February 4, 1965, to the Honourable Guy Favreau, Minister of Justice, together with its enclosure of letter of February 2, 1965, to the Rt. Honourable Lester B. Pearson (k) all letters to Mr. A. G. Heakes from officers and Ministers of Department of Justice and in particular (i) letter of February 5, 1960 from Assistant Deputy Minister Favreau (wrongly dated February 5, 1940) to Mr. Heakes (ii) letter of July 16, 1959, from Supt. Larose to Mr. Heakes (iii) letter of November 9, 1959, from Miss K. Kierans, Secretary to the Honourable Davie Fulton to Mr. Heakes (iv) letter of the Honourable Davie Fulton, referred to in said letter of Miss Kierans, to the Honourable George Hees (v) all other letters from officers of the Department of Justice and Ministers of Justice to Mr. Heakes (1) letters of July 14, 1959, and July 15, 1959 to Supt. Larose (m) letters and other communications from Mr. Heakes to officers of the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice listed in the said letter of Miss Kierans of November 9, 1959 (n) letter of August 20, 1963, from A. G. Heakes to Justice Minister (o) copy sent to Mr. Chevrier of telegram of August 25, 1963, from A. G. Heakes to Associate Chief Justice. George Challies (p) copy of brief submitted by A. G. Heakes dated September 1963 to House of Commons Standing Committee on Banking and Finance, re proposed amendment, Bill C-5, to Bankruptcy Act (q) all letters and other communications from A. G. Heakes to Prime Minister Pearson in 1963, 1964, and 1965 and in particular (i) letters addressed to him in January
COMMONS DEBATES	7267
Inquiries of the Ministry
July 6, 1966
1964	(ii) letter of December 20, 1965 (iii) letter of December 22, 1965 (iv) telegram of December 25,
1965	(v) letter of January 1, 1966 (vl) letter of January 17, 1966, with its enclosure of a letter of January 11, 1966, to Pierre Elliot Trudeau, M.P. (vii) letter of January 18, 1966 (viii) letter of January 24, 1966, with its enclosure (ix) letter of February 6, 1966 (x) letter of February 8, 1966, with its enclosure (xi) letter of February 9, 1966 (xii) letter of February 12, 1966 (xiii) letter of February 14, 1966.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, to accept this motion would involve disclosure of virtually the complete departmental file, which would be contrary to accepted practice. Therefore I must take the position that this motion should not be accepted.


Mr. Langlcis (Meganfic):: Then may I ask that this motion be transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred to notices of motions (papers).


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
bring to the attention of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State that I have yet to receive the papers covered by notice of motion No. 118, although the said motion was agreed to on April 27.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for papers Nos. 147 and 148 which appear on the order paper come within the purview of the Department of Trade and Commerce and I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) could answer them before the end of this part of the session?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, both these motions are acceptable, with the usual reservations about privileged correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that these two motions referred to by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) be deemed to have been accepted, subject to the reservation mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PAUL LABRIE AND D.B.S.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 147-Mr. Gregoire:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since November 8, 1965, between Mr. Paul Labrie of Arvida, Quebec and any official of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 148-Mr. Gregoire:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since November 8, 1965, between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Paul Labrie of Arvida, Quebec.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware of the emergency situation created in the C.B.C. which has had the effect of putting the administration of its public affairs department in a shambles? Is he aware that the program staffs of "Seven Days", "Compass", "Document' and the new bilingual program "Quarterly Report" have gone on strike and suspended operations, and that ACTRA 

that is the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists-are co-operating with the producers association in the dispute?
What does the Prime Minister intend to do
regarding this matter? What action is the government going to take?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any emergency situation in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but I should be very glad to bring to their attention the observations of my right hon. friend and ask them to report on that matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State might be able to supply or supplement the lack of information the Prime Minister has given the house. What action is

July 6, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry being taken in this connection? I ask this because I came in here originally intending to move the adjournment of the house, it is so
serious a matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Instead of doing that I felt information should be forthcoming.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I had a telegram at noon from Mr. Leiterman giving the text of a statement he had given out. I have not anything further from him, from management, or from the individuals named. The telegram indicates that Mr. Leiterman understands that two other producers are considering similar action. The programs mentioned are "Seven Days", "Document" and "Quarterly Report".
I should imagine that management will be dealing with this statement and with any action taken by Mr. Leiterman and the other two men, if such action is taken. There is also a reference to the "Compass" series.
I do not know that a delay of a day or so will constitute any sort of emergency with respect to the matter. The programs are prepared over some length of time in advance. It would seem to me that this is the kind of decision for which parliament selects managing officers and instructs them to manage. I would not suggest to the house that any of us would be in a position to decide whether this could be a matter of emergency. Certainly it will be some months before the fall season starts, some time in September or October. Another day or so surely will not have any effect on the matter.
I have no doubt that the president, vice president and the board will be making some statement later in the day and taking appropriate action.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. lady, the Secretary of State, feels that the proposed move to Toronto of Mr. H. G. Walker by the corporation is within the spirit of the Keate report, or the report of the parliamentary committee on broadcasting, or the white paper for that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question in this form is acceptable. The hon. member will recognize that when he asks a question about the removing or moving of employees and the spirit of a report, that is certainly not a question which should be asked now.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: My
question to the Secretary of State is supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the production staff ceased working at noon today? Also, I point out to her that the program "Compass" is not a fall program, but is scheduled for this Sunday.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not know whether in fact that action has been taken, but Mr. Leiterman is a very determined man. He says in this telegram which I received at noon that he is going to stop his staff working at noon, and I assume he did.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State inform the house whether it is true that Mr. Walker has been appointed vice president for the Toronto area following the director's meeting yesterday?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I heard this rumour yesterday, and I at once had the president contacted. I was informed that he had made a statement; I am not certain whether it was yesterday or this morning. Perhaps I might read it to the house:
I note that rumours are circulating that Mr. H. G. Walker had been appointed to the senior vice presidential position at Toronto referred to in the recent parliamentary committee report and in the statement which I issued yesterday on behalf of the C.B.C. board of directors. These rumours which began in Toronto yesterday afternoon and have since been given further currency on radio and television are false. The idea of establishing positions of certain V.P.'s at Toronto and Montreal was accepted by the board less than a week ago and there certainly has been no time to consider appointments to them.


MONTREAL-CONSTRUCTION OF HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell the house whether it is true that construction of the C.B.C. building in Montreal has slowed down and that this is not one of the immediate projects of the C.B.C.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think I know to what the hon. member refers. The new minister without portfolio
July 6, 1966	COMMONS
apparently did not understand the situation in Quebec. The statement which was given at the time at a press conference a week or so ago in Montreal is an accurate statement, and the maquette which was shown represents the building to be constructed.
It will be noted that the white paper tabled the day before yesterday indicated the government's approval of the construction. It also indicated that construction itself will not take place until past the peak of Expo construction, for the obvious reason that sufficient skilled people in the building trades are not available for all building tasks. So construction will be delayed in order to take the pressure off the demand for construction at Expo in the last month or so before its opening.
I am informed by Mr. Ouimet that the call for tenders has gone out. To my knowledge no replies have been received as yet. Excavation will not be started until October. I am told this will be one of the biggest excavations ever made. The digging will go on and the forms for the building and the foundations will be laid. It is not anticipated that the excavation will be completed until the spring of 1967 when construction will probably commence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. After hearing the minister's reply I have come to the conclusion that the question should have been placed on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that the question is not so urgent that he must obtain the information immediately, and I would suggest he put it on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask this question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In fact I gave him notice of it, but in his absence I should like to address it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the continuing escalation of the war in Viet Nam would the Prime Minister give consideration to the possibility of consulting with the governments of the United 23033-4601
DEBATES	7269
Inquiries of the Ministry Kingdom, France and other countries of western Europe for the purpose of making a joint appeal to the government of the United States to implement the proposal of Secretary General U Thant that the bombing of North Viet Nam be stopped as a first step toward possible peace negotiations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad, of course, to give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion, but I would point out that we are in close touch already with the governments to which he has referred and which share our concern to find a basis on which negotiations can be started looking toward peace in Viet Nam.
I am not convinced, however, that we have reached the stage where public appeals to one side or the other are likely to be more productive of results than the kind of diplomatic efforts upon which we have been engaged over recent weeks and months. With regard to the particular proposal of the Secretary General of the United Nations I do not think I can go beyond the reply given to a similar question by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on June 21.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry who is responsible to the house for the National Research Council. It is based on a National Research Council news release issued today in which the statement is made that a council study group has urged the Canadian government to establish a national motor vehicle accident research centre to find ways of reducing the number and seriousness of accidents on Canadian roads and highways. I should like to ask the minister whether the government is giving serious consideration to this recommendation and when we might expect an announcement with regard to it.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the government is giving serious consideration to this recommendation and would not like to set a deadline for an announcement.
7270	COMMONS DEBATES	July 8, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
HEALTH AND WELFARE	BROADCASTING
MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER	STUDY OF COAST TO COAST SERVICES
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE	IN BOTH LANGUAGES
On the orders of the day:


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have any of the provincial governments requested that a meeting be held between the provincial ministers of health and himself regarding the medicare legislation which is expected to follow the medicare resolution, No. 82 on the order paper today? If so, does the minister expect to call such a federal-provincial conference in the immediate future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health for the province of Alberta has requested me to convene a meeting of ministers of health and I sent out telegrams, almost immediately upon receipt of that request, to all the other ministers of health in Canada. It will depend on the response received whether such a meeting will be convened. Certainly if there is an interest in having such a meeting at an early date I shall be happy to convene it.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO SUPPORT BY BUSINESS COMMUNITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Were the results of his conference with businessmen in Toronto yesterday such as to convince him that Expo '67 will receive the necessary support from the business community in Canada to make it a resounding success?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, we had a very good conference yesterday in Toronto at which four companies and the Salvation Army announced their participation in and sponsorship of projects at Expo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: Expo, however, is still not receiving the full measure of support it merits from private enterprise. Participating in Canadian institutions is one of the important principles of good corporate citizenship. The principles of good corporate citizenship were uniformly well received, and on the strength of that I expect that more Canadian companies will now wish to participate in Expo.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Secretary of State which relates to the recently released white paper on broadcasting. On page 9 it states:
The time has also come to consider full national network services in both official languages from coast to coast, and a detailed study of all aspects of this question will be undertaken forthwith.
In view of that statement is the hon. lady in a position to tell us when this study will be undertaken and by whom it will be carried out?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, it has been undertaken. The word "forthwith" was inscribed on paper some weeks ago before the document was printed. I understand it is being done under the aegis of my learned and cultured friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCILS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Secretary of State. I wonder whether the hon. lady could tell us how the regional broadcasting councils which are mentioned in the white paper on broadcasting will be established, and if it is possible that these councils will be set up without reference to parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question is out of order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, to give more gravity to our discussion may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask him would he advise the house whether he has received a brief from the dockyard trades and labour council in Halifax and, if so, will he assure them and the Atlantic community, and indeed the whole nation, that he will meet with them in the very near future for the purpose discussing the contents of that brief?
July 6. 1966


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received that brief, and I am pleased to inform the hon. member that I have written this morning to the president of the dockyard trades and labour council, telling him I am trying to arrange the requested meeting with representatives of the Department of National Defence and Treasury Board, and I hope it will take place within two weeks' time as requested.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I take this opportunity to answer a question asked of me yesterday by the hon. member for York-Scarborough concerning Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto. A draft agreement with respect to this hospital has now been completed and concurred in by representatives of the government and the province of Ontario. It has not been signed, as it must await the passage of enabling legislation by the province.
The agreement will actually be with the governors of the University of Toronto and a new corporation, to be known as Sunnybrook hospital, rather than with the province directly. I am pleased to report also that veterans will continue to have priority of admittance to Sunnybrook hospital.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION OF BOX CARS TO MOVE GRAIN On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as reporting to the house for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that there are only 21 shipping days left before the end of the crop year, July 31, will the minister confer with his colleague the Minister of Transport in order to see that sufficient box cars are directed to several grain congested areas in western Canada?


