Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) is quite correct in stating that at an earlier stage in this debate I indicated that each of the changes forecast in this legislation is acceptable and desirable. He knows, too, that I approve the suggestion that this bill be referred to and studied by a committee of this house. Although I do approve that suggestion, frankly I wonder when another committee is going to find time to meet during the course of this session, and how it is going to be possible for the officials of this house to provide the necessary staff for another committee. Hon. members

Government Annuities Act are aware of the fact that so many committees are meeting now they are competing with each other for time and assistance. However, I do hope it may be possible for us to deal with this bill in committee before the session ends.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

This was a request by the opposition, you know.

Mr. Knowles:

Does the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) happen to remember when the opposition requested that?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I could not give the exact date, but my information is that the opposition desired to have a serious study of this bill in committee, and we agreed.

Mr. Knowles:

I just wondered whether the minister remembered that that request was made in June of 1948.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

No, it was requested at this session.

Mr. Knowles:

Of course the request was probably renewed this session.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

We never forget a request from the opposition.

Mr. Knowles:

It is good that the Minister of Public Works is in such a genial mood. He realizes that what he is doing is inviting us to make more requests, although we may have to wait three or four years-

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

You can make them easily, without invitation.

Mr. Knowles:

That is right, and we are both persistent and patient. The parliamentary assistant has also indicated that most, if not all, of those of us who took part in the debate during the resolution stage are members of the industrial relations committee to which this bill will be referred, so we shall have an opportunity in that committee to discuss the various questions that were raised when the debate was in progress on Thursday of last week. Nevertheless I do feel that before the house is asked to give second reading, which involves giving approval to the principle of the bill, we should have had a more complete statement answering some of the questions that were put to the government at the resolution stage. I want to make it quite clear that in saying this I am not offering any criticism whatever of the hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote). After all, a parliamentary assistant is placed in a difficult position. He may have all the information, but he cannot really speak for the government. I do feel that this bill should have been brought on at a time when the minister could have made a statement answering some of the questions that were put to

1214 HOUSE OF

Government Annuities Act the government the other day. Even though from this side of the house we have indicated general approval of the changes proposed by this bill, I believe the house is entitled to that information before giving approval to the principle of the bill, which is what happens when it receives second reading.

The parliamentary assistant tried to make one other point. He suggested that some of the things we were discussing the other day during the resolution stage were not relevant to this bill. In particular he referred to my discussion of the interest rate and the mortality rates, and suggested that those are matters which are determined by the governor in council. May I point out to him that the authority to determine those matters by order in council is provided in the legislation. As a matter of fact the bill now before us has a section which confers that authority, and it is one of the sections that has been re-drafted in this amending legislation. I submit, therefore, that when parliament is being asked to give the governor in council authority to fix the interest rate and to determine the mortality tables, surely at such a time we have a right to discuss that phase of the matter. Nevertheless I do not propose to go into it at any length tonight, because I did so on Thursday of last week when we were at the resolution stage. But I hope what the parliamentary assistant has just said is not a suggestion that when we get into the industrial relations committee we shall be denied the right to discuss that phase of the matter. As I said the other day I feel that, acceptable as are all the changes proposed in this bill, the most important change required with respect to government annuities is being overlooked, namely to put them back on the same basis they were on prior to the order in council of April, 1948.

As I said the other day, the raising of the amount of annuity a person can purchase to $200 a month is not a great deal of help to many Canadians. Most Canadians have a real job trying to buy an annuity of any kind. What is important is lowering the cost of these annuities', particularly in the lower brackets. I certainly hope that we shall have the right to discuss that phase of the matter with the officials or with the Minister of Labour, when .the bill comes before the industrial relations committee.

