1959-06-23

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to an order of the house passed on May 18, and I read from page 447 of Votes and Proceedings for that day:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any person, organization or government, since January 1, 1958, relative to the purchase of land or any other matter relating to the proposed Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment at Queen Charlotte city.
Sessional paper No. 70-CE contains the correspondence, documents and other material as set out in that particular motion. However, I have reason to believe, sir, there is a letter or document that was sent by the Minister of Justice which is not contained within the file of correspondence made available pursuant to this order of the house.
In this regard I would refer to the Prince Rupert Daily News of Thursday, April 23, 1959, which was within the period covered by the order of the house. In an article on the front page there is an announcement by Mr. A. D. Vance, who is a building supply firm operator and also was Conservative candidate during the last election in the constituency of Skeena, indicating that he had received a communication from the Minister of Justice to the effect that this particular land had been purchased, the price of the land, when construction would begin and so on.
My question of privilege, sir, is that either the Minister of Justice has not put this particular letter or piece of correspondence in the sessional paper or Mr. Vance, who made the announcement in Prince Rupert, is giving to the Minister of Justice some credit which is not due him, that is for writing a particular letter relating to this Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment at Queen Charlotte city.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge all the correspondence which either the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or myself or anyone in the department wrote on this matter has been produced. There may be,
in one of my own files, another letter, and I shall have the file searched at once to find out. If there is, and it is properly produce-able, I shall be glad to produce it. If it should have been produced and has not yet been produced I can assure the house it is only by inadvertence. I shall check the records at once to make sure that nothing that should be produced has been left out.



MR. DIEFENBAKER  REFERENCE TO POSSIBLE INCOMPLETE RETURN

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I communicated with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate respecting this matter a couple of days ago. On March 25, in response to his motion, it was ordered that there be laid before the house a copy of all communications received by the Prime Minister since March 10, 1959 protesting the refusal of the government to reinforce the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland. I brought down all the documents that I was advised were on the file. Following another return made by the Minister of Justice, a letter turned up in that file which apparently was a copy of one that had been sent to me. Immediately I noticed that, I asked the staff to make a search, and apparently it was misplaced. There may be others in the same position, and when I have them I will table them. I just wanted the hon. gentleman to know that this is just one of those cases of filing under two files and then something being misplaced.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twil-lingate):: I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question. I thank him for the explanation he has made public. There has already been a supplementary return made by the Prime Minister, and is this still further correspondence?


John George Diefenbaker: I will not say that. All I have is the information I have given.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a



definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the charge that clandestine political influence has been brought to bear on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation management resulting in the resignation of 12 employees of the corporation, including the supervisor of talks and public affairs, the assistant supervisor of talks and public affairs, C.B.C. radio, and the supervising producer of public affairs, C.B.C. television.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I submit it is clear that this motion is out of order-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I say this. You have not yet put the motion, and perhaps you would follow the normal course of giving the person who moves it a chance to explain it.


Mr. Speaker:: I have scarcely had time to read the motion which the Leader of the Opposition asks leave to move, but from what he said about it I wonder whether the matter is one which is under the administrative responsibility of the government. I would like to have the Leader of the Opposition address himself to that point. I shall certainly hear the Minister of Justice also. The reason I say that is this. I take it that the motion relates to employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a corporation established by parliament. But as I have heard its relations to the government explained in the house, its responsibility may be directly to parliament. That is the point that strikes me immediately, and on which 1 should be glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right, of course. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a public corporation, but it is responsible to parliament and it reports to parliament through a minister of the crown. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, surely this house is permitted to inquire into matters concerning this corporation, particularly if they affect members of parliament or members of the government. The important part of this motion, it seems to me, is that a charge has been made by those senior officials of the C.B.C. to the effect that, as the motion reads, "clandestine political influence has been brought to bear on the corporation management". It is as a result of that influence, in the view of these officials, that they have been unable to carry on their duties in the way in which they would wish to carry them on. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, surely the fact of resignations of this kind alleged to be brought about by clandestine political influence, will have an unfortunate effect on the integrity and the independence of the C.B.C.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to read the statement issued-because it has a bearing on the importance and the urgency of this matter-by the supervisor of talks and public affairs, the assistant supervisor of talks and public affairs and the supervising producer of public affairs, which explains why they felt it necessary to resign, which resignations have been followed by those of other senior officials and I understand the number is increasing. This statement which explains why this course had to be taken is as follows. It was issued, I think, on June 23 and it is signed by the supervisor of talks and public affairs, the assistant supervisor of talks and public affairs and the supervising producer of public affairs, Mr. F. W. Peers, Mr. D. H. Gillis, and Mr. B. Trotter, and reads as follows:
On June 15 C.B.C. management took a decision to cancel the series "Preview Commentary" effective today, June 23. The supervisor of talks and public affairs, Frank Peers, was given no valid reason for this action. The controller of broadcasting, Charles Jennings, handed him a written explanation that the press gallery correspondents who contributed to "Preview Commentary" did not have time to put things in perspective in commenting on the events of the previous day.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, presumably they have time to comment on these things before they send them to their newspapers. The statement goes on:
Since this reason was manifestly absurd applying to professional journalists covering the national capital, Mr. Peers started a series of inquiries which led only to the conclusion that clandestine political influence had been brought to bear on C.B.C. management.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the whole statement but that is the part which I think is relevant to this particular motion. Surely this is a charge which has a bearing on the independence and integrity of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is something which must be very much in all our minds these days, and it is something which we have a duty in this house to protect. If, Mr. Speaker, this publicly owned and operated corporation is to be subjected to this kind of influence as charged, then not only will it prejudice its existence but it will at the very least put it in an unfavourable position with regard to private broadcasting. The importance of this matter and its seriousness should certainly be apparent to the members of the government, because they took such a strong stand when they were in opposition on the independence and integrity of this corporation and its immunity from any form of influence on the part of the government.
I would now like to quote the words of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) as reported on page 2827 of Hansard