Hon. Mifchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the Canadian Wheat Board within the last 24 hours and they are doing everything possible to equalize quotas. I think the railways this year have done a magnificent job, and I would like to put that on record.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



COMPLAINTS RESPECTING ALLEGED PROVISION OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received complaints from members of the I.L.A. regarding the industrial inquiry commission to be set up? Further, has he been informed that during the progress of discussions, at which the Prime Minister was present, it was made celar by the representatives of the International Longshoremen's Association that nothing that was done in the setting up of a commission should in any way bring about final and binding decisions? Would the minister tell the house and the country what actually took place in this regard, and what representations were made by the I.L.A. representatives and accepted by the government?
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part, the premise to the right hon. gentleman's question, I can say that that statement is not accurate. When the legislation comes before the house, certain of my cabinet colleagues and I will have full, detailed statements to make, statements that could not be made on orders of the day. In the meantime we will give consideration to the request made to the Prime Minister yesterday by the right hon. member for York South for the tabling of certain documents. They will be filed, I hope, within the next 24 hours.


David Lewis: Thank you for calling me right honourable.


John George Diefenbaker: For the sake of clarity, what did the minister mean when he said that the first part of the question was inaccurate? What portion of the question was inaccurate; and I ask this because I was depending entirely on information from the I.L.A.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is hard to take statements out of context but I can say this, as I did in answer to a question put by the hon. member for York South some days ago; that before the settlement was agreed upon there was an assurance that legislation would be introduced, and the longshoremen had full knowledge of that fact before the settlement was reached.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it also understood
that any decision made by the commission would be binding and irrevocable?

July 6. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This is part of the difficulty Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
when you get into debate, and this is be- Yes, Mr. Speaker; I will be glad to give that coming a debate. I think when the documents assurance of our desire and intention. If I are tabled, which I have assured the house leave the house in the next minute it will be will be done within the next 24 hours, I hope, jor ^at purpose, that this will be clear to all hon. members.



VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE TROUBLE FOLLOWING IMPRISONMENT OF UNION OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour which I asked yesterday of the Solicitor General with respect to the imprisoned longshoremen on the west coast. In the minister's absence I asked the Solicitor General whether consideration would be given to using the powers of the governor in council by way of pardon, remission or otherwise, to have these men freed as soon as possible. The Solicitor General said he proposed to take the question as notice so he would have an opportunity to discuss it with the minister. Has the minister any information on that point?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when the question was put yesterday I was on my way back from the west coast. After prior consultation with the Prime Minister and while in Vancouver on Monday of this week, I met with representatives of both parties, including two of the leaders of the I.L.W.A. I have been able to give a brief report to the Prime Minister, relating to the request for clemency, but I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the information I gathered with my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. I hope to do so today, and the matter will shortly come before cabinet for consideration.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the important meetings now being held here in Ottawa with delegates from the Caribbean nations. Will the Prime Minister give the house a report and reassert the government's determination to make the results of these meetings lasting and fruitful?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government house leader, and ask whether he would consider bringing forward order No. 83 which has to do with the measure to establish an immigration appeal board. My purpose in making this suggestion for his consideration is that it would give an opportunity for Canadians of ethnic origin and others to study the bill and prepare their briefs. We in our party on this side of the house are prepared to pass this resolution without any debate provided the government house leader can obtain the same assurance from the other groups in this house.


Gilles Grégoire: We are
ready to say to the Minister of Public Works that there will be no objection from our group.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is our position too, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: We are in
agreement with such a suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the splendid co-operation we could call it as the first item today.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the same matter, I should like to ask the government leader to hold public meetings of house leaders in the House of Commons, in order that we might always obtain such speedy results as we had today.
July 6. 1966



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 the hon. member from Halifax inquired of me about the classification revision program as it affects the Department of National Defence. I am informed that the department is today issuing letters to its personnel officers across Canada defining the effect of the classification revision program and outlining how employees are to be informed of the effect of the program as it concerns them.
Hon. members should also not lose sight of the fact that the revision program is being carried out as a prelude to the era of collective bargaining. One of the basic purposes of the pay conversion rules is to provide, as far as is possible, a system of classifications that will enable collective bargaining to be carried out in an orderly fashion. I must also point out that contrary to the impression that seems to have been created, a good number of employees are benefiting from the conversion; that is, they are green circled.
One further point is that the conversion program is not, as some quarters have indicated, a device to save money, since the additional cost of implementation of the program is expected to be about 2 per cent of the present payroll.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask this question of the Prime Minister, but in his absence I should like to direct it to the Minister of Industry. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has received a letter from the provincial member for Bruce in which that member states that unless a commitment made by the government concerning the designation of the Kincardine area is honoured, he would in future not be able to associate himself with any further declarations.


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


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe the original question was in order. The hon. member might try to put a separate question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, with all deference the minister did answer the question; but I will rephrase the question I wish to put to the Minister of Industry. Is the minister aware that in regard to the request put forward by this particular Liberal member of the Ontario legislature, this was proposed by his supporters and by the government in the last election campaign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question appears to be out of order for many reasons.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, once again I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when we may see on the order paper the legislation regulating pensions which come under federal jurisdiction.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect the hon. gentleman will be able to satisfy his curiosity tomorrow or the next day.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to that learned and cultured gentleman the Minister of Transport. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is in a position today to reply to the question I posed on Monday in reference to the reported curtailment of operations at the Sydney airport.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, sir. Since I do not seem to be able to find the answer among my papers I will do it by memory and correct it tomorrow if I am wrong.
It has been the opinion of the technical officers of the department that between midnight and I think eight in the morning the local air traffic control is not necessary because other arrangements are being made to meet that problem. As for the airport itself, it will be open all the time.


Robert Muir: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether similar steps are going to be taken in the province of Newfoundland with reference to airports in that area.

July 6, 1S66
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there have been equally great curtailments in the province of Newfoundland. I regret any curtailment of any sort in either of these provinces.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Transport, who laments the curtailment of air facilities, whether he has the same dismay over the curtailment in respect of the maintenance base of Air Canada at Winnipeg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to rejoice over the immense new air cargo base being built by Air Canada at Winnipeg, and I am sure the hon. gentleman does too.



CANADIAN COAST GUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to answer the question I asked on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to answer the hon. gentleman's question if I could remember what it was. Perhaps he might refresh my memory.


Howard Russell MacEwan: May I say on that point that the minister made quite a good announcement on the Canadian Coast Guard vessels and so on, and it is something he should not forget.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is expected that the first tender will be called before July 15.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I should like to ask him whether he has received a resolution passed by the branch presidents of the customs and excise officers association protesting the implementation of the classification revision program, particularly because of the fact that as a result of this reclassification as many as 40 per cent of their members in an administrative support category have been reduced and downgraded. What is the reaction of the minister to the complaint received from this very responsible body?

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet seen the particular telegram mentioned by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I should point out to him, however, that as a result of the group B revision which took place last week a good many customs and excise officers will be taken out of the red circled positions. In addition, officers of the association were in touch with my deputy minister last week and within the department we are examining all the people who are red circled. We are considering whether they can qualify for movement to other positions, and so on.
Also I should like to point out that every person who is red circled has been red circled by the Civil Service Commission and the individuals have the right of appeal.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is from a telegram of the day before yesterday. I should like to ask the minister this. What is the reaction of the government to the request for a regulatory group distinct and separate from the clerical group for people performing regulatory functions?


Edgar John Benson: As I said, this particular telegram has not yet come to my attention. Therefore I could not react to this particular question.


John George Diefenbaker: Will you tomorrow?


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise hon. members that the question period has expired. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) may ask a supplementary question tomorrow.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Immigration Appeal Board and to make provision for appeals thereto in respect of certain matters relating to immigration and to provide for the appointment, remuneration and expenses of the members of the board and the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the conduct of the work of the board.
July 6, 1966

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to establish an Immigration Appeal Board. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Marchand thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an Immigration Appeal Board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Sharp-Mr. Rinfret in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Bank Act and the extension of the charters of the existing chartered banks till July 1, 1976, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, after the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) last night outlining the decennial revision of the Bank Act, I am pleased to support the attitude of the government which is giving the public a thorough reform of our financial system.
However, before discussing that resolution in detail, allow me to make a few comments on the reactions we have had about it so far. It is interesting to note that in the house last night the various spokesmen for the opposition parties adopted rather surprising and unrelated stands.
The Leader of the Opposition blamed the government for disregarding the proposal made by Mr. Justice Porter who recommended in 1964 the complete and immediate removal of the ceiling. He seemed to misunderstand the attitude of the Minister of Finance who said that in the present economic circumstances it is not possible to remove the ceiling immediately but that when the monetary situation has improved in the country, we will be able to remove it. Moreover, if he
Bank Act
had paid the slightest attention, he would have understood that the recommendation of the Porter Commission will eventually be implemented in our present system.
As far as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) is concerned, it is surprising to hear him say that he is not against the principle of removing the interest ceiling but that on the other hand, he is against the removal.
It is hard to understand that one can be in favour of a principle and against its application.
As far as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) is concerned, he says that his business experience has led him to make numerous transactions with banks and that, although there is a ceiling on the interest rate, he has always paid more than 6 per cent, and he is asking the government to maintain what he himself considers useless, namely a ceiling rate of 6 per cent.
And, of course, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) agrees that more flexibility is needed in our system, that some loans at 6 per cent are not adequate and do not bring the banks enough, and I think that he shares the government's opinion on that matter.
I was pleased this morning to note that despite certain insinuations that we read in the newspapers, the president of the Royal Bank, Mr. McLaughlin, seemed very annoyed and dissatisfied with the present reforms. But, Mr. Chairman, we did not take action in the interest of banks, with all due deference to Mr. McLaughlin, but in the interest of the Canadian public.
This decennial revision will certainly be welcomed by the newspapers and the public as the most radical measure since the institution of the Bank of Canada about 30 years ago. It will likely increase the confidence of the public in our banking institutions and in any future decisions of the government concerning the monetary policy of our country.
Since the submission of the Porter report in February 1964, a great deal has been written and said on the reform of our finan-c al system, on the evils paralysing the efficiency of that system and on the possible cure. To sum up what the public in general pointed out, it is the absence of an actual and aggressive competition between the various financial institutions.
It is easy to note that the Minister of Finance has decided to implement the necessary reforms for such a competition between

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
all levels of financial institutions in Canada, and I think he should be very warmly commended.
Analysing the minister's statement, we realize immediately that the present banking reform deals with the very structure of our institutions and extends to their methods of dealing with the public.
Contrary to what the newspapers and commentators led us to believe recently, the minister's plan goes much beyond a simple change in the ceiling of interest rates. It grapples also with the very structure of the board of directors of banks, the qualifications of directors, and requires the disclosure of their reserve, of all kinds. It increases their field of action by allowing them to make mortgage loans; it sets up insurance for deposits and, moreover, it prohibits agreements between banks to fix interest rates.
The first point I should like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, is that of the ceiling on interest rates which has given rise in the last few weeks to much public curiosity. The Minister of Finance has just announced in his speech that the government intends to remove the present ceiling on the rate of interest charged by banks, when economic and monetary conditions in Canada are such that the decision of the government will not lead to unduly high rates of interest on bank loans.
The 6 per cent ceiling was adopted some 40 years ago, when the money market was entirely different from what it is now.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Indeed, at that time the rate of interest on bank loans or government loans was 1, 2 or 3 per cent, while the ceiling was 6 per cent. That ceiling gave a great deal of flexibility and elasticity to the banks, as there was a differential of at least 3 per cent between the normal rate on the market and the ceiling provided for by the act. That statutory ceiling has not been changed in 40 years. What was a ceiling then, is almost a floor now. Obviously, it is now an obstacle to normal money transactions; it has fostered the development of certain institutions which, using this lack of freedom for the banks, take an unfair advantage of such borrowers as have little credit, and occasionally charge them usurious rates of interest.
Under the present system, Mr. Chairman, big borrowers definitely have an edge over small people who need money. As banks have become the cheapest source of capital supply for corporate and individual borrowers, since there is a 6 per cent ceiling on interest rates,

there developed recently a practice which clearly discriminates against small borrowers.
Generally speaking, the small borrower who comes to a bank gets a loan at a rate higher than 6 per cent, since the banks have found a legal way to make personal loans at 9 and 10 per cent. This means that small borrowers, whom some people want to protect through a 6 per cent interest rate, enjoy no protection whatsoever in the present context.
It follows that the 6 per cent bank loan market is available to two particular types of borrowers, that is small businessmen and industrialists and big businessmen and industrialists.
As banks are limited to a 6 per cent ceiling, there is absolutely no leeway possible-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member is now seriously misleading the house. A while ago, he said that banks lend money at 9 and 10 per cent and then he says that there is a 6 per cent ceiling. The hon. member would have to make up his mind between the two. Is it a 6 per cent ceiling, or do banks lend at 10 per cent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member-he should first allow me to finish my speech-I actually said the ceiling of interest is set at 6 per cent, but that banks have the right, nevertheless, to grant personal loans at a higher level than 6 per cent.