Among the questions that were asked the other day was one which I had hoped would be answered by a statement at this time, namely a question as to the extent to which existing contracts could be amended after the passing of this legislation, in keeping with the provisions that will be enacted when this

bill becomes law. We know, for example, that as the law now stands the maximum anyone can purchase is $1,200 a year. It will be $2,400 a year after this bill is passed. We know, too, that there are new types of contracts that can be purchased after this bill becomes law. I asked in particular whether people holding contracts at the present time would be able to have them altered along these lines.. The parliamentary assistant drew my attention to the fact that the bill would provide authority to the Minister of Labour to amend existing contracts, so I was interested in discovering that there is such a section in the bill. We are on second reading, Mr. Speaker, which means that one is not supposed to refer to the sections of a bill, but since we are not now going into committee of the whole on this bill I might be permitted half a minute to draw attention to the fact that the new section 6 of the bill will provide for variations to be made in existing contracts. But that authority is subject to certain other sections of the bill, namely sections 4, 7 and 8.

I find as I read section 8 it suggests that the total amount of annuities to be paid people who had contracts previously cannot exceed the maximum amount that might have been paid under this act or under those contracts before .the commencement of this subsection. From my reading of that subsection it seems to limit the right of the Minister of Labour to amend existing contracts so as to bring them up to the new maximum provided in this amending bill. As I have already said, there are other features of the problem that I regard as being much more important than this; but since this change is being made-and it is being made because of the increased cost of living and the decreased-value of the dollar

__it seems to me that it should be made

available not only to those who purchase annuities from here on but also to those who already have existing contracts. Asi I say, there were other questions we put to the government on a previous occasion. I had hoped they might be answered now, but in view of the situation we will ask our questions in the committee on industrial relations. In that committee I hope .that we shall be able to discuss that other all-important question, namely that of getting the cost of annuities down at least to the level that obtained prior to April, 1948.

Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):

Mr. Speaker,-

Mr. Speaker:

If the parliamentary assistant speaks now, he will close the debate.

Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):

-before~he debate terminates on this point, I should like to remind my hon. friend that when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) introduced the

resolution he spoke more extensively than he might have, had he chosen to do otherwise. In introducing a resolution it is customary to set forth the broad features of the changes which are anticipated in ithe forecast legislation. But when the minister spoke in introducing the legislation on November 8 he made an extensive review of the administration of the act since its inception, and he took some time in making known the broad features of the amendments which were being announced by this resolution. The speech by the Minister of Labour at that time was one that could have been reserved for the house on the second reading of the bill. That is one of the reasons I chose to be brief at this stage.

Before taking my seat I wish to give a preliminary answer to the question the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has chosen from the several which he asked the other day. It was: Can a contract which is actually in force be amended to take advantage of the added privileges to which a purchaser will be entitled from the moment this legislation is passed? I may say to him that, as I intimated the other day, any contract in force can be improved to the limit of the possibilities set out in the contract itself at the rate prevailing under the said contract. That is the reason, in reply to a question put to me the other day by an hon. member, I said that a contract actually in force for less than the maximum amount could be increased to $1,200 if $1,200 was the maximum annuity payable under that contract, that it could be increased to $5,000 if it was one of the contracts which were issued at the time when the maximum annuity payable was $5,000 and so on. But if a purchaser wishes to increase his maximum annuity under an existing contract to an amount over the maximum payable under his contract, so as to reach the new maximum of $2,400, he will have to be satisfied with the existing rates of interest and mortality tables. That is what I had in mmd the other day when I replied to a question asked by one of the hon. members.

Mr. Knowles:

In other words he takes out a second or supplementary contract. Is that what the hon. member means?

Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):

I would not say what interpretation the minister will place on the powers of discretion which are being given him, to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. The minister has power to recommend the amendment of an existing contract or the substitution of a new one The powers are there. I think that all that is required to meet the wish of the prospective purchaser my hon. friend has in mind is in the amendment recommended to the house.

Financial Administration Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when this matter was under discussion on Friday last I moved the adjournment of the debate, for there are a few comments I should like to make.

i. wc welcome tne introduction of this measure. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) indicated last June and as his parliamentary assistant indicated on Friday, we feel that the business of government, particularly in a financial way, has increased so tremendously in recent years that it has become necessary to review our legislation respecting financial matters and put all of it in one statute if that can be done. As was pointed out the other day, this bill was placed in our hands through the medium of being given first reading on June 25; hence we have had a few months in which to look it over.