for March 29, 1957, and these will be my final words, Mr. Speaker, to justify not only the importance of this matter but the urgency of discussing it at this time to remove these impressions. The Minister of Finance said:
If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to function in a manner free of government interference, then there must not be attempts on the part of the Prime Minister or other members of the government to influence the programming activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and above all opinion broadcasts on public issues.
This resignation statement, Mr. Speaker, alleges that there has been that kind of clandestine political influence, and I suggest it is a matter of importance and urgency and should be discussed immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Leader of the Opposition takes his seat, if debate were permitted on the motion would it directly call into account the administration of the government, or is it a matter for parliament as a whole?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will call into question the relationship of members of parliament, and particularly members of the government, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because of this allegation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that only by an immediate and reassuring statement from the government in such a discussion as this can the deterioration in the morale of the C.B.C. as a result of resignations of this kind be halted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Fulton) would prefer to leave his remarks until I have heard the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He has the floor if he wishes to speak now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is because I think it is so easily demonstrated that this motion does not comply with the rules that I would appreciate the opportunity to be heard now. There are a number of grounds upon which this motion fails, and I would like to deal with them one by one on the basis of the facts.
First of all I would like to refer to May's fifteenth edition, page 352, which says that the matter raised by the motion must be definite. Your Honour will find that there is a citation there, citation (c), which says that in particular such a motion must not be offered when the facts are in dispute or before they are available. I refer here particularly to the facts being in dispute. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has in the wording of this motion itself made it clear that this is a matter of opinion-opinion, I might say, held only by members of the opposition. He

says it is a matter of urgent public importance, namely a charge that clandestine political influence has been brought to bear on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
That is not a fact, Mr. Speaker; this is a matter which is, as I say, based on a charge. The facts in the matter are not established, and therefore the motion does not deal with a definite matter. And to illustrate my point that this is a matter of opinion and dispute only, and indeed to show how unfounded is the charge and how inappropriate would be a discussion of this kind, I should like to refer to a statement dealing with this matter which was made by Mr. Bushnell, general manager and acting president of the C.B.C., which refutes completely the statements the Leader of the Opposition has read into the record. Mr. Bushnell gave the following statement to the press today.
Some two weeks ago the corporation decided to replace the "Preview Commentary" from Ottawa, which followed the eight o'clock C.B.C. news, with a "Special Parliamentary Report" prepared by the C.B.C. news service. It was felt that this would improve the corporation's service of reporting the proceedings of the previous day in parliament.
This has been followed by resignations of several members of the corporation's "Talks and Public Affairs" national office in Toronto, on the grounds that the substitution of the opinion broadcast "Preview Commentary" by the factual C.B.C. news report implied political interference with the C.B.C.'s broadcasting of controversial affairs. The corporation does not accept this implication.
The C.B.C. has the fullest confidence in its talks and public affairs department which over the years has contributed some of the C.B.C.'s most distinguished and responsible broadcasting.
Thus, in so far as the facts are ascertainable, the statement by the responsible manager and acting president completely refutes the charge which has been so baselessly brought in this house by the Leader of the Opposition.
Another ground is that the matter raised in the motion must be urgent, and in this connection there are citations both in Beau-chesne and May, but May deals with this situation very succinctly. I would refer Your Honour to the fifteenth edition at page 352, where it is stated that the motion has been refused where the matter could be raised on the estimates, that is, when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in a reasonable time.
I should point out that the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue, who is the minister who answers for the C.B.C., have not yet, I am informed, come before the committee of supply, so there will be ample opportunity to raise this matter and to raise it in the fullest and most satisfactory form in committee of supply when all members may take part in the discussion. On that ground



I think it is obvious, in accord with previous rulings, that the motion fails because the question of urgency of debate does not arise.
Another reason why I submit the motion must fail is one to which you yourself referred, Your Honour, namely that this does not involve the administrative responsibility of the government. May I point out that May, in his fifteenth edition at page 355, gives an example of a somewhat similar motion in the United Kingdom having been ruled out of order on the ground that it related to the conduct of the affairs of a statutory authority. The C.B.C. is set up as a statutory authority. It is a corporation created by parliament. The act which governs it has been carefully drawn to make it clear that the C.B.C. operates as an independent corporation. It does not operate under the direction of the government. It reports to parliament, and is responsible to parliament directly only with respect to its financial requirements. As a statutory authority carefully set apart from the possibility of direct interference by the government, it cannot be said to be under the administrative authority of the government and subject to discussion in these circumstances, under this rule.
May I refer Your Honour to sections 22, 26 and 27 of the Broadcasting Act enacted in 1958. Section 22(1) reads:
There shall be a corporation to be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say what he is reading from?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; the statutes of 1958, the Broadcasting Act.
22. (1) There shall be a corporation to be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation consisting of a president, a vice-president and nine other directors to be appointed by the governor in council.
Then the other subsections of this section outline the organization of the corporation. Then section 26 (1) provides:
The corporation may on its own behalf employ such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the conduct of its business, at such remuneration and upon such other terms and conditions as it deems fit, but the officers and employees so employed are not officers or servants of Her Majesty.
Then in section 27 it is made clear that the corporation itself is an agent of Her Majesty with all the powers, rights and liabilities usually attached to such crown agencies.
The whole tenor of the statute, and particularly these sections, Mr. Speaker, make it abundantly clear that the corporation is not under the day to day administration of the government. May I in this connection refer Your Honour to a case in the United Kingdom House of Commons, reported in the British Hansard for 1912, volume 41, column 816. This

was a case in which a member moved, or sought leave to move, the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the failure of the board of trade through its representatives to bring pressure to bear on the port authority to carry out its obligations under the port of London act.
In this case the member was seeking to move the adjournment with respect to a matter arising in connection with the port of London authority. The port of London authority was the authority which administered the port of London, and it was a statutory authority in exactly the same way as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is, set up independently of the government although it had to report through the board of trade which, as hon. members know, is the equivalent of the Department of Trade and Commerce in this country. Mr. Speaker immediately ruled as follows:
I regret that 1 am not able to accept the motion of the hon. member. The port of London is an authority set up by parliament and quite independent of the board of trade. I have looked through the act which set up the authority, and I can only find some three sections which introduce the board of trade at all as a controlling authority.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that as I recall the Broadcasting Act there is no place at which the Minister of National Revenue or any other minister is introduced as a controlling authority. The Speaker of the British house continued:
Those sections deal with audits if required, with the question of increases of duties, and with complaints about warehousing. As far as I can ascertain, those are the only sections in the bill which give the board of trade any power whatever, or any control over the port authority. That being so, it is clear that the board of trade have no such control as the hon. gentleman would wish to imply in his motion.
From the terms of the Broadcasting Act in Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that neither the Minister of National Revenue nor any other minister of the government had any such control as the Leader of the Opposition seeks to imply in his motion, control over the C.B.C., in a way which would bring it within the rules of parliament as to the content of such motions to adjourn the house.
On these grounds, Mr. Speaker-and there are a number of others which I know will occur to Your Honour, which I therefore think I need not mention today, but particularly on the ground that this is not a definite matter but a matter of opinion, this motion is not in order. The opinion of the Leader of the Opposition is one, I submit, which can clearly be proven to be groundless, but that is a matter, of course, of debate-on these grounds, it is not in order to introduce charges,