Gilles Grégoire: There is no ceiling.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member should know that there is a difference between a business loan, an industrial loan and a personal loan.


Gilles Grégoire: There is no ceiling, then.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Just listen, and you will understand. We are advocating a sound system rather than a money printing machine.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, banks are restricted to a 6 per cent ceiling and they are strictly prevented from speculating on the rate of interest when called upon to consider granting a loan to a particular person. Instead of diversifying their loans according to the risk involved and charge 6 per cent to some borrowers and 7 or 8 per cent to others, according to the risk, since they are not allowed any latitude at all, banks are forced to make loans at the best possible risks, at
July 6. 1966

the expense of small borrowers who always have less security to offer than big borrowers. This ceiling results in an imbalance, because it deprives the banks of full discretion to vary the rate of interest according to the risks involved.
Right now, the small manufacturers and businessmen who cannot do business with the banks are forced to deal with other financial institutions from which they borrow at considerably higher interest rates, sometimes up to 15 and 20 per cent.
The irony of it is that those financial institutions other than banks, lending money at rates much higher than the banks, are often supplied with capital by the banks-


Gilles Grégoire: They are supplied by the banks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -at the rate of 6 per cent, and then they lend such capital at higher interest rates to small consumers who cannot at this time do business with the banks.


Mr. Gauthier:: They belong to the banks.


Gilles Grégoire: Those institutions belong to the banks.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: They have the same directors.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Obviously, it is hurting the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to hear us talking of bank reform-


Gilles Grégoire: It does not hurt me, it makes me laugh.


Mr. Guay:: Read the speech of the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and you will have more to laugh about.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Consequently, Mr. Chairman, there appears, between the small borrower and the banks, a useless middleman who increases considerably the cost of money. If the present ceiling on the interest rate were inexistent, the banks could possibly be in a position to lend to the small businessman or the small manufacturer with less security at a rate of 7 or 8 per cent. The banks would then be able to cover the additional risk and these people would not have to turn to finance companies.
The removal of the ceiling on the rate of interest, when financial conditions allow, will result in greater competition on the money market and banks will be able to compete with other financial institutions with regard to all sorts of loans. This competition will then diminish the rate of interest.
Bank, Act
The following is the best example of this fact. A few years ago, when only finance companies gave personal loans-for the banks had not found a legal way to do it-the rate of interest was much higher.
When banks began to deal with personal loans, competing with finance companies and other similar institutions, the rate of interest on personal loans fell to about 9, 10 and 11 per cent instead of the former 15, 16 and 17 per cent.
Thus we have seen, these last few years, the rate of interest on small loans become stabilized at around 10 per cent. Therefore, if the present reform allows banks to deal with all types of loans, including mortgage loans, this additional competition on the Canadian loan market will lower the rate of interest, for there will be greater competition to attract borrowers, and I think everyone will profit thereby.
You will perhaps allow me to give you an example-


William Heward Grafftey: Will the hon. member permit a question at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After my speech, Mr. Chairman.


William Heward Grafftey: After your speech?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: And what about Lacombe Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will answer the hon. member for Lapointe that, personally, I am not a graduate of the Lacombe Act.


Gilles Grégoire: In financial law?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, let me call your attention to a case which struck me tremendously and shows very clearly the existing gap in our system.
Some large companies and municipal corporations misuse the system in this way: as bank interest rates for company loans to the corporations cannot exceed 6 per cent, some big borrowers request short-term bank loans at this rate under the usual pretences.
For instance, a company intended some time ago to go on the security market to finance an undertaking of $5 million. Those people went to a banker and explained their problem. They said: We will go on the security market in three months to borrow $5

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
million; since we urgently need funds, could you lend us immediately $5 million at 6 per cent for three months?
Of course, the bank which is an institution to finance large companies on a short-term and long-term basis agreed to lend them $5 million at 6 per cent. When the three-month period expired, the banker asked that company to reimburse the $5 million. The company which, three months before, has given the banker a letter saying that it intended to go on the market in the following weeks told him: Unfortunately, we are not in a position to pay you back, we are no longer interested in going on the market, because if we do we will not pay 6 per cent but 6J per cent.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
And so, instead of giving a temporary loan of $5 million for three months, the bank had to extend the term of the loan over a period of months and even years. Consequently, it did not have that $5 million to loan small borrowers. Moreover, there was no way for it to force the company to borrow on the market. Naturally, this unbalance was due to the fact that banks are not supposed to finance long term projects; they are intended to provide short term loans to those companies.
The net result is that the banks' important source of short term funds is exhausted for the benefit of large companies; the small borrower, the small merchant and the small industrialist must turn to the near-banks, to which the ceiling does not apply, to borrow money at interest rates of 12, 14 and 15 per cent instead of borrowing from banks for perhaps 7 or 8 per cent, depending on their ability to reimburse and their credit rate.
May I be permitted, on this score, to quote from an editorial published in the newspaper Le Devoir for Tuesday, June 28, 1966 over the signature of Mr. Claude Ryan:
If the banks are to play a dynamic role within our financial system, for what reason should they be bound by limits which, if they were strictly observed, would reduce them to marginal factors in the system. In fact, the current situation breaks down the borrowers into two classes: the safe borrowers (generally the large borrowers) who are the primary beneficiaries of the 6 per cent loan system and the others-the small businessmen, the small manufacturers, the thousands upon thousands of individuals-who are being blindly cast into the maws of the 10 per cent and over lenders. Paradoxically, those who favour higher interest rates are running the risk of being considered as big, bad wolves while, in fact, the puritanical maintenance of the prevailing dichotomic situation seems much more contrary to the real benefit of the public.

I could also quote another editorial from a newspaper which is the mouthpiece of small businessmen, asking for the removal of this ceiling, which is unfavourable to the small businessmen.

We have said before in these columns that small business is often too big a risk at the rate of six per cent interest for the bank to touch him. We have often said that the ceiling should either be raised or removed altogether to make small business more attractive to the banks.

And this newspaper is the official mouthpiece of small businessmen in Ontario.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair to say it is of the utmost importance for us to take the necessary steps in order to rectify the situation as concerns our banking system, namely: to play an energetic and positive part in our economy and, to this end, our banks must, by all means, compete with one another, so as to secure the best rate and service possible for consumers. At present, there is no competition at all between banks, since they have no freedom at all, and with such a system, instead of providing loans under some kind of competition, they are using discretion that often promotes only the interests of the friends of the system and the people close to our major banking institutions.
On this point, I am happy to see that the Minister of Finance mentioned in his speech that he would take the necessary steps to prevent banks from agreeing among themselves to set a rate of interest to be paid on deposits and a rate of interest they would charge on the loans they make. The rate should be fixed by competition, and that is how we will see real competition between all our financial institutions. That will be greatly helped if this liberalization of the Canada Bank Act promotes the establishment of new banks in Canada.
I am also happy to see that the house passed yesterday the bill establishing the Bank of Western Canada. I am glad the minister mentioned in his speech yesterday that the government wishes to see many new banks established, so as to promote competition between these vital institutions in our system.
As the hon. member for Lapointe is familiar with the banking system, he may try to have a bank of his own.
July 6, 196G


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for St-Maurice-La-fleche but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: He may continue-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I put a
question to the hon. member?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Just one more word, Mr. Chairman. I referred only to one point of this banking reform. There are many other measures which are important and which should be taken into serious consideration.
For instance, there are mortgage loans and consumer credit; in fact, the minister announced that there would be a federal-provincial conference to consider the subject of consumer credit in Canada. The minister also suggested that bank directors should not be directors of trust companies or "near-banks" in the future, that banks will not be able to hold more than 10 per cent of shares of any Canadian corporations.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the present reform of the Bank Act is a reform in depth, a necessary reform which will renew our banking system; it will allow, between a great many institutions, a competition that will be of great benefit to our system and to all Canadians.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member who has just spoken very kindly said I could ask him a question at the end of his remarks. We are at the resolution stage but he went into quite a bit of detail. I plead with him and the minister to make public the details of how they intend to permit the interest rate to be relaxed. Otherwise the opposition, which is not going to see the bill since it is not going to be moved to the second reading stage, will not be able to debate the details of the measure. The government is aware of these details. Will the parliamentary secretary or the minister reveal these details at the resolution stage, even though this debate has been almost a second reading type of debate. This would enable the opposition to have details it does not have-


Some hon. Members:: Ask the question.


William Heward Grafftey: All right. Would the government make known the details of how they intend to let the interest rate go up so the opposition can have the same advantage as government members.
Bank Act


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not a question; it is a statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I be permitted to reply to the hon. member. No member of the house, other than the ministry, is privy to the contents of the bill so everyone is debating on the same basis. We are discussing now the advisability of introducing a bill. I went further in explaining the general principles of this bill than I would ordinarily have done. I do not think it would be proper for me at this stage to give the details of the actual contents of the bill itself. If I were to put these details on the record I would be required to give several paragraphs of explanation. I hope hon. gentlemen will accept my explanation.


John George Diefenbaker: Why the selective information? Why don't you give us the full story?


Mr. Monteilh:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that it would require several paragraphs to give the committee this information. I think it really should have been given. We do not know how the interest rate is going to be raised. We do not have that formula, and I believe it is unfair to ask us to debate the measure in the light of the existing situation. The first part of the resolution, Mr. Chairman, reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Bank Act and the extension of the charters of the existing chartered banks till July 1, 1976,-
I wish to deal with this first part of the resolution for a moment. It is a very simple resolution thus far and quite understandable. The Bank Act must come up for revision every ten years and the charters of the banks must be renewed at this time. Actually this revision should have taken place in 1964. We distinctly remember the delay which occurred at that time. Eventually, I think on May 6, 1965, one version of the Bank Act revisions was presented to us.
Second reading was given to that particular version and we were supposed to have studied it in committee last autumn. This opportunity never came about because of the election being called. Subsequently, of course, we did extend the Bank Act for a period. I believe it runs out now on December 30, or November 30 of this year. I agree completely with the first part of this resolution. However, the second part of the resolution reads as follows:
-and to provide further for certain changes in. connection with the administration of the act.
Bank Act

July 6. 1966
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This is where we have some difference of opinion, in relation to these certain changes in connection with the administration of the act. As we all know, I am sure, the banking system in Canada has given excellent service to the people of this country. I think Canadian citizens have a feeling of security which not all the citizens of other countries have. We have considered the banks to be a bulwark, and in this connection we must pay credit to the Inspector General of Banks, who for many years has had the policing job to do. I believe he has done it energetically and efficiently. It must be remembered that while the banks are in business to make money, and I have no quarrel whatever with that objective, I do feel, however, that they should be considered as a rather select group of corporations which have an obligation to serve the Canadian people. Our job as members of parliament is to see that Canadians are served to the best of their interests by the banks.
I do not think that the citizens of Canada, Mr. Chairman, are being so served by this government in its present amendments to the act. This government has not met the threat of inflation or the rising cost of living and is not doing anything to meet those situations now. I have in mind the interests of the small businessman, the farmer and the small borrower. These people are not going to receive any benefit from the proposed amendments to the Bank Act. I have heard and read that the tight money which we now have is probably going to get tighter. This cannot be allowed to happen. But this government, Mr. Chairman, is obviously accepting the situation and doing nothing about it.
The minister last evening outlined in general terms what he referred to as certain proposed amendments to the Bank Act. I cannot help but emphasize that they were certainly in very general terms. Of course, .the one main item of the whole group of amendments that is of interest to all of the Canadian people is the interest rate amendment. The present ceiling on interest is 6 per cent, but in this respect we are really very little wiser than when the minister began his comments. The minister suggested that it should be tied to the average market yield on short-term government bonds. I am assuming that there will be some fixed percentage over and above the average yield but at the moment, of course, we do not know. We are told that we will find out.