I agree with the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary assistant in their statement that the various officials of the Department of Finance, the Auditor General and others who worked on this matter have done a good job.

I understand that this bill is to go to the committee on public accounts. I may say that this is another instance in which one

Financial Administration wonders how still another committee is going to function during the course of this session. So many of them are already meeting-and just a few minutes ago we passed a motion that calls another to life-that I wonder when the committee on public accounts is going to get either the time or the staff to do this heavy, detailed and technical job. Nevertheless it is one that must be done, and I hope the committee can at least get started *on it at this session.

When the Minister of Finance first introduced this measure last June 25, I felt that he was assessing the situation accurately when, as reported at page 4622 of Hansard of June 25, 1951, he spoke of the increased magnitude of government business and said:

Inevitably, in an enterprise of any magnitude, this involves some delegation of authority. However, the government's financial business must be carried on with full regard to the traditional relationships which exist under our parliamentary system of government between the legislature and the executive.

And he went on to say:

With the substantial increase in the amount of public business which comes before it, parliament can no longer deal, as it once did, with the details of administration. However, the government is the executant of the will of parliament, and must look there for its authority, and a broad measure of control and accountability is both necessary and proper.

I agree with those sentiments as expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). There is no question but that the increasing magnitude of the business of government makes it impossible for members of parliament, in parliament assembled at any rate, to go into all the details in the manner that was characteristic of the parliament of Canada seventy-five or eighty years ago when relatively small amounts of money were being spent. That does mean we have to have machinery for the delegation of authority; but the more that becomes necessary, the more important it is that that machinery, and particularly the statutory provisions, is such as to retain the accountability of the government to parliament and the authority of parliament over the government, particularly with respect to the spending of money.

I should like to read one or two further sentences from what the minister said on that occasion. On the same page he said:

When authority has been granted to the executive a full measure of accountability has been assured.

This is the minister's characterization of the bill. I trust that will prove to be the case. He continues:

In short, the aim has been, by the proper delegation of authority, to achieve business efficiency in operations with full regard for the fundamental concepts of parliamentary sovereignty and executive responsibility.

As I have already said, I agree wholeheartedly with those precepts, and I trust that when the committee gets this bill and goes through it, clause by clause and line by line, they will keep those precepts in mind and make sure that this bill setting up anew our financial machinery, while it delegates authority to the executive, retains parliamentary control over that executive.

Even after that has been done, Mr. Speaker, even after the best possible bill has been drafted and reviewed and, perchance, revised and amended by a committee, it is still to be said that the control by parliament over the government, the responsibility of the government to parliament requires even something more than statutory provisions. It requires vigilance on the part of parliament. It means that members of parliament will have to work even harder at their job, after a measure like this goes through. It is our task to scrutinize wherever we possibly can. But it also means that the government will have to be most vigilant in recognizing its accountability to parliament; and it should keep that precept in mind at every stage, particularly with respect to any measures involving the expenditure of money.

I was interested the other day in the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), when he took up the whole question of governmental economy. We in this group feel that is something that must be watched, and that there must be every possible check against waste or extravagance in government expenditures. I confess we have not had a great deal to say on that subject, but when we see evidence of extravagance we strongly object. Our main concern has been rather with government policy in the financial field. We feel that the government should take the kind of steps financially which will facilitate the full functioning of our economy so that Canadians, and Canada as a whole, do not have to live in a penurious manner, but rather in keeping with the productive capacity that we possess.

I have just said that nevertheless we do feel that some very close and strict attention must be paid both by parliament as a whole and by the government to matters affecting economy. In this connection the parliamentary assistant will recall that last June I drew to his attention a system in vogue in the United States whereby government employees are encouraged to make suggestions to the various departments in which they are employed. I have in mind suggestions that result in economies or improvements in efficiency. I pointed out to the parliamentary assistant that certain awards are made to