to raise matters of this kind which really involve charges against the government based on opinion, on a motion seeking to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the Minister of Justice in the past when he appeared to be on much stronger ground than he is this afternoon. As a matter of fact I think his argument is particularly weak. He says this is not a definite matter. I do not know whether you have to have some physical object which can be weighed before you have a definite matter. This is a definite charge that has been made in writing by no less a person than the leader of the official opposition in this house, and I think it is very much a definite matter, since it charges that clandestine political influence has been brought to bear on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
To make it something that is most definite one need only to keep in mind the continuing reports of further resignations from the C.B.C. I understand that now there have been in excess of 20 resignations. When people are resigning in very large numbers apparently in protest of the definite matter that has been set forth in this motion, is this not a definite matter? In my submission, Mr. Speaker, this is something that is a very definite matter, which has been well set out in the motion.
It has been said by the Minister of Justice that this is not urgent; that it can be debated when the estimates of the department are before the house. That, of course, is true, but there is no assurance as to how soon those estimates will be before the house for debate. They may be the last estimates in the dying days of the session. In the meantime, how many more resignations may there be from the C.B.C.? I think it is urgent that this be discussed so the matter may be aired fully and so that a further deterioration of the C.B.C. itself may not take place, if such an assurance is in fact given.
I think the whole question of interference by the government in the administration of the C.B.C. is not only a definite and urgent matter but it is something of very great concern to the people of this country, in that it suggests that there has been political interference with freedom of discussion through the C.B.C. I suggest that it is such an important and far-reaching matter that it deserves immediate debate.
The Minister of Justice brought forward many citations to endeavour to prove that the C.B.C. is beyond the administrative jurisdiction of the government. The point of this motion, I suggest, is that, while everyone agrees that this is what the law says, nevertheless even with that situation as it is set

forth there is the charge of political interference. It is a very grave and a very serious charge that has been presented, namely that in spite of the safeguards in the laws of this country there has been political interference. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this whole question is the matter of freedom of discussion, freedom of the C.B.C., apart from government and cabinet interference. For all these reasons urgency of debate is essential.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
should say a word or two, not that it is necessary-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister begins, since he is the responsible minister, I take it that he is addressing himself to the question of standing order 26, and whether a debate should be allowed on the issue?


George Clyde Nowlan: It is not necessary to supplement the argument which was advanced by the Minister of Justice, which I am sure is sound and valid and which I should hope would commend itself to your judgment when you make your ruling, Your Honour.
The Minister of Justice referred to the fact that the estimates of the corporation have not yet been before the committee. That is true. There may be some merit in the suggestion that those estimates could possibly be deferred for some little while, but I would point out that the committee on broadcasting, which is charged particularly with the investigation of this corporation, is meeting today in Toronto, where the directors of the corporation are meeting, and will resume sittings here on either Monday or Tuesday of next week. I would also point out that one of the responsibilities of that committee, of course, is to investigate fully all affairs of the C.B.C. I think that is one answer to the question of urgency of debate, and supplements the information with respect to estimates.
I certainly appreciate the information I have received this afternoon. It has been said by one member that there have been 12 resignations and by another that there have been 15, and if two or three more members get up we may have 30 or 40. As far as the management is concerned, and I am speaking now of the manager with whom I talked just before coming into the house, the figures on resignations are in no way similar to those which have been detailed to the house.
I want to point out that this charge is based on what the Leader of the Opposition says is a statement from the corporation. I suggest that statements from the corporation



come from the management of the corporation, and a statement by the management of the corporation was read by the Minister of Justice.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I be
allowed to say a word in answer to what the minister has said, particularly having regard to the statement that the estimates might well be discussed in the near future. That is a point that repeatedly comes up when a motion is made to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. Earlier we were told that the reason a matter was not urgent was that it could be discussed on a supply motion, and this time we are told it is not urgent because the estimates will come up in due course. These, sir, are not the criteria on which the matter should be disposed of, because the rule in Beauchesne makes it quite clear upon what formalities the motion should be based.
My hon. friend also made reference to the committee on broadcasting. We all know that if this matter is to be disposed of by the committee on broadcasting it cannot be done on Monday, for the simple reason that these people would have to receive notice and it would probably be a week before they could come down here, so that again falls to the ground.
But the main point made by the Minister of Justice was that this was not a definite matter. What could be more definite, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia, than the resignation of a number of top officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? On that basis alone, which indicates that there is interference not only there but elsewhere in connection with the corporation, I submit this is a matter which should be debated at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The urgent matter which is proposed is that clandestine political influence has been brought to bear on the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the charge.


Mr. Speaker:: The charge is that that has been done. It has been urged that it is not a definite matter. In my view there are definite facts. There is the fact of resignations and the statement made by those who have resigned, which seems to me to be fairly definite. It is a matter of urgent public importance, of course, because it involves the independence of the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore I am prepared to go that far with the Leader of the Opposition who asks for leave to discuss this matter.
The question of urgency is not, I think, conclusive. There will be an opportunity to

discuss these matters on the estimates, but this matter has arisen suddenly and if it complies with the rule on other grounds I think I would be prepared to accept the request for leave to discuss it as a matter of urgent public importance.
My difficulty lies in the question of whether it really involves the administration of the government. It involves the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Apparently the conduct of the management has been such that certain members have resigned. The charge is that there has been clandestine political interference. I can only go on what is before me, and it is not a charge that the administration has been guilty of clandestine interference with the management. In fact, the management as it has been established under the Broadcasting Act, is an independent management.
I am impressed with the reference the Minister of Justice made to a decision with respect to the port of London authority and I ask the house whether, if this motion is debated, its effect would be that the administration should interfere with the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Otherwise the motion is futile. There is no point in the house debating this as an administrative responsibility unless the purpose is to ask the administration to interfere with the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which, as I understand it, they have at all times resisted doing.
In the absence of a charge that the administration has been interfering with the management, which it seems to me would raise a matter for debate, I cannot accept the application for leave as it stands.