The minister also suggested last evening that when this bill goes to the finance, trade and economic affairs committee for study it would be a good idea to examine this formula very closely to see whether it is the best alternative. I can assure him, Mr. Chairman, that that examination will be given.
However, let me repeat that we are still in the dark as to just what the interest rate is going to be and how it will operate. I suppose that a floating rate of this nature, as you might call it, might have some merit in the case of very credit-worthy risks, but I do not see how this can be of any assistance, as I said earlier, to the small businessman, the farmer or the small borrower. They are the ones who are going to suffer. They are the ones who will be forced to go to other money lenders and will have to pay much higher interest rates.
While there may be some connection between the rate on government bonds and the general requirements of the economy, there are other features affecting the price of government bonds, such as stock market prices, whichever stock happens to be the more attractive, the United States money market situation, deficit or surplus financing of the Canadian economy, balancing of international payments and so on. They may or may not be consistent with the needs of the economy and of business but, sir, all these factors are going to affect the interest rate for business borrowers. It is like trying to find the correct price of bananas by analysing the demand for and supply of fish eggs, or you can use any other comparison. It is going to be just about as difficult as that.
On the whole, as far as these amendments go I claim that the Porter Commission report might just as well have been forgotten. The commission might just as well have not met. The minister could have produced the amendments which he has put before us and has outlined in such a vague way without any report at all.
I should like to refer to the two main recommendations made in the Porter Commission report, and I think they go hand in hand. One was to the effect that the near banks should be brought under federal control. The other was the removal of the interest ceiling. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that these two go together hand in hand.
If such a procedure had been adopted, then I think it would be fair to all concerned. As it is, we are not getting competition. The near banks are going to be left to operate on their
July 6, 1966

own. These institutions should be brought under federal control so that banks and what we call, for facility's sake, near banks, should all have to meet the same competitive situation. This is not so today. This piecemeal effort does not improve the situation at all.
I claim, Mr. Chairman, that these amendments are only a smokescreen to try to cover up and preserve some semblance of unity in the Liberal party. The government did not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to the situation. It has waffled for months. The legislation has been on and then off; the government just would not take a stand.
One of the suggestions outlined by the minister last night-we do not know the details of this either, of course-was that the banks are to be allowed to lend money on conventional mortgages. We do not know what formula is to be used, and I am assuming we will learn this when the bill is presented.
I agree in principle with this move and also with the suggestion of the minister that banks be allowed to borrow money on debentures. Otherwise, where in the world would the small businessman and the small borrower come into the picture if the banks were not allowed to borrow money on debentures or to borrow in some other way? Certainly if they are going to supply the mortgage market someone will suffer unless the banks are in a position to receive more deposits. I realize that these debentures will have a secondary position to deposits, and that is understandable. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, these funds have got to be available to the banks if the conventional borrowers with whom we are concerned are not to be penalized.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Another point mentioned by the minister was that the government is going to continue with the retroactive legislation in respect of Bill C-102. The legislation will be similar to last year. This is to penalize the Mercantile Bank.
I have no brief for the Mercantile Bank as such but I do suggest to the minister that he is inviting retaliation by bringing in such legislation. I also suggest that it is anything but a good principle to make legislation retroactive. I think the dangerous part of the particular item in the suggested amendments is that the legislation is going to be retroactive. The minister is asking for serious trouble and retaliation by bringing forward this measure.
Bank Act
The minister did not tell us how the cash reserves are to be reduced somewhat. The cash reserves on deposit now are 8 per cent. The minister said, I think, that they are going to be reduced to something less than 7 per cent.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I, for clarification, ask the hon. member if he did not look at the speech to which I referred in my remarks yesterday which I made when I introduced the Bank of Canada Act and in which I set out the basis on which the cash reserves would be fixed?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I point out that I am not quarreling with this move but we should know something about it. The reduction in the reserves from 8 per cent to something in the neighborhood of 7 per cent will allow the banks to earn money on 1 per cent, plus a fraction, of these reserves.


John George Diefenbaker: On which they do not get
any interest.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They get no interest on the 8 per cent. Frankly, I do not think it is quite fair to ask any business to have 8 per cent of its funds cached away, if you like, without that money earning interest. Perhaps those reserves should be put into treasury bills and thereby earn something. Treasury bills are as good as cash reserves. I am not quarreling with the fact that the banks will earn interest on the extra 1 per cent. But that fact should be kept in mind.
I simply repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we
know nothing really at this stage of the proceedings and yet we are asked to support the resolution. I cannot support something we know nothing about. Last evening the hon. member for Kamloops and I both tried to find out what people will be asked to pay in interest rates. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi this afternoon tried his best to find out, but the minister would not tell us.
I am convinced, sir, that true and proper competition is not being provided by this resolution. The 6 per cent ceiling on all types of loans is not maintained now. We all know about pre-discounts which are given to evade the 6 per cent rate. I am not prepared to Speak of the legality of this practice.
I recall that in the discussions on this subject when the banking and commerce committee sat in 1954 on the then revision of the Bank Act there were legal opinions one way and another. The situation as it stands

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
should be remedied. There are different opinions about the Bank Act, and I think the legality of the question I have raised should be straightened out.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, if the government had followed the Porter Commission report in its entirety and particularly if the government had brought the near banks within the jurisdiction of the Bank Act, thus providing real competition and giving the small business person and the large business equal opportunities, my position would be different. As the situation is, sir, I cannot support the resolution.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, there has been evidence in the speeches on the opposition side, both this afternoon and last evening, of some dissatisfaction with the statement that the minister made on the basis that it did not provide sufficient information for the opposition to deal with this matter. Notwithstanding that complaint, the opposition nevertheless has been able to make statements of far reaching consequence which would seem to contradict their earlier statements. I think it is consistent, however, with the procedure at this stage of debate that this matter should follow the course that has been followed with regard to resolutions. There is nothing inconsistent in relation to the practice of this chamber in debating the resolution stage of a bill. Therefore I do not think that the complaints stand on any solid foundation.
One of the responsibilities, it seems to me, of government and parliament in this matter is to look at the effectiveness of our existing financial policy in order to determine ways and means of strengthening that policy so that it may better serve the requirements of our economy. In this discussion we must be concerned about the adequacy of our financial system to meet the needs of our society in an efficient and creative way. We must have a properly functioning financial system which will serve the needs of the greatest possible number of people.
In attempting to achieve this laudable goal we ought to take into consideration the past record and effectiveness of our financial policies and financial system. We must have as far as possible a reasonable understanding of the changes which have taken place in our economy, and we must also consider wider problems which confront our economy so that we may be better able to understand the role that financial policies may be expected to play in the country's development.

If a financial system is not adequately fulfilling its functions, or is fulfilling them in an improper or imperfect way, the result will surely be an adverse effect on the economy. I would therefore suggest once again that providing as much flexibility and as much scope as possible to meet the demands for highly developed borrowing facilities which are part of any complex economy is something that is necessary.
One of the main requisites of a financial system in the present day and in the future Canada is a high degree of flexibility. One of the most frequent criticisms of the present system and the present policies has to do with the lack of flexibility and the desirable degree of competition to meet adequately the present needs of our economy.
This criticism comes from many quarters. We have heard it in the house before and in the debate so far. There are suggestions that our present system discriminates against certain classes of borrowers and savers and-this is of particular interest to me-against certain regions because it does not provide services to all. In some instances the services provided are of an inadequate nature. It seems that our criticism perhaps is aimed directly at the financial institutions, because these are the vehicles for transmitting financial policy.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The challenge before the government in introducing this legislation is to bring forward a measure which will have the effect of increasing competition and flexibility in our banking system. I was pleased, therefore, with the references made to this subject in the minister's speech. At this point in the debate it is reasonable to assume we are talking in terms of principles and not in detail. Opposition speakers have expressed an interest in detail but, as they well know, this is not in keeping with our procedure at this stage.
If this country is to develop its economic potential to the maximum it has to afford to all of its people the greatest possible opportunities to participate in our economic development and one of the essentials of such a plan for progress is a creative financial system, one which is not just passive but innovating and capable of meeting changed circumstances with new ideas and new approaches.
As I have indicated, my particular concern is the role of financial policy and of our financial institutions in those regions of Canada which have not yet achieved the
July 6, 1966

Bank Act
degree of development reached by some of our more fortunate areas. In many other fields the government, in fact, successive governments, have introduced policies aimed at developing these less-developed parts of Canada. We are all aware of the activities of the Atlantic Development Board, the Area Development Agency and similar agencies. But we shall only achieve the desired goals in this sphere if our financial system also plays its full part in the development of equal opportunities in all areas of Canada. At the present time our system lacks both the flexibility and the element of competition which are so badly needed and the absence of which has had a particularly adverse effect on those regions of Canada which are removed from the centre.
Since the thirties, when banks in the United States failed, we have continued to believe something which is in many ways a myth, namely, that the Canadian banking system is vastly superior to that of the United States. However, I suggest there are many features of the United States banking system which are attractive, particularly to those of us who do not come from the central regions of Canada. We have, in a sense, suffered because of the branch banking system, and any efforts which can be made to assist the growth of regional banks and to create more flexibility and competition in the system would surely be of benefit to us.
Naturally we hear protestations from bankers in this country that there is no such thing as discrimination, that all areas are treated alike. Undoubtedly this is a subject which will be discussed at considerable length when this bill goes before the committee. But while there may be evidence to suggest that in the province of Nova Scotia, for example, the amount of money lent is related to the amount collected by the banks in that province in the form of savings, I nevertheless feel there is a rigidity which has a particularly adverse effect on regions far removed from the centre.
There are other details which were mentioned by the minister and which will have the effect of helping to create an environment for more flexibility and competition. Hon. members opposite have directed their remarks to the question of deposit insurance. I believe this is a good measure. It will certainly make the establishment of new banks easier. I also believe it will strengthen nearbanks and make them more creditable institutions.
One result of this legislation will be a provision under which banks will find it necessary to declare their inner reserves. This is important because there is always a certain amount of mythology surrounding banks and the banking system, and close to 100 per cent of it is pure mythology. Many of the attitudes adopted by bankers and others in the system who tend to be over-cautious are interwoven with the mythology which surrounds our banking institutions. I welcome this move to have inner reserves made public and to provide for a system of deposit insurance.
There has been some discussion about the recommendations of the Porter Commission concerning near-banks. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Perth, if I remember correctly, was critical of the Minister of Finance for not dealing with this subject. However, no less an authority than the distinguished member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands spoke of the constitutional difficulties in this field. Both hon. members were unsatisfied, but I believe the intention of the minister to call a federal-provincial conference to discuss the broad theme of consumer credit represents a most important step toward resolving the whole question of the relationship between near-banks and banks.


Mr. Fulton:: That conference has nothing to do with near-banks.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The conference will have some relationship to those institutions which are dealing in credit.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right-including the banks.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I suggest there is a relationship and that this conference will be a meaningful one. More important still, I believe the government ought at the earliest opportunity to give detailed study to ways and means of surmounting the constitutional difficulties which, according to some hon. members, prevent our bringing the near-banks under the control of the Bank Act. The relationship which I see between this and the forthcoming federal-provincial conference is that we shall be discussing with the provinces the whole question of consumer credit. I do not believe any province would have a strong case for wishing to prevent provincial institutions being subjected to uniform regulation and control, since this control would be of benefit to borrowers. It would certainly be of particular benefit to small borrowers, and I doubt that

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
any provincial government would wish openly to oppose a course of action beneficial to this group.
The approach taken by the minister in introducing this legislation suggests he is well aware of the need for flexibility and competition, that he is aware of the problem presented by the near-banks, and that these important questions, which are matters of concern to members on all sides, will receive greater attention from the present Minister of Finance than they have had for some time.
There has to be a philosophy behind our approach to financial policy. Our philosophy, it would seem, is to afford as far as possible an equal break for all who are dealing with the system, whether it is a small borrower or a particular region of the country which now suffers certain disadvantages. Notwithstanding the advantages of confederation there are still certain disadvantages suffered by regions removed from the centre. I believe it is within the ambit of this philosophy that the present administration is approaching this measure for the revision of the Bank Act.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
An important factor is the attitude of those in financial institutions. I have never been particularly cognizant of any progressive or enlightened attitude on the part of many of them. They seem to have a standard routine of rejecting anything that suggests government control or government interference. In many ways our financial institutions are the last preserve of the old laissez-faire attitude in our economy.
I am sure many hon. members would agree that notwithstanding the changes in economic attitudes during the last 30 years one thing has remained consistent, that no matter what attempts have been made to increase opportunities in Canada and no matter what success we have had in giving more people more wealth, those at the top of the system always seem to do well. There should be a greater awareness on the part of financial institutions of what we are trying to do in the economic development of Canada. They ought not to be restricted by prejudice or preconceived notions regarding the role of government. Such a change of attitude is very necessary because these institutions are not very popular. They do not really belong to the community.
This is particularly correct if, as those of us on the outer fringes have to do, one deals with branches of the various banks. They are impersonal and because of their operation

they are to a large degree divorced from the needs of the people. Notwithstanding the merits of the branch banking system this factor is of considerable importance, but it is one that can be rectified by a greater awareness on the part of the financial institutions of the role that they must play in our economic development.
For example, from time to time in the field of monetary policy we are confronted with philosophical decisions regarding the flow of credit. Such a philosophical decision is the responsibility of the Bank of Canada, but once it is made on the basis of what is good for Canada as a whole its application is left up to the individuals in the various financial institutions. This is a great weakness because in the first instance it is generally due to inflationary pressures that a course of action is taken. But I suggest these inflationary pressures are not universal and therefore in my view our monetary policy ought to reflect more the regional differences that exist in this country. If this is not being done by regulation, then it seems to me those within the system have a responsibility to bear these factors in mind in their own administration.
Individuals in the system with whom I have discussed the matter have told me that at no time would they discriminate against any group or individual. My reply was that this is exactly the point, that there are groups who, because of lack of opportunity or lack of development, need special concern and there are other special factors to be taken into consideration, so that some kind of philosophy in this regard should be more in evidence in our financial institutions.
It may be said that this is not good economics, the only criterion being the return in a monetary sense, but I challenge that because I do not believe it is a sophisticated view in Canada today in that other value judgments are made. This was the basis of the laissez-faire attitude, that what was best in terms of dollars was best in terms of people, but it is many years since we discovered that this is not true. The relationship of our financial policies to our development policies should be emphasized more.
By expressing his recognition of the need for flexibility in competition the minister has gone farther than any of his predecessors in meeting this problem and in suggesting what is going to be in the bill and, like other hon. members, I look forward to seeing the bill so that it may receive the kind of in depth study that is not and should not be possible at this stage of the proceedings.
July 6. 1966