&quot;PREVIEW COMMENTARY&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has in any manner whatsoever had discussions with or made representations to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regarding a program entitled "Preview Commentary", and can he tell the house why it has been decided to discontinue this program?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the decision was one of management. I knew nothing about it until this morning, when I heard on the radio that this decision had been made. That was the first intimation I had of it, and I also heard of the resignations.
As most hon. members know, the directors are meeting in Toronto. That was arranged weeks ago, and the directors have come

from all parts of Canada to inspect the facilities of the C.B.C. and to talk with the senior officers of the corporation in Toronto during the last two days. I immediately tried to get in touch with Mr. Bushnell. I did not reach him until around 11.30 because he was at meetings. He then dictated to me the statement which my colleague the Minister of Justice has put on the record. That is my knowledge of this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister if he will be good enough to answer my first question. Has the minister in any manner whatsoever had discussions with or made representations to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regarding the program entitled "Preview Commentary".


George Clyde Nowlan: I have had discussions from time to time with the manager and Mr. Ouimet before his illness about various C.B.C. programs, as to costs and so on and so forth. I do not remember discussing this particular program. If I did I expressed my appreciation of it, because it is a program for which I have had a very high appreciation. I have made no representations to the C.B.C., directly or indirectly, at any time or at any place, with respect to any program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in our further prospecting to secure the facts I wish to ask the Minister of National Revenue another question somewhat related to the one asked by the former minister of national health and welfare, now the farmer expert for Essex East.
In view of reports that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is planning to cancel its morning radio preview commentary; in view of reports that the C.B.C. has been under pressure from Progressive Conservative senators and backbench M.P.'s; and in view of the reported resignation of a number of news commentators, can the minister do anything to enlighten the house as to the drama being played behind the curtain of official silence while the orchestra of public opinion continues to play that old tune, "Tell Me One thing but Tell Me True"?


George Clyde Nowlan: Whatever merit there may be in the question of the hon. member, we always appreciate the poetic atmosphere and the language in which it is expressed. There has been no drama played behind the scenes of which I have knowledge, and I am sure if there were I would have knowledge of it. There is a reference in the hon. member's question to backbench members, whoever they may be, and some senators. I would
Inquiries of the Ministry appreciate elucidation and the identity of these people, if the hon. member has any information which he can give me.



REQUEST THAT STAFF BE GIVEN HOLIDAY ON JUNE 26

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of public affairs who, I understand, has some control over the internal affairs of the house as well as external affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: The Minister of Public Works- in view of the fact that the house will recess on Friday in order to allow hon. members to witness the opening of the seaway by Her Majesty the Queen, in order to demonstrate the truly democratic nature of our government will the minister consider granting the staff of the House of Commons the same privilege, namely a holiday with pay?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this question does not come under the minister of internal affairs or whatever the hon. member called me. This comes under Your Honour.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gloucester inquired as to what specific meteorological service is provided to warn fishermen of approaching storms, and also asked if warning was given of the sudden storm over the Northumberland strait area last Friday.
I am advised by my officials that marine forecasts giving advice on present weather conditions and forecasts for the next 24 hours are issued three times a day for Canadian coastal waters and most of the larger inland lakes. Whenever observed weather conditions indicate that a special marine weather warning of gales, icing and the like should be issued, such warnings are issued and distributed as soon as possible. These warnings are distributed mainly by radio.
Specific warnings were issued by the Halifax and Gander forecast offices during Friday evening, but the fishing vessels, because of the salmon run, had put out much earlier than usual and the warnings were not issued until 8.45 p.m. at Halifax and

Inquiries of the Ministry 9 p.m. at Gander. This timing was due to difficulties in interpretation of changes in blocked weather systems in northwestern and western Canada, where a change in relatively stationary conditions over previous days was developing, and was also due to scarcity of information as to weather reports from ships in the eastern area.
The storm moved in rapidly from the southeast, and the strength of the winds reported over the maritimes was a great deal higher than any previously observed and reported winds emerging from the gradually changing weather conditions mentioned. The afternoon forecast carried at 5 p.m. did not anticipate the severity of the winds experienced, since local storms resulting from this type of situation can move very suddenly.
A full report is being prepared to cover the weather situation as it was, and a detailed research study is being undertaken so that weather offices will be in a better position to anticipate such unusual and rapid weather developments.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Have there been any recent transfers of customs officers from the Dorval port of entry to the Montreal port of entry, and if so is the Department of National Revenue contemplating any further transfers in the coming months? If so, will the minister inform the house the reasons such transfers are made?


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member was good enough to call my office this morning with respect to this matter, and I was therefore able to get detailed information from my deputy minister.
As the hon. member knows, the ports of Dorval and Montreal are relatively close. We have large staffs at both ports. The port of Dorval deals with the airport, and the officers there are doing more specialized work than the general work which falls upon the officers at the port of Montreal. On the 1st day of April six employees were transferred from Dorval to Montreal and six were transferred from Montreal over to Dorval, an exchange of employment so they could benefit from the different experiences. It is contemplated that on July 1 a further five will be transferred from one port to the other, a reciprocal arrangement, and another five will be transferred on October 1 of this year. The selection
[Mr. Hees.l
of those transferred is made by a board composed of the collectors at Montreal and Dorval, the district inspector and the district personnel officer, taking into consideration particularly the location at which the officers reside, it being felt that employees at Montreal would bring to Dorval the added benefit of their experience at a large port.
It has been the practice to advise the officers selected for such exchange verbally by the collectors at their respective ports rather than in writing. It is felt that rather than jeopardize an officer's opportunity for promotion this exchange will be of benefit as it is proposed to open the field of competition for promotion to both ports.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Minister of Transport would comment on a statement in the Globe and Mail attributed to Captain Norman S. Johnson, a member of the board of examiners for pilots on the seaway, that Captain Leighton Crawford has been appointed pilot for the royal yacht Britannia as a reward for heading a strikebreaking group last year against the great lakes pilots' association.


George Harris Hees: As I think the hon. member would be well aware, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no substance whatever in that statement. The pilot who will be guiding Her Majesty's yacht Britannia has been appointed to that position because of his competence and for no other reason.


Hazen Robert Argue: If that is the case and the pilot is being appointed for competency, why then was this position not given to the pilot who received the highest marks in the ship pilots' rating guide?


George Harris Hees: Because my departmental officials have judged that this pilot is most deserving of the appointment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the department not recognize the pilots' rating guide, and if so why was the best qualified pilot not given this very important position?


George Harris Hees: I have said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that my departmental officials consider the man who has been appointed the most competent to take the Queen's yacht through.


Hazen Robert Argue: Because he was a strikebreaker.


George Harris Hees: No, because he is a competent pilot.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a telegram from the united mine workers of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, requesting that the town of New Waterford be declared a depressed area owing to the loss of unemployment insurance benefits, and requesting financial aid from the federal government? Can the acting minister advise the house what action is to be taken?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: With the hon. member's permission I shall take this question as notice.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received a telegram from the secretary of the Cape Breton district command of the Canadian Legion asking immediate action to assist 2,000 miners in need of help? If so, what action is the minister going to take in support of the representations of this important area organization?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have not received any such telegram as yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a supplementary question in the same field, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Prime Minister can say whether the government has come to any conclusions following the consideration he said was being given to the request of William H. Marsh, president of district 26, united mine workers of Glace Bay, that additional unemployment insurance should be provided to workers in that area? The Prime Minister may recall that I brought a telegram to his attention some days ago, and he said consideration would be given to this request.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the question further.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production, but in his absence perhaps the acting minister can take it as notice. Will public tenders be called for the rock excavation and underground construction to be done at the Bomarc missile base at North Bay? If not, why not?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take that question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has noticed that the recent bond issue of the Ontario hydro commission indicates that the investors of Canada have more confidence in that commission than they have in the government of Canada, in that the yield on Ontario hydro offerings is lower than the yield on offerings on the part of the minister. If so, what measures is the minister or the government contemplating to restore the confidence of the investors of Canada in offerings of the Canadian government on the money market?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has purported in a question to ask for confirmation of what he puts forward as a statement of fact. I reject what he puts forward as a statement of fact, because it is not fact. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario hydroelectric commission last Friday put out an issue of, I think, $50 million-a very much smaller issue than any the federal government has recently been putting out-in two maturities, one of 10 years and the other of 20 years, with a 5.75 per cent coupon and it was put on the market at par.


Erhart Regier: Might I ask the minister this question. Does he realize that the yield on the offerings of the Ontario hydro commission is 5.6 per cent, and that the yield on his own offerings on behalf of the government of Canada is in excess of that figure?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is embarking on an argumentative series of questions which I think are inappropriate for the orders of the day.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege may I say this. You allowed the minister to deny my assertion, and I feel that I am within my rights as a member of this house in asking the minister whether he is aware of the fact that the yield on Ontario hydro bonds is lower than that on his own offerings.


Mr. Speaker:: The purpose of questions is to obtain information. The hon. member is giving information which is of general
5044	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry knowledge, if it is correct. If he is asking the Minister of Finance to outline the financial program of the government it seems to me that is something which is quite inappropriate for the orders of the day.


Erhart Regier: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government is contemplating any action which would restore the confidence of the investors of Canada in his offerings.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the government is doing things every day to strengthen the confidence of the people of Canada, who have money to invest, in the credit of this country. I wish the hon. gentleman and some others opposite would follow that example instead of doing all they can to destroy confidence in the country's credit.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Carlier):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the house whether he plans to send Bill No. C-59, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, to one of the standing committees of the house for study and the hearing of representations which may be made concerning this extremely important piece of legislation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should properly be directed to the house leader. All I can say is that I have not discussed that matter.


Leon David Crestohl: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister consider the question I have just asked him, and will he discuss it with the house leader?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
(Page 5044)
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of an item published in yesterday's La Presse. Is the minister aware of the theft of $5,000 allegedly committed in the toll office located at the entrance of Jacques Cartier bridge? If so, could he tell this house whether any change had taken place with regard to the personnel entrusted with toll collections at Jacques Cartier bridge, in view of the fact that there (Mr. Speaker.]

are generally two employees responsible for the collection of tolls? And would the minister then be kind enough to acquaint the house with the result of his investigation?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I consider this question as a notice? I shall answer it tomorrow.
(Text):



REPORTED REDUCTION IN PRODUCTION AND INCREASE IN IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister comment on a release issued yesterday by the bureau of statistics to the effect that Canadian coal output slumped 32 per cent during the month of May, while landed imports in the same month were 21 per cent higher than last year and this while thousands of coal miners are out of work in Nova Scotia coal mines?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to read over the hon. member's question in Hansard and check the bureau of statistics report to which he refers and give him an answer later.



REPORTED INCREASE IN IMPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of the bureau of statistics report issued today which indicates that for the period January-March, 1959 imports from the United States have gone up $31 million in comparison with the same period last year, while imports from the United Kingdom have gone down $8 million. My question is this. Is this situation the result of the trade diversion policy of the present government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the interest of the Leader of the Opposition in this question. I think it is an indication of the increasing trade that is going on between Canada and other countries. He might also have referred to the export figures which indicate that our export picture is also very favourable.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say what progress is being made toward the signing of a Canadian-Soviet trade agreement? Would he comment on the statement attributed to a former Russian trade minister that the new agreement will not include a guarantee by Russia to buy a specific quantity of wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have had recurring questions on this same subject. I have given answers just about every third day with regard to these negotiations. It was only two days ago that I was asked this question, and I reported that they were proceeding favourably. The second part of the hon. member's question concerns a statement which I have not seen.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I asked the min-' ister whether he agrees with the announcement made by Ivan G. Kabanov, a former Soviet trade minister, that a trade agreement with Canada is about to be signed and that it will not include any specific quantity of wheat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the comment to which the hon. member refers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether or not a trade agreement with the Soviet union is about to be signed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I reported the other day, Mr. Speaker, that negotiations were going favourably and that we expected to sign a trade agreement with Russia in the near future.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell the house whether or not the cabinet has approved the new oil and gas regulations for the Arctic islands, which he recommended to his colleagues a month ago? If not, can he tell us how long it usually takes to get four of his colleagues together to sign an order in council?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is
Defence Services Pension Act no. The answer to the last part of the question is the same as that which I gave on a previous occasion, when I told the hon. member that he had been here long enough to know something about how a government operates.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Not this kind of a government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not that kind of a member.