Before resuming my seat I wish to mention one other matter which may not be completely relevant, namely, the relationship of the Industrial Development Bank to the Bank of Canada. The minister ought to give serious consideration to that relationship and to the greater use that may be made of the Industrial Development Bank in assisting the development of various regions. I know there will be objections raised to this by the financial institutions themselves, but perhaps some of them might pick up their socks and fill some of the void.
I would like again to congratulate the minister for introducing this measure which he has described as a blueprint for competition. Lack of competition has been one of the big weaknesses in our system. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has pointed out some of the difficulties to be overcome in introducing competition within the system, but I think the minister has outlined the most positive approach we have ever had to this vital problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the discussion of a resolution preceding extensive revision of the Bank Act should involve some consideration of the general principles governing our approach to banking legislation in Canada. I regret that the minister did not devote somewhat more attention in his speech to the question of the general principles which he feels should be embodied in the revision, if only for the purpose that when we get the bill we can test the details of the legislation against the principles which it might be agreed should be served by that legislation and reflected in it.
Not having the advantage of any statement in detail by the government as to its views in this regard, nevertheless I feel it is important a statement should be made, and with some trepidation I would like to outline what I feel are some of the general principles which we should now wish to see incorporated in a revision of the Bank Act, looking forward to the future and to the enabling of the financial and monetary system of this country to meet the problems of today and of years to come.
I would say that the first general principle is the maintenance and, when necessary, the extension of effective jurisdiction over the banking system, something which is essential to any government which claims effective control of monetary policy or, indeed, monetary and fiscal policy. If we do not have that effective control of the banking system, then
Bank Act
to say we intend to exercise control over monetary policy is a mere pretence.
A second and corollary principle is that a strong and effective banking system-and the word "effective" here includes the qualities of flexibility and competitiveness-is the indispensable right arm of government in the exercise of that effective control over the monetary system.
Third, parliament and government must therefore be concerned to maintain the integrity of the banking system, and by this I mean not just the strength of existing banks but the integrity and viability of the entire system, as well as the integrity of their control over that system.
Fourth, parliament and government must be concerned not only to maintain the soundness and effectiveness of the institutions within the banking system as presently officially constituted, but must assert and extend control over any other institutions or trends which, if left unchecked, would erode the strength of and the control over that system.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Fifth, in approaching our responsibilities in these connections we must remember that our concern is not just for the strength and well-being of the system and its institutions in isolation but also for the establishment and extension of a system and institutions which will serve the needs of the economy as a whole and the interests of depositors and borrowers individually. We must therefore always be concerned, in legislation and regulation of the institutions, to reconcile the two cardinal requirements of safety or strength on the one hand, and effectiveness or competition on the other.
I must say as a personal opinion, from looking at the present situation in the Canadian banking system and the institutions which officially constitute it at the moment, that in our system and in the legislation for the future we could safely place considerably more emphasis on flexibility and competitiveness both in the interest of the financial community and of the public. I regret that in my view the outline of the legislation given by the minister does not go far enough in that direction.
The legislation which we are to examine, and which will be based on this resolution, in my view should reflect at least those principles-and I have only summarized some which are applicable. I do not think anyone would

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
disagree that the Porter Commission's approach certainly reflected those principles. I would have hoped that the legislation would reflect more faithfully not only those principles but also the approach and recommendations of the Porter Commission. In my view it falls very considerably short of that desired objective and falls short especially in connection with control in the interest of small businesses and small borrowers.
When I use the word "small" here I do not mean in matters of loans of, say, $1,000, because in terms of the size of Canadian business today I think we have to realize that even $100,000 in relation to what is going on in the financial institutions of Canada is relatively, and I am speaking relatively only, a small business or small borrower. Although $100,000 dollars seems a great deal of money to me, yet in terms of the size and sophistication of the Canadian financial system I think anything up to $100,000 probably should be classified in the field of the smaller business and smaller borrower.
As I said, I regret that the legislation does not reflect the recommendations and the approach of the Porter Commission, anything like as completely as I would like to see it do. In considering the extent to which we would like to see the recommendations of the Porter Commission followed it is helpful to examine some of the authoritative statements which have been made about that commission and its work. I should like to refer the committee to an article that appeared in The Canadian Banker in the summer of 1964, by Professor Slater, a professor of economics at Queen's University. Not all of what he said was uniformly flattering. However, at pages 8 and 9 he gives his assessment of the work of the commission as a whole. I think these passages are of very great significance. He said:
The independence, honesty and frankness of the report are particularly noteworthy. This commission has struggled hard to avoid being in anybody's pocket.
In other words, the recommendations made are not just in the interests of the banks as such but are in the interests of the economy as a whole. He went on:
Each set of ideas coming before the commission has been examined carefully, confronted with the tests of logic and experience and put into relationship with other ideas and evidence.
Again, he said:
For the most part the report is competent and judicious. The analysis in some sections is markedly superior to that in the comparable British and American documents. Nearly every issue of banking and financial policy is examined; the pros and

cons are given at least a quick and rough weighing, and at most a careful and balanced evaluation. In my judgment the report will be immediately helpful in the review of Canadian banking and financial legislation, and in the formulation and exercise of financial and related general economic policy.
He said further:
In my view, one of the most attractive features of the report is its neutrality and cleanness with respect to the social and political climate. The commissioners are firm that economic affairs are subsidiary to political and social choices. The effect of many of their recommendations is to facilitate the responsible exercise of government power.
Finally:
In a general appreciation of the report, the comprehensiveness of the work also deserves comment. The commission has taken on nearly every major issue of financial performance or policy which has concerned people during the last two decades. A special effort has been made to use effectively the best of the modern theoretical and empirical studies of money and finance.
Mr. Chairman, that being an impartial assessment of the merits of the Porter Commission's studies and recommendations, it is interesting to turn to the brief statement of objectives which the commission itself sought to achieve in the recommendations it brought down. These are the broad economic objectives which Canada should attain and which the commission felt would be facilitated by its recommendations. They are stated as follows in the report at page 398:
(a)	Rising productivity;
(b)	A high and stable level of employment;
(c)	Stable prices;
(d)	A sound external financial position.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to conceive of a better statement of financial and economic objectives for Canada. Therefore it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, to the extent that the recommendations of the Porter commission would bring about these objectives, it is regrettable in the extreme that those recommendations are not followed. 1 have said that I think the outline of the legislation given by the minister indicates several important areas in which they are not followed. I should like to refer to them briefly at this stage.
The first omission is that the Porter commission recommended that near-banks and similar institutions should come under the same umbrella by way of banking legislation as the present banking institutions themselves so that they would all be made competitive with a view to avoiding, as they clearly point out, the situation in which certain borrowers are
July 6. 1966

compelled to go where they must pay 14 per cent, 16 per cent, 18 per cent and up to 24 per cent on their money with disastrous effect. The only result of such excessive rates is inflation in respect of the cost of goods and services that are produced and purchased by Canadians. The Porter Commission wanted all these institutions made competitive under the one legislative umbrella.
In the legislation outlined by the minister the only approach in this regard is to introduce the device of deposit insurance. I think there will be general agreement that deposit insurance is a good and desirable development so far as it goes, but in respect of this particular problem may I suggest it is of dubious value so far as dealing with the whole area is concerned because there are so many gaps and so many parts of the problem which will not be tackled effectively by the device of deposit insurance.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps at the end of my remarks, if the minister would not mind.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am most interested in the hon. member's speech and this is really to help the hon. gentleman in his argument.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am always susceptible to flattery, Mr. Chairman, but this may be at the
expense of some of my time.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman is very learned in the law and I am not. Would he not agree that if there were doubts about the jurisdiction with regard to these institutions it would be better at this time at least to proceed along lines which do not raise jurisdictional questions?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I quite agree with the hon. member. If we had had a clear indication that we could apply our banking laws to these institutions, we would not have hesitated; but we hesitated for reasons that I think will be appreciated by the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not denying that there
are difficulties, Mr. Chairman. I am pointing out, however, that the device of deposit insurance does not meet the whole problem. With respect to that matter and the question just asked by the minister I would say that in so far as he is going to introduce deposit insurance on the basis he has outlined, he
Bank Act
will weaken the effectiveness of it by saying, as he did, that it will apply to companies provincially incorporated only with the consent of the provincial government concerned. I do not think it is necessary for the provincial governments to be consulted. If you simply say: "Here is a system of deposit insurance, if you wish to take advantage of it," and if provincially incorporated companies do take advantage of it, it does not seem to me that there is any infraction of provincial jurisdiction in their so doing of their own accord. I think the minister is making unnecessary problems for himself if he makes this provision subject to provincial consent.
But the minister does say that he is going to consult the provincial governments in this and other fields. Why does he not instead consult them about bringing all these types of institutions within a unified inspection and control system under the federal umbrella? There is no indication that he is going to discuss this matter. That is my main answer to the question the minister asked me. There are difficulties, but why not face them and try to solve them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I give an answer to the question now for the sake of continuity in the argument? The indication we have is that our jurisdiction would be disputed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not one to minimize the constitutional problems and the difficulties that sometimes confront us in relations between governments. But I think this matter should be discussed with the provinces on a co-operative basis, and without denying the right of the provinces to incorporate these companies and to lay down regulations which must be complied with within the province, it could be pointed out that because many of these institutions do business outside the province a degree of co-operation within the ambit of federal legislation is desirable and is in the interests of the protection of depositors, borrowers and the economy generally. I think it would be difficult, if proprly approached, for responsible provincial governments to refuse at least to discuss the problem and approach it along these lines. Such a solution would be in keeping with the Porter Commission recommendations.
The importance of this matter can be understood by recalling the appalling situation brought about by the collapse of Atlantic

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
Acceptance Corporation just last year, a collapse of which we are still feeling the effects with respect to the availability of credit in th Canadian economy. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and the committee, that it is doubtful whether the Canadian financial system could stand another such collapse. Certainly confidence in the system would be totally destroyed in so far as overseas money is concerned, investors from outside Canada, and I doubt whether even the system within Canada could stand another such collapse.
Therefore any approach along the lines recommended by the Porter Commission to place these and related types of institutions under the umbrella of the federal banking laws would be most desirable, and it is regrettable that the minister does not indicate a greater determination in pursuing such a solution to this part of the problem.
Next, the Porter Commission recommended that lending companies and lending charges -here I am thinking of the small loan companies-be also regulated in the same way and placed under the banking legislation. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the recommendation found at page 382 of the commission report, which reads:
At present the small loan companies and licensed moneylenders are regulated by the Superintendent of Insurance under the Small Loans Act, which sets limits on the charges they may levy for cash loans. As noted in the previous chapter, we believe that all cash lenders-including the banking institutions-should be subject to uniform regulation, and we think it appropriate that supervision of the amended legislation be transferred to the Inspector General of Banks.
I regret that this step does not appear to be forecast as one of the features of the legislation to be introduced.
Third, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the legislation, in the outline given by the minister, repeats the damaging and dangerous position taken by his predecessor; that is to say, there will be a feature in the legislation involving the punishment of a certain bank by way of retroactive legislation, a bank incorporated under laws as they existed at one time and placed in an invidious and very inferior position as a result of a change in the laws introduced after it had properly applied for and received its incorporation. It is, further more, a situation brought about by means of a device which if resorted to elsewhere would very seriously and adversely affect the branches and agencies of Canadian banks operating outside Canada.

In addition to these objections to the provisions of the legislation I wish to raise certain other considerations in connection with the legislation about which I feel very strongly. I am thinking of the whole course followed with respect to this legislation, the delays, uncertainties and the consequent adverse effect these have had upon the plans and operations of the Canadian financial community. After all, the Porter Commission report was brought down in 1964. The decennial Bank Act revision was due in 1964. The introduction of the legislation has been held up by quarrels, delays and uncertainty within the Liberal cabinet ever since. The legislation is now two years overdue and, as is well known without my rehearsing the detail, plans have recently had to be revised substantially as a result of further very serious disagreements within the ranks of the government.


The Chairman:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, it will take only a very short time to complete my remarks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I am concerned about in this connection is that we are now, it seems to me, in a situation where the timetable indicates that we may well have a summer recess, and we are only going to have first reading of the bill before that recess. We will not be able to have the debate on second reading until we come back, and we do not know when we are coming back nor does the financial community. My experience and that of others is that the debate on second reading and the study in committee of this legislation will occupy two to three months, and one assumes, on the basis of past experience again, that there will be a prorogation of this session toward the end of the year. Where does that leave the minister, the legislation, the banking system and the financial institutions of Canada? Will we have to start all over again in another session of parliament? I only point out these things to emphasize the serious position in which the delay and inability of the government to get on with this legislation have placed our economy.
July 6, 1966

The final point I want to make is with respect to the matter of the central feature of the Porter Commission's recommendations and one of the essential features of the bill, namely, the question of the interest ceiling. What are we told? We were told by the minister last night that at some time in the future the interest ceiling on bank loans will be lifted but that in the meantime a formula will be provided for a flexible interest ceiling related to the yield of short-term government bonds. This leaves us with tremendously important questions as to the principle of the legislation, questions to which we were denied answers last night and still are denied them. First, with regard to when the ceiling would be lifted the minister slid over this question in his speech. He said, as reported at page 7236 of Hansard:
Naturally, no one can say just when general interest rates will decline to the point that will release the ceiling on bank interest rates. I would hope it would come sooner rather than later, so that the proper development and evolution of our financial system as a whole can proceed on the basis of effective competition.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
But we were given no indication as to when it will come. The question remains: will the point of time at which the changeable formula and the ceiling are removed, be determined or fixed by the legislation or by some device embodied in the legislation or will it be fixed at the whim of the executive? This is a tremendously important matter of principle, that the control of banking legislation reside in parliament and that fundamental changes in the banking legislation not be made without reference to parliament. I submit that most certainly the question of a change in the method of fixing the interest ceiling, or indeed the question of the removal of the interest ceiling-the movement from one stage to another-is a most important and fundamental matter which should not be decided without reference to parliament. And yet we are not told how this is dealt with in the legislation. This is the kind of information which we sought last night and which unfortunately we have been denied up to this point.
And so I say, together with my colleague, the hon. member for Perth, that we are not prepared to support this resolution because of the serious omissions from the legislation as outlined by the minister, and because of the objections to the way in which it has been introduced and the lack of information on it. While maintaining a flexibility of decision
Bank Act
with respect to the legislation when we see it, we are not prepared to support at present a resolution which seems to us to beg many of the fundamental questions which should be faced and dealt with in the revision of the Bank Act.
When the legislation itself comes in, we will measure it against the principles I have outlined and the recommendations of the Porter report, and to the extent it conforms to them we will support it; to the extent it does not conform to them, we will oppose it.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the resolution calling for the decennial revision of the Bank Act may I say that I listened last night with great interest, together with other hon. members, to the speech of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I called it a speech but possibly it could more properly be called an entertainment because it most certainly was an entertainment. I have come to the conclusion since coming to this house that if we had advance notice of the time when the right hon. gentleman was going to speak we could sell tickets to the gallery and probably pay off the mortgage on this building with the process. I suspect he walked into the house last night with two speeches prepared, one prepared perhaps by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the other by his good friend, Senator McCutcheon.


An hon. Member:: Who prepared yours?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No one prepared mine.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is obvious.


Stanley Ronald Basford: After listening to the minister give a Liberal speech on the revision of the Bank Act calling for greater competitiveness and flexibility, the right hon. gentleman gave Senator's McCutcheon's speech.
He also had great fun with a Toronto Star story alleging a great fight within the cabinet. I can understand the right hon. gentleman being intrigued with such alleged stories. In view of the fact he himself is such an expert on cabinet resignations I can understand that he would be intrigued with the possibility of resignations from another government.
He also had great fun with certain press statements referring to a discussion within the Liberal party about what the revision of the Bank Act should contain. It is apparent that the right hon. gentleman and hon. members opposite are of the opinion that what is contained in the press about them is invariably false but what is contained in the press

July 6, 1966
Bank Act
about us is invariably correct and should be taken as gospel. I should think hon. members opposite would have learned by now that they should not believe everything they read in the press.
It does not disturb me, Mr. Chairman, that there has been discussion within the Liberal party about the revision of the Bank Act and I am proud to belong to a party which allows such discussions. After having had a full discussion on the revision of the Bank Act we were able to come before the house and the country with a policy advocating greater progress, competitiveness and flexibility in our banking system.


Mr. Aiken:: We have not seen it yet.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It seems to disturb hon. gentlemen opposite that a party should go through this process of democratic discussion and debate within its own ranks.


Mr. McCleave:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not now, not before the end of my time limit.
We also listened to the statement of the right hon. gentleman at the end of his speech that he was not going to be a pawn coming to the rescue of the Liberal party and its unity. I am not aware of any disunity, but if we did have any disunity the right hon. gentleman, who is such an expert on it, is not one to whom I would go and ask for help.
I also listened last night with great interest to my friend from British Columbia, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I looked forward to his speech with interest and respect because he is a member with great knowledge on this subject and one of the few members who has been present at the previous revision of the Bank Act. I say to him with respect that I was disappointed with his submission last night. In spite of his great knowledge and experience in the field of banking he was only able to make very vague references to a regulatory body and to greater sophistication in our approach to banking, all of which was rather meaningless to me.
I was also disappointed with his speech for another reason. In the past my friend from British Columbia has thundered about my province calling for nationalization of the banking system, and yet last night we heard nothing from him about nationalization. We only heard a whisper about regulatory bodies and sophistication. I hope this is not due to

the advancing years of the hon. member taking a toll on his enthusiasm for nationalization.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Is the hon. member's hearing failing? Is he suffering from that disability?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I listened to the critical remarks made by the hon. member relative to the Porter Commission. While hon. members from the Progressive Conservative party have fully relied on the Porter Commission for their speeches, I for one am a little tired of recommendations from royal commissions containing solutions to this country's problems without any reference to the constitution which governs our country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before you call private members' business, I wonder whether the house would consider trying to complete consideration of the Bank Act resolution today? I believe there is one hour and nine minutes left in which to complete debate on the resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand the house leader's desire to move ahead with these matters but in view of the fact there is no settled arrangement with regard to the termination of the session this week, I think we should carry on with the ordinary business as outlined on the order paper.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: It is quite accurate to say there is no settled arrangement for the termination of business, but in the event we were able to reach such a situation tomorrow it would be of help if this resolution were completed today. I am in the hands of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to point out to the Minister of Public Works that the debate on the resolution has not been completed yet because members of his own party have been speaking. There have been four speakers from the government side and we have had only one, so we are not the ones who are
July 6. 1966

blocking the resolution. If the Liberal members would keep quiet for a while, perhaps we would have an opportunity of completing the debate on the resolution. Inasmuch as they have been talking and talking it has not been completed.


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



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Jay Waldo Monteith: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to amending the Canada Pension Plan in such a way as to insure that it and complementary pensions and retirement allowance legislation in Canada are based upon the following principles:
(a)	the immediate increase of the old age pension to $100.00 per month to all present recipients, and the integration and payment of such pensions out of the pension fund as amended;
(b)	the establishment of a plan to provide a national minimum retirement income, participation in such a plan to be available but not compulsory to all;
(c)	that a national retirement pensions plan should not be compulsorily superimposed on existing pension and retirement plans, but should be supplementary to them, on the basis of filling in gaps in coverage of existing retirement and superannuation plans so that all are covered up to the level established under sub-paragraph (b), participation being, however, elective to those who are already covered to or beyond that level;
(d)	that true portability of pensions as between industries and areas, which is not affected by the present plan, be the continuing aim of pensions legislation and negotiation;
(e)	that certain specific and foolish anomalies, such as those whereby more than one employer may be compelled to make a full annual contribution in respect of the same employee, with no right of recovery from the fund, and whereby some housewives will be compelled to make deduction from the wages of domestic help while others will not, although the basic wage rate is the same, be eliminated
He said: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to mention briefly the fact this notice of motion has been on the order paper since January 20. We have all had ample time to consider it. As a matter of fact, this is the fourth opportunity, I believe, that the house has had to consider this subject. There are important clauses in this notice of motion, but I would draw your attention to clause (a):
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to amending the Canada Pension Plan in such a way as to insure that it and complementary pensions and
Canada Pension Plan
retirement allowances legislation in Canada are based upon the following principles:
(a) the immediate increase of the old age pension to $100 per month to all present recipients, and the integration and payment of such pensions out of the pension fund as amended;
I do not believe I need to say anything else. We realize the need for this payment to our elderly citizens. As I say, we have had the opportunity of considering the matter this session and I know hon. members will want to have an opportunity to voice their opinions in favour of the notice of motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few minutes ago the Minister of Public Works proposed that we continue debating the Bank Act resolution. I would be ready to accept a suggestion that we take a vote immediately on this notice of motion, after which we could go on with the Bank Act resolution and complete it tonight. We are ready to agree to sitting a little later so we will finish the resolution on the Bank Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to the opening remarks of the hon. member. He was very generous in giving up a portion of his time so that other members might have an opportunity to speak, and I thank him for his kind consideration.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was only assisting an early vote.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: The hon. member has a quite lengthy notice of motion and to deal with it fully in the proper perspective would take longer than the time we have at our disposal today. I should like to be as generous as the hon. member and give others a chance to speak. I should like for a few moments to speak about clause (a) in the notice of motion which refers to an immediate increase in the old age pension to $100 per month to all

July G, 1966
Canada Pension Plan
present recipients and the integration and payment of such pensions out of the pension fund as amended. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the fact the government has given consideration to various proposals and indeed has been giving these matters consideration for some time.
With regard to the resolution before us, I may say a decision has already been taken by this government to lower the age of eligibility for applicants for old age security to 65. This decision was contained in Part IV of the Canada Pension Plan which was passed by both houses several years ago. Commencing January, people aged 68 or over can start drawing this pension and by the end of 1969 everyone reaching 65 who meets the residence requirements can claim his or her old age pension.
Under the proposal in this notice of motion the old age security outlays for the calendar year 1966 would be increased to $862 million. If the proposed increases were retroactive to January of this year and were paid immediately to all persons aged 65 or over, by 1970 the additional cost would be $527 million a year. In the first five years the additional cost would be $3.5 billion.
It is interesting to note that the resolution contains no mention of the way in which these large additional costs should be financed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


Margaret Isabel Rideout: This is in contrast to the resolution of the Conservative party a year ago in which they advocated-


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. lady has just mentioned the exact point I was going to raise. The resolution does not deal with the things with which she is dealing and the resolution is what she is supposed to be debating. The hon. member is talking about old age security and the resolution deals with an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Margaret Isabel Rideout: I am looking at the notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that it is in order for me to speak about the old age pension increases mentioned therein. I am leading up to my remarks about the Canada Pension Plan. I cannot see that I am not staying within the confines of the notice of motion. If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the resolution contains no mention of the way in which these large, additional costs should be financed.