REQUEST FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENT IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture a second time, after a long interval since the last question, whether he is now in a position to say whether the government has arrived at a policy with regard to the request of the Ontario wheat producers for a deficiency payment on Ontario wheat?


Hazen Robert Argue: And western wheat at the same time.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the phrasing of the hon. member's question is not very good. It is not a matter of arriving at a policy; we have a policy which we announced well over a year ago with regard to these matters. It was contained in the stabilization act. Under that act we set a support price for wheat which is in effect at the present time. That was set to take effect at the beginning of the crop year, which is August 1. A support price for the crop year beginning this August 1 will be announced a reasonable period in advance of that date.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister set out the
government's policy with regard to deficiency payments on western wheat? May I take it the government has no policy?


Mr. Benidickson:: No answer, no policy.



DEFENCE SERVICES PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-62 respecting the superannuation of members of the Canadian forces.-Mr. Pearkes- Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 4-Persons required to contribute.
Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, clause 4 to my mind is one of the important clauses of the bill. As was said by the minister at the
5046	HOUSE OF
Defence Services Pension Act resolution stage, the entire purpose of the bill is to bring the Defence Services Pension Act under a new name in conformity with the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Mr. Pearkes:: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This clause is very similar to, if not the same as, the section in the Public Service Superannuation Act and the new R.C.M.P. act which will be introduced shortly.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, if the noise will go down a bit perhaps we can get somewhere.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I wonder if hon. members would lower their voices so the Chair may hear the speaker who has the floor.


Gabriel Roberge: I would like to ask the
minister a question on this clause before we go any further. Are there any members of the Canadian forces who now receive less than $1500 as pay and allowances?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am informed there are none.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, where these elections are possible for prior service and they require lump sum payments to be made, what are the provisions under which those payments may be made?


George Randolph Pearkes: They may either be made as a lump sum payment or monthly or annual payments.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is the maximum period of time over which they may be distributed?


George Randolph Pearkes: Life.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Amount to be paid.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, this clause has to do with elective pensionable service, the amount required to be paid. If I understand the purpose of this clause it is to permit those members who want to elect to become contributors under this bill to pay their arrears. Under the former act there was no provision for pensions or any benefits for those who had under three years' service. Now I see there is. Is it possible that those who are not contributors under the former act may become contributors under this act by paying their arrears?


George Randolph Pearkes: If the serviceman was under parts I to IV, he may elect to come under the new act now.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On clause 10-Benefits payable on retirement.
Gabriel Roberge: This clause might be a little long to explain. In subclause 1 a contributor who, having reached retirement age, ceases to be a member of the forces for any reason other than disability or misconduct is entitled to a benefit. That benefit is determined by the following subparagraphs. I have no quarrel with subparagraph (a). I have no quarrel with subparagraph (b), but I want to read it anyway:
If he has served in the forces for more than three years but less than ten years, he is entitled to
(i)	a return of contributions, or
(ii)	a cash termination allowance, whichever is the greater; and
(c) if he has served in the forces for ten or more years, he is entitled to an annuity.
Subclause 2 deals with a member of the forces who is compulsorily retired because he has become disabled, and the benefits to which he is entitled are the same as in subclause 1. What I have some quarrel with is subclause 3, which reads as follows:
A contributor who, not having reached retirement age, is compulsorily retired from the forces to promote economy or efficiency is entitled to a benefit determined as follows;
(a) if he has served in the forces for three years or less, he is entitled to a return of contributions;
Then (b) deals with service of more than three years but less than ten years, and the benefit is a return of contributions or a cash termination allowance, whichever is the greater. I have some quarrel with subparagraph (c) of subclause 3. This reads as follows:
(c)	if he has served in the forces for ten or more years but less than twenty years, he is entitled-
And subparagraph (i) deals with those members of the forces who served in world war II. Then:
(ii) in the case of any other contributor, to an annuity, reduced, until such time as the contributor reaches sixty-five years of age but not thereafter, as follows:
Then (A) and (B) give the reduction of the benefit.
(d)	if he has served in the forces for 20 or more years, he is entitled to an annuity.
I have read all this to make the following point. If a member of the force is retired because he has reached the retirement age he is entitled to some definite benefit as enumerated in subsection 1. If he retires because he is disabled he is entitled to the same benefit and he has an option-I am speaking now of those members of the forces who have served for less than 10 years or for 10 or more years. Under subsection 3 these members of the forces are put on retirement because the forces do not need them for one reason or another, either because

there is a reduction in the numbers in the force, or to promote efficiency or economy, as is set out in line 5 on page 12.
It seems to me that those members who are retired through no fault of their own are penalized, because they have lost options and lost benefits, compared with those who retire because they are disabled or because they have reached the retirement age. There are other sections later in the act which deal with misconduct, those who are tried by court martial and so on. Would the minister think of this and give us an idea why there is such a difference?


George Randolph Pearkes: The reason is that an actuarial balance is required, and in these cases the men have not served their full length of time. They have been retired for various reasons; maybe there is no further employment for them in their particular class of work. There are a variety of reasons, and it is to deal with situations of this kind that these minor modifications to the pension plan are introduced.


Gabriel Roberge: I will take for example the case of a man who has served for 10 or more years. Under subsection 2, subparagraph (b) this man is retired because he is disabled, and he is entitled, I understand, to full annuity which may vary depending on the number of years he has served. I take next a man under subsection 3 who has served for 10 or more years. He retires. I will not say he is thrown out; he retires, say, to promote efficiency and economy, and this man is not entitled to the same benefit, so he is penalized through no fault of his own. He is not disabled, and he has not reached the retirement age, but still he is retired under compulsion and receives less benefit than the other man who has reached the retirement age or is disabled.


George Randolph Pearkes: A man who has reached the full retirement age or a man who has become disabled in the service would naturally have his earning power in civil life reduced. But a man who is discharged before he reaches the full age of retirement, and is not disabled on his discharge, has his full earning power when he goes into civil life.