Mr. Mandziuk:: From the money in the fund.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: I should like to continue my remarks if you do not mind. This is in contrast to the proposal of the Conservative party a year ago in which they advocated that a similar increase in the old age security pension should be financed out of the Canada Pension Plan. That proposal was, of course, unacceptable because it would have used contributions collected in nine provinces to pay additional benefits to persons residing in all ten provinces.
I wonder whether the hon. gentleman who proposed this resolution would recommend that his proposal be financed through an increase in the earmarked tax on personal incomes, the earmarked sales tax or the earmarked corporation income tax, some combination of these, or through other tax increases? Though there is some surplus in the old age security fund at the moment, the great magnitude of the additional outlays required would necessitate additional tax revenues at once.
The Canada Pension Plan is a long-range program. It will be several years before a substantial proportion of the aged population will receive benefit from it although it will only be ten years before full retirement pensions are available. One of the objectives of the Canada Assistance Plan is to meet the needs of those people now retired who will draw no Canada Pension Plan benefits and those who will retire in the next ten years and will be unable to build up full retirement pensions during the transitional period.
The federal government now shares through unemployment assistance any supplementary payments made by the provinces to recipients of old age security, old age assistance, blind and disabled persons' allowances. The Canada Assistance Plan will continue to make this federal assistance available. In so far as the federal government is concerned, it will under the Canada Assistance Plan share without any upper limit the cost of supplementation and the provision of medical care and welfare services to those in need. The Canada Assistance Plan will provide federal assistance to the provinces to meet fully the financial and service requirements of those who are in need. The extent to which this objective is fulfilled for people in each province will depend upon each provincial government carrying out the responsibilities which have been allocated it under our constitution.
July 6, 1966

Canada Pension Plan
The federal government's sharing of medicare costs, mothers' allowances and child welfare costs under the Canada Assistance Plan will relieve provinces of existing expenditures. The lowering of the age under old age security is also relieving the provinces of expenditures under old age assistance. The federal government hopes that the provinces will use these funds to improve supplementary payments for old age security recipients as well as other assistance recipients.
An aged person who needs $100 a month to cover his basic monthly needs and receives only the $75 old age security pension will be able to get an additional $25 from the province under the Canada Assistance Plan. If he needs $140 and has only $75, he will be able to get the additional $65 under the Canada Assistance Plan. If the old age security pension were raised to $100 a month-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. lady permit a question? Could she tell us how much money out of the $85 million allocated for this year is earmarked for the purpose of supplementing the pensions of old age security recipients?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: I think the hon. member will appreciate that it would be difficult for me to provide him with that information, but I am sure that he has had the opportunity to obtain it and will have further opportunity during the clause by clause study of the Canada Assistance Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. lady not, with me, a member of the committee on health and welfare, and does she not know that we have been given a figure which is next to nothing?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Then I am wondering why the hon. gentleman is asking me a question if
he already knows the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I think it is unfair
to throw out this figure of a pension of $140 a month when it is not being provided under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I would rather
not get into an argument with the hon. gentleman, but I should like to add that certainly if there is a need the need will be met. The hon. member will also have an opportunity to speak on this question.
If the old age security pension were raised to $100 a month it would provide incomes to many people, expecially those who are married, where the payment would be $200 a month, much greater than the cash incomes
of many younger people engaged in primary industries in marginal communities. At the same time, a $100 pension would not meet all the needs of aged persons living in the higher-cost urban centres.
A $100 a month pension would require tax increases under the 3-3-4 formula in order to prevent deficits from arising in that fund, or additional allocations from general revenue to cover the deficits that will arise. Increased federal expenditures for old age security would have an effect on the over-all priorities for other federal expenditures. For example, increased taxes for this purpose would affect the revenues available for university aid, medicare, federal-provincial fiscal equalization adjustments, and any future adjustment in family allowances and youth allowances, to mention only a few programs.
The Canada Pension Plan and old age security will provide a maximum combined benefit of $179 a month. The level of the Canada Pension Plan will be adjusted upwards with changes in the cost of living during the transition period and thereafter in line with changes in wages. These provisions will be automatic and thereby provide for a built-in escalation of expenditures. However, amounts raised from contributions will also increase as the ceiling is raised and will thus assist in financing these added expenditures. The resolution before the house makes no provision for financing the added expenditures it entails.
I should like to say in conclusion that I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. member the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) in winding up the second reading debate on the Canada Assistance Plan. I think the minister made it quite clear that all of us on the government side are concerned for our elderly citizens in Canada, to whom we have indeed been giving serious consideration. The minister has indicated on several occasions that he is trying to resolve this problem, and I should like to read into the record if I may, Mr. Speaker, the words he used in concluding his speech, which appear at page 7205 of Hansard:
The old age pension question is another, distinct issue, and I can assure hon. members that it will be dealt with in another and more appropriate context and, I would add with equal assurance, within a very short time.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.

July 6, 1966
Canada Pension Plan
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: In taking my turn in this debate on the member's motion, I just wish to call to the attention of the house some speeches made in the last few days and in particular to point out with what insistence some hon. members seem to talk of increasing the old age pension, for strictly political reasons of course. They want to get $100 a month without any means test. Well, not a single member mentioned that, among those who could benefit from social security measures, there are a large number of citizens who not only could but had the right to benefit from the distribution of all the national wealth.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that can be described as altering completely the basic principles of any well understood social security system. If all the national wealth enables one class of society or another to benefit from social security measures, I think that we must admit that one or the other must also benefit from it and I do not understand the insistence with which some hon. members ask for an increase in the old age pension, without a word being said about the other classes of society, namely the widows, the needy mothers and also the children with regard to family allowances.
I would like to know if there is a member of the New Democratic Party who is in a position to say that, at the present time, an old man needs an increase in his old age pension more than a mother needs an increase in family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that if we take an important part of income out of the national wealth to distribute it to a particular class without taking the others into account, we are altering the principle of social security. I am convinced-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. To correct what the hon. member is saying, I would like to point out to him that when I spoke about that matter, I said that it was necessary also to increase the family allowances. Therefore, I would like him to make the distinction for those who spoke about that.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for Lapointe and I respectfully submit that if he referred to that, he is coming close to what I believe to be the basic principle of social security, namely the fair
(Mrs. Rideout.]
distribution to all classes of recipients of the surplus or of the whole of our national wealth. How can one reconcile the facts otherwise?
Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the point in this house where we try and prove that social security measures are based on the cost of living and on what is necessary for a person to live on. Now, I respectfully submit that such is not the basic principle of social security, for social security is redistribution of our national wealth. If that redistribution is done according to what everyone needs for a living, the idea is all wrong; all welfare measures would then be quite insufficient.
How can a mother support her children with $6 or $8 a month? Is that enough to live on? How can an elderly person live on $75 a month? Those are assistance measures. But when an increase of the old age pension is considered, hon. members of the opposition should also have the guts to ask, as I intend to do personally, that if there is in the public funds $100 million to redistribute, all classes of society should be considered and not one in particular.
I am not, Mr. Speaker, against an increase of the old age pension; on the contrary, I believe that to belong to the political party which launched all the welfare measures which the Canadian people now enjoy-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ovide Laflamme: Certainly.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In view of what the hon. member is saying I wonder if he would prevail upon his colleagues to remain in their seats so that the whole house could express its feeling on this question by a vote. We would know then. For the fourth time the hon. member will be able to vote against the old age pensioners.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking at length on the question of whether one may or should vote against the old age pension. I shall simply state freely and sincerely, without any political partisanship, what I personally feel is the basic principle of social security which does not rest upon the living requirements of a person, but on a fair distribution of the whole national wealth between all social groups entitled to share it, specifically the children,
July 6, 1966

the disabled, the blind and all the other groups of pensioners, including of course, the old age pensioners.
And if the federal treasury is rich enough to increase, without raising taxes, the old age pensions by $25 a month, which I am not in a position to say-so much the better, but the other social security measures should also be increased at the same rate.
That is my personal view of social security which is not based, in spite of attempts which have been made in the house for the several months, on the principle that so much is needed to live on, and that it must be made available and, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he said: "Could you live on $75 a month?" That is not the question. To my mind, that is sheer politics.
It is important to say how much the federal treasury can contribute, what are the amounts the federal treasury can supply without strangling the taxpayers because it is a well known fact that approximately 25 to 30 per cent of the population pay more than 80 per cent of the taxes.
[English1


Eric Alfred Winkler: Does the hon. member know how much money is in the old age pension fund now and for what purpose it is there? We will know at six o'clock how you feel about the old age pensioners.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I know there is an amount of approximately $275 million under legislation adopted by the present government, eligibility to the old age pension is being brought lower from year to year down to age 65 and if the taxes are not increased, this surplus will be considerably-


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is wrong. That is wrong.


Ovide Laflamme: This surplus will-


Gilles Grégoire: That is not what the minister said.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I know the hon. member for Kootenay East wants me to make a statement. If he will read the departmental figures and consult with the officials he will know that this is wrong-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Canada Pension Plan


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have no intention of making a statement.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I will.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You will because you have to.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: The minister said that it was accumulating at the rate of $2 billion in ten years.


Ovide Laflamme: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the opposition are in favour of higher old age pensions. I believe it sincerely, but what I cannot understand, as regards the position of members of the official opposition and the New Democratic Party, is that they are calling for an additional expenditure of several million dollars per year by the federal government, in favour of persons over 69 years of age, without taking into account the other classes of society.
And now I return to the principle which I established and I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to contradict it if he can. Does he not believe, since he is obviously trying to assert himself as an expert in social security measures, that if the Canadian government has $100 million to distribute, this amount should be distributed to all classes of society in need thereof? He cannot say, any more than I can, that a mother does not need larger family allowances just as much as the old people receiving the pension.


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


Ovide Laflamme: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he not aware of the fact
that we support welfare measures across the board? For example, we support the Canada Assistance Plan, but we want both. We want welfare measures where they are needed, as set out in the Canada Assistance Plan, and we also want an increase in the pensions of retired people as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ovide Laflamme: I am very glad of this. Does the hon. member also mean that he is in favour of an increase?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes indeed.

July 6, 1966
Canada Pension Plan


Ovide Laflamme: I am glad to hear him say so, because we have been hearing about social security measures for the past month, and I might ask him whether a homemaker also needs an increase in family allowances in order to raise and educate her children.


David Lewis: Family allowances are not being discussed.


Ovide Laflamme: It is the principle of social security. I merely wish to say to my friend that social security measures are nevertheless paid for with the money of Canadian taxpayers. Now, if this is paid out of the money of Canadian taxpayers, how is it possible to understand that a great number of members want only one class of people to take advantage of the money available from the national income?
I personally feel that if we have $200 or $300 million available without overburdening the taxpayers, all classes of society should share equally in the benefits.
I ask the members from either group to say whether a mother raising five children has less need to have her family allowances increased by $2, $3 and $5 a month than an older person needs to have his pension increased?


Gilles Grégoire: Does the member allow me a question? Is the member for Quebec Montmorency implying that the government intends to introduce a legislation so as to increase family allowances by $5 a month?


Ovide Laflamme: I express myself freely within the party to which I belong and which set up the whole framework of social security. I, for one, believe in an equitable distribution of national wealth to all classes of society and not to the old people only.
Not that I am against increasing the old age pension-and I want that to be well understood-for I know that, while the hon. members opposite spent days talking, many old people did not have enough to subsist on $75 a month. They were not in the least concerned with social security, but rather with small politicking, because social security cannot be based on what a person needs to live on. If a social security policy is to be based on what a person needs to live, then I say that a mother must have $10, $15 or $25 per child, because that is what she would need to support her family fairly and decently. Do you really not admit it?


Gilles Grégoire: Does the government intend to present legislation to this effect soon? That is what I was asking earlier.


Ovide Laflamme: What I am saying, both publicly and within my party, is that I am in favour of increasing all social assistance; but I object to the use of the principle of social security to increase social assistance through pressure and pure partisanship, when a considerable amount of money will be spent on one class and the others will be deprived, because the hon. members are unable, as I am-


David Lewis: I would like to ask the hon. member-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

If Canada is rich enough for both, I am sure the present government will increase them all, and very soon.
fEnglish]


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a further question? We might be inclined to agree with him in a certain area of this debate, but does he realize that we are discussing old age pensions and that the federal old age security fund is for that purpose alone, whether the hon. member likes it or not?


Ovide Laflamme: What I respectfully submit on that point, on the question of the pension fund, is that we will obviously have to know within a year or two, what will be the cost of the gradual decrease in the years of recipients, and this is lower, as you well know, from year to year. At this time, I respectfully submit it is not possible to use part of the fund for old age pensions and divert it to other social security measures. The money distributed to those who need it comes from the taxpayers. There cannot be created a privileged class of recipients, out of tax revenue, in the distribution of national wealth, to the detriment of other classes. If we have sufficient funds, we must pay-


Eric Alfred Winkler: But you are not doing that, because the fund is set up for this specific purpose and it is increasing at an appreciable rate.