Gabriel Roberge: I want to pursue this point a little further. I take the case of a man who has 15 years' service. That man would be around 35 years of age, or 33. He is retired from the force, today or tomorrow. What kind of work is he going to do in these days of unemployment, or now that he has reached a certain age when employers normally may not want him because he is too old or because he has no experience in trade or business? He is out on the sidewalk. I really
Defence Services Pension Act do think this man is penalized because he is retired from the force through no fault of his own.


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course the longer a man has served, the greater would be his benefits on leaving the service. We should also bear in mind that these men would very frequently be specialized tradesmen who would have received a training in the army which would enable them to secure employment in civilian life.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us why, when a person is entitled only to a lump sum repayment, there is no interest paid to him in addition to the capital amount?


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member is speaking of a man who is entitled to a return of contributions only. Well, it has never been the policy of the government either in this or in the previous pension scheme to add any interest to his contributions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it the same under the Public Service Superannuation Act?


George Randolph Pearkes: Exactly the same.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the minister given any thought to the possibility of vesting? Under private pension plans and pension plans initiated between unions and employers there are provisions whereby a person who retires in advance of the retirement age is entitled, after he has served a certain number of years, to the return not only of his own contributions but also of a certain proportion of the contributions of the employer, in some cases all those contributions. This is known as vesting. Has the minister considered giving part of the employer's contribution to the person who retires involuntarily before the retirement age?


George Randolph Pearkes: No. I am informed that while this was considered, the present plan requires the retention of the government's contribution in the general superannuation fund.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it necessary to retain these contributions in order to keep the plan actuarially sound?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A great deal has been said recently about the possibility of portable pensions, pensions which may be taken from one place of employment to another. This enables many people in middle age who find it so difficult to obtain work to secure employment, because they are able to bring with them part of the pension which they have already earned. It cannot then be said that their employment in a new place would be to the detriment of the plan in effect there. When
5048	HOUSE OF
Defence Services Pension Act the present pension plan was prepared, did the government or the department consider it in the light of setting up a universal plan of portable pensions?


George Randolph Pearkes: The principle has been partially adopted inasmuch as the act enables the transfer of personnel, with their pension benefits, from the public service and the mounted police into the armed services. A broader application of this plan has been considered, but it has not been adopted in any of the government pension plans.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Partial application as between different branches of the public service, but it does not extend to employment outside of the public service.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Mr. Denis:: Is the minister in a position to tell the committee how many contributors who have not reached the retirement age have been compulsorily retired to promote economy or efficiency? It might be interesting to know the numbers, for instance, in the last five years or so, so that we may know what amount of money is involved in this suggestion of the hon. member for Megantic.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes; I have some figures here. The number of retirements with between 10 and 20 years service, regular force, to promote economy and efficiency, has been 22, having had continuous service since world war II, and three who have not had continuous service since world war II. That makes a total of 25. There was not a large sum of money involved.


Azellus Denis: In how many years?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is in the last fiscal year.


Azellus Denis: In the last fiscal year?


George Randolph Pearkes: In the last fiscal year; 25 last year.


Gabriel Roberge: There is something I fail to understand. Maybe the minister can enlighten me on this. In lines 4 and 5 on page 12 of the bill-it is easier to refer to it in this way-we find these words, "to promote economy or efficiency". In lines 29 and 30 of the same page of the bill reference is made to a contributor whose retirement is due to a reduction in the total number of members of the forces. Is there any real difference in these two expressions?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. One deals with what might occur in the case of a reduction in one type of service; the other deals with a general reduction. You might find, for instance, that it was desirable to reduce the number of artillery men while at the same time keeping the full total of the number


in the army; or, in a smaller case, the numbers in the postal service might be reduced; whereas the total number of the army might not be.


Azellus Denis: Is it not a fact that while you are reducing the total number of the forces you are at the same time talking about promoting economy? Maybe the first description does not include the second expression, but surely the second one includes the first one?


George Randolph Pearkes: If there is a reduction in the number of personnel, that is a reduction purely to promote economy. There is no question as to the efficiency of the individuals concerned.


Azellus Denis: Yes, but in that paragraph they mention the two expressions, to promote economy or efficiency. The two expressions are in the first paragraph.


George Randolph Pearkes: Which makes the point clear that there is-


Azellus Denis: It is not clear.


George Randolph Pearkes: This section is to promote economy.


Gabriel Roberge: I would like to go farther with my point. Clause 10 of the bill is related to sections 10 and 11 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, which is chapter 47, 1-2 Elizabeth II. I have read section 11, which deals with public servants who are contributors for five or more years. I fail to see in that section, when one is retired with more than five years service to promote economy or efficiency in the public service, that he is penalized as, it seems to me, the members of the forces are under subclause 3 of clause 10. Frankly, I should like the minister to consider it at a later date. This bill will go on to the other place. It might be a good place for the government to look into the matter. I should like the minister to consider deleting subparagraphs (c) and (d) of subclause 3 and substituting therefor a new subparagraph (c) which could read as follows: "If he has served in the forces for 10 or more years he is entitled to an annuity". It may be that some members of the forces would feel that they are discriminated against on account of subparagraph (c) as it now stands. With the kind of amendment I have suggested all members referred to in subclauses 1, 2 and 3 will be treated alike and the amount of annuity that they will receive will depend only on the years of service they have put in with the forces. It will not cost too much.


George Randolph Pearkes: This was given very careful
consideration. In the Public Service Superannuation Act there is what is called the

deferred annuity; that is, a man who is retired at an earlier age, for some reason or another, does not receive any pension until he reaches the age of 60. As far as the armed forces are concerned, he may get a termination allowance. Now, that is an immediate payment. The reason the armed forces did not wish to adopt the same system as the public service was the feeling that a great many men who have been in the armed forces have lived a life in barracks and have not learned a trade which will enable them to get established immediately on going into civilian life. By getting an immediate payment they are enabled to carry over during the period when they are searching for employment, or it gives them a certain amount of money to establish themselves in some private business. It was for this reason that the armed forces preferred to have this type of immediate payment rather than having a pension deferred until they reached the age of 60.
I think if the hon. member will consider conditions as they exist in the services in peacetime he will agree that this is probably the better system for these men who have to go out and who have not any particular trade or profession in which they may go.