Ovide Laflamme: Still, Mr. Speaker, this money comes from the taxpayers. I repeat, the basic principle in which I believe is that the money of the taxpayers should benefit
July 6, 1966

all classes of society through social security allowances. I defy the hon. members of the opposition to say that the other classes of citizens do not need a raise more than old people. If we are rich enough to give our old people an extra $25 without overburdening the taxpayers, which will, of course, be decided by the government, we should also be rich enough to increase the other social security allowances proportionately.
When we are to do so, by burdening-


Eric Alfred Winkler: And for that purpose only.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be allowed to give my opinion. When we have to do so by burdening the Canadian taxpayers with new taxes, then we will have to think twice about it. Anyway, this is my basic concept of social security and I invite the hon. members to tell me what they think of it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise one question to be answered by those opposite who may wish to continue this debate. If the formula of the hon. lady is correct, the average assistance to old age pensioners across Canada for the remainder of the year would work out to something like 40 cents a month. I wonder whether she prefers that formula to the one offered in the resolution of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith)?


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate without making any apology for doing so. I shall not merely be taking up the time of the house, because I wish to get two or three things off my chest which are relevant to pensions and more particularly to old age pensions.
I have rarely heard it stated by any hon. member, either in this house or outside it, what the cost of these various measures would be and I believe the people of this country have the right to an accurate accounting of what the costs are likely to be. I believe most people want those costs translated into taxes on the incomes of individual wage earners in this country.
An increase in old age pensions from a flat rate of $75 a month to $100 a month, which is taken seriously by all members of this house and which is firmly advocated by several parties in the opposition as being a plank in their election platforms, should be translated
Canada Pension Plan
into monthly payments by wage earners of this country. An additional $25 a month has been proposed for elderly people in this country. There are now one and a half million of them and within the next decade there will be more than two million.
The cost of such an increase would work out to something around $9 a month. This would have to come from the paychecks of people who are working in this country today. After all, somebody has to generate the income which is then taken from them and turned over to others on social security in Canada.
There are many cases of need among the elderly, and I am not one to deny it. But I believe that any member who acts responsibly in this house should always give the other side of the equation. And the other side is this: How much must we take from the working people of this country in order to be able to pay these additional benefits and how much will it mean in deductions from their paychecks? I am sure the vast majority of people in this country have no conception of the amount of money involved in programs of this kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Give us your calculation.


John (Jack) Davis: I intend to do so if I am
permitted to continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member aware that the $215 million surplus in the old age security fund as of March 31 this year is more than enough to pay the increase of $25 a month, which we are advocating, for the balance of this fiscal year?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that windfalls-and perhaps I should not refer to $215 million as a windfall-should be regarded as a feature that could be incorporated into a plan that is going to last for decades. If we are overtaxing in respect of the old age security $75 flat rate at the moment, then we pay a few more dollars a month or reduce the taxes. What I am saying is that we should be frank and truthful with the people of this country and say what our programs for increased welfare mean in terms of increased tax dollars taken from them. I do not want to deal with a fortuitous accumulation in any plan at the moment-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But before saying an additional so many dollars would have to come

July 6, 1966
Canada Pension Plan
from every person, should the parliamentary secretary not take into account what is already being taken away from the people in taxes to build up the old age security fund? I agree with him that we should know what the tax collection requirements are, but these are taxes which have already been paid for old age security.


John (Jack) Davis: I am quite sure those taxes which have accumulated over a period of years-


Stanley Howard Knowles: One year only.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If hon. members wish to ask questions of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano I am sure he will indicate whether or not he is prepared to answer them.


David Lewis: Can the hon. member tell us how many years it took to accumulate the fund?


Stanley Howard Knowles: One year only.


John (Jack) Davis: That has been accumulated in the last couple of years, to my knowledge. I would prefer now to finish my remarks. I think the hon. member has raised a good point. It is one of the substantial arguments which the N.D.P. is using and, to a lesser extent, the official opposition, in order to justify an even larger outlay in respect of pensions. However, I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Rideout) and the figures she gave were prepared by civil servants competent in this subject. She said that on average over the next five years an increase from $75 to $100 a month would run around $700 million a year.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is suggesting that an over collection of some $215 million over the last year or two should be applied immediately to meeting part of this increase. I say we should be frank with the people of Canada and say that $8, $9 or $10 a month is going to have to be taken off the pay packet of every working citizen in order to meet an increase in the flat rate of the old age pension from $75 to $100.


David Lewis: Would the hon. member be kind enough to give us the calculation which arrives at $8 to $10 out of each wage packet?


John (Jack) Davis: I assume the hon. member will accept the $700 million a year figure produced by the department as the cost of the

flat increase. The parliamentary secretary said it would be $3J billion over five years or $700 million a year on the average. Taking the working population of Canada, which is of the order of six million people, more than $100 a year has to come from each member of the working population. If you divide this by 12 months of the year you get $8 to $10. I have more accurate figures in my office, and the result I arrived at was $9. That is the order of magnitude of the cost.
This private member's motion is mischievous in another sense. It does not say where the money would come from. It implies that it would come out of the Canada Pension Plan. In fact it specifically says:
-the government should give immediate consideration to amending the Canada Pension Plan in such a way as to insure that it and complementary pensions and retirement allowance legislation-
Will produce $100 per month. In other words, the Canada Pension Plan must be amended to supply this money and not the old age assistance legislation as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was inferring. The Canada Pension Plan was negotiated with the provinces collectively and individually, and ten provincial governments of different political stripes would have to be consulted before the federal government could give effect to this amendment.
In other words, it would be impossible for the government of Canada to give immediate effect to an increase from $75 to $100 if it were thinking of getting the necessary money, at least for the short term, by robbing the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan was worked out very carefully in economic and financial terms. It was scrutinized by many experts not only here in Ottawa but in the provinces, and was examined thoroughly in committee by experts from insurance companies. Now the hon. member for Perth is asking us to dismiss summarily all the calculations that were made in the preparation of it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has the hon. member read the evidence presented before the Canada Pension Plan committee, which sat about a year and a half ago, and which indicated that most of the insurance companies and the province of Ontario suggested that $25 a month be given to old age security recipients from the Canada Pension Plan?


John (Jack) Davis: I have read a good part of the evidence and skimmed over the rest of it, but I did not find any conclusion that that sort of
July 6, 1966

surplus, or indeed any surplus, was accumulating in the Canada Pension Plan. Each of us individually is making a payment into that plan and we all have every right to expect that we will get our contributions back out of the plan. I do not think it would be proper if suddenly this government were to dip into the Canada Pension Plan funds to jump old age security payments from $75 to $100 a month.
I should now like to refer briefly to a point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare how many elderly people would benefit under the Canada Assistance Plan and he implied, I think quite properly, that the $85 million would not all go to old age pensioners. I have looked up the introductory statement made by the minister on June 27 and, as recorded at page 6921 of Hansard, he itemized the various groups which will benefit from the Canada Assistance Plan. He said:
These include some 85,000 persons still covered under the old age assistance program-
I personally have no idea how much money they will receive. This depends upon what the provinces individually will decide. But I am quite sure that many of the provinces, and ultimately all of them, as a result of the Canada Assistance Plan will increase their welfare payments to all people who come under its provisions, and naturally those over age 65 who benefit will be assisted in a significant way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall find that out tomorrow.


John (Jack) Davis: No member on this side of the house expects the Canada Assistance Plan to do everything for the aged. That plan deals with many groups, including people receiving blind persons allowances, disabled persons, and 200,000 needy mothers. Incidentally, for the first time federal money is being made available to that category. It also covers 600,000 people receiving unemployment assistance, and 50,000 orphaned children. Therefore it is obvious that the $85 million having to cover all these groups cannot do a great deal for the elderly.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think we must look at the problem of the elderly in another way. Personally I am very much intrigued by Senator Croll's report, the Senate report entitled The Final Report of the Special Committee of the Senate on 23033-462
Canada Pension Plan
Aging. I am very much intrigued, as I am sure are many other members, with the concept of minimum income maintenance. This is going to be expensive, but I prefer it for several reasons. I prefer it in view of my first hand knowledge which I gained back in the 1950's when, out in Vancouver, we carried out an assessment of needs of people on social assistance. That was nearly ten years ago. After assessing the minimum requirements we came to the conclusion in respect of individuals on social assistance that for food, clothing, shelter, utilities and so on an individual needed at least $100 a month. Also, behind this analysis there was an assumption that that individual was the best possible manager in the world. We worked out the figures as to food requirements with the advice of home economists from the University of British Columbia and so on. With the best possible knowledge and after shopping around in Vancouver to get the lowest possible prices for food, clothing, rent, etc., we found that $100 a month was the absolute minimum for an individual on social assistance. They were getting $55 in those days. As a result of our study for the community chest, it was bumped up to $65. I think another $10 was added later.
Most of us recognize that the payments to these people on social assistance are not adequate. We must move progressively to a system of minimum income maintenance, and we must carry out thorough appraisals such as that one in each region because the cost of living differs across the country. We must do this and we must make allowances. It must be done in co-operation with the provinces, because they have a major responsibility in this area. The Canada Assistance Plan goes part way down the road. Perhaps ultimately, if the provinces live up to their responsibility, it may go a long way toward meeting this problem of need.
I should like to go back to the matter of old age pensions. I should like to think that eventually the federal government will adopt a plan similar to that outlined in the Croll report, and that we will have figures developed as to minimum needs regionally across the country. We would have to help those people who are in need. They do not add up to all of the one and a half million elderly in our country. They are a small fraction of the total, but they are the people who have nothing other than the present flat rate pension; they need a supplementary income. I believe in the long run it will be up to the

July 8. 1966
Canada Pension Plan
nation to provide that supplementary income so that they can live in dignity at a minimum standard.
I think this motion is mischievous because we have debated this subject-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mischievous against whom? Against the people who need money, as you say?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman is interrupting. He is not asking a question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A typical Liberal stand.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) objects, but I would say it is mischievous for several reasons. One is that the essence of this subject was debated at great length in this house a few months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who now has the floor has the right to continue his speech without being interrupted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He should have some appreciation for the senior citizens of this country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We want the old people to understand where he stands.


John (Jack) Davis: As I said, the substance of this motion was debated at length in this house at the beginning of the session and there was a proper vote held on it after considerable discussion. This is merely an attempt to debate it again during private members' hour. I suggest it would be financially and legally wrong to rob the Canada Pension Plan by stripping it of the funds necessary to increase old age pensions from $75 to $100 a month.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member allow a question? Would he call it robbing the fund when the fund is set up for that very purpose and that purpose only? Tell me that.


John (Jack) Davis: I call robbing, among other things, something that is illegal, and I say that is illegal because the money we are paying into the Canada Pension Plan is money paid in trust to look after us when we reach age 65. That is wrapped up in the legal phraseology in the act making the Canada Pension Plan law in this country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am glad I do not have to depend on the Liberal party.


John (Jack) Davis: The suggestion that the government should out of hand dip into the funds being accumulated for the Canada Pension Plan and pay the money to people now aged 65 and over certainly is inconsistent with the concept of the Canada Pension Plan.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member permit a question? If we take the money which is there now, in 25 years there will be money to pay our pensions and to increase the old age pension.


John (Jack) Davis: We debated the Canada Pension Plan for a good many days and I think it is a reasonably good plan. The hon. member contributed many words and many ideas to the debate at that time.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and let us vote. We have two minutes.


Michael Starr: Get the hon. member for
Brantford (Mr. Brown) in here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano has one minute left of his time.


An hon. Member:: Just time left to vote.


John (Jack) Davis: To summarize, Mr. Speaker, we need more responsibility in respect of the old age pensions in this country. We are paying among the highest old age pensions in the world in Canada today. We are going to pay more. We can afford more, but we must, however, say from whom we are going to take the money. We are going to have to say whether we are going to take it away from the head of a young family who is earning $300 a month and give it to an old couple who are receiving $200 a month.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour
provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
o (6:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether there is a minister present, or someone substituting for a minister, to announce the business for tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the cabinet?


Gilles Grégoire: There are no members of the cabinet here.
July 6, 1966


Michael Starr: Is there any backbencher who is prepared to announce what the business is going to be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the shadow cabinet?


Mr. Pilon:: I delivered a message to the other side five minutes ago, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: We have not yet received the message.
Business oj the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then can the hon. member for Ontario tell us what the business of the house will be?


Michael Starr: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we should go on with-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
7303
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 7, 1966