Gabriel Roberge: I just want to add a word.
The minister has spoken about cash termination allowances. I agree entirely with him on that point; but under subclause 3 the cash termination allowance applies only to those members who have served more than three years and less than 10 years; it does not apply to those members who have served more than 10 years and less than 20 years.


George Randolph Pearkes: Those who go out with 10 to 20 years service get an immediate reduced pension, and I think exactly the same argument applies to them. They have been up to 20 years in the service. They need money in order to help them to get established and to tide them over rather than wait until they have reached a more advanced age when they would receive their full pension.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Benefits payable on death.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: What difference from the previous act is there in the payments under clause 11?


George Randolph Pearkes: Previously the maximum
amount of money which was available to the widow and the children was limited to 75 per cent of the pension payable to the serviceman. Now that has been increased to 90 per cent to conform with the percentage which has been authorized in the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Defence Services Pension Act
On clause 12-Lump sum payments.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us if the definitions in 12 (4) have been changed from the previous act and, if so, to what extent?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no change from the previous act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In clause 12 (5) there are these words:
-that the widow of the contributor had, for a number of years immediately prior to his death, been living apart from him under circumstances that would have disentitled her to an order for separate maintenance under the laws of the province in which the contributor was ordinarily resident-
And so on. Is this consistent with the earlier revision of one of the other defence acts where entitlement was based on the laws of a single province, the laws of the province of Ontario, I believe? If I remember correctly, the minister explained at that time that they were trying to make uniform regulations which would apply not only across the country but also to persons residing overseas. Is this a reversion or is this the only way it can be applicable? Perhaps the minister could enlighten us.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the hon. member is referring to the rules of evidence as described in the National Defence Act amendments introduced earlier this session. I do not think they apply here at all.


Gabriel Roberge: Is clause 12 in line with the Public Service Superannuation Act?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is identical.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In a case where the serviceman was resident overseas at the time of his death, if such a case could occur, would it then be applied on the basis of the province in which he was ordinarily resident in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: Would what be applied?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The definition under clause 12 (5).


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I take it that it would be where he was ordinarily resident.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The province in which he was ordinarily resident.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Marriage after 60 years of age.
Gabriel Roberge: With respect to subclause 7, am I right in assuming that this does exclude the widower of a female member of the force?

Defence Services Pension Act


George Randolph Pearkes: The widower receives no benefit.


Gabriel Roberge: Even if he is sick or disabled.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Azellus Denis: That is not fair to the male.


George Randolph Pearkes: They have many other advantages, you know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do we not believe in equality of the sexes?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 19-Election.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I have an important amendment which the Minister without Portfolio will move.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I move:
That Bill C-62, an act respecting the superannuation of members of the Canadian forces, be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 29 and 30 on page 24 thereof and substituting therefor the following: ''in the forces or any period of service described in section 5, that, under the public service"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 16 to 25 on page 26 thereof and substituting therefor the following: "person described in subsection (1), and the person so electing shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (1) in all respects as though he had not become entitled to an annuity or annual allowance under that act but had elected under subsection (1) to pay for the whole of that service."


George Randolph Pearkes: In explanation I would point out that the purpose of clause 19 of the bill is to permit a civil servant or a member of the R.C.M.P. who becomes a member of the regular forces, and thus a contributor under the proposed Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, to transfer to this latter act all of his public or R.C.M.P. service and prior military service which he was entitled to count under the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act as applicable. Under the present wording of clause 19 (1) and 19 (5) only public or R.C.M.P. service may be transferred. The proposed amendment to the clause will permit the transfer not only of the foregoing services but also of prior military service that he may have been entitled to count while employed as a civil servant or as a member of the R.C.M.P., thus bringing together all pensionable service which may be counted under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. The clause, of course, provides that if a contributor elects to transfer such service to the proposed new act he ceases to be entitled to any benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act or the proposed Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act as the case may be.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Recovery of debit balance in pay account of former member.
Gabriel Roberge: Does this differ in any way from the former act or the Public Service Superannuation Act?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is the same as in the former act, but there is no equivalent clause in the R.C.M.P. or the public service act. However, it is exactly the same as in the previous act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 32-Meaning of "child".
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister is going to make available, after the passage of this bill, a number of expert advisers who are familiar with its many ramifications and complications so that ordinary mortals will be able to turn to someone to find out just what their entitlements are?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are, of course, in all the different commands personnel in the services who are specialists in the pension act and regulations and able to act as counsellors to the various persons before they are discharged from the service. After they have been discharged, if they require any information, of course there are counsellors in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the judge advocate general's branch is always available to give any extra advice.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister make one or two of these experts available to members of the opposition before this act comes up for revision next time?


George Randolph Pearkes: I hope third reading will be given today, so there will hardly be time to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


George Randolph Pearkes: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-61, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1959 to the 30th day of June, 1960, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion carry? Carried.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker.


William Moore Benidickson: I thought, Mr. Speaker, you were a bit precipitate in saying "Adopte". I have not many remarks to make, but this bill comes before us annually. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and some other members of the house had some remarks to make on June 15 as reported on page 4719 of Hansard, and the following pages. I do not want to repeat those remarks. I did feel the minister neglected to reply to one or two points that were raised. I am thinking of the $7 million plus item with respect to the depreciation of locomotives, upon which he made no comment at that stage of the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I did.


William Moore Benidickson: I was thinking, in addition, that nothing has been said by the government when we have this opportunity about the Canadian National pension hikes that might be made, particularly because of the public interest there might be when we have, as we had prior to this item, discussion of pensions for other categories of public employees. The Canadian National, of course, is a crown company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, so far as I know, and according to my examination, this bill, with certain understandable departures, is in exactly the same form as in previous years. The departures, of course, relate to the matter of warrants which refer to T.C.A. and there is some slight change in the wording with respect to the auditors because new auditors were appointed last year.
66968-9-320
Farm Improvement Loans Act
Apart from that, does the minister agree with me that, except for the figures, we have a bill in exactly the same form as is customarily presented?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, entirely, Mr. Chairman. The form of the legislation for this purpose was changed in the year 1952, and the form of the bill has become largely standardized since. The clause dealing with the appointment of auditors was added to this bill several years ago and that practice has been followed too. There are, therefore, no departures in the form of this bill from what has now become a standard form of bill.


William Moore Benidickson: In order to avoid repetition, I simply want to put on the Hansard record for the information of outside readers the fact that information relating to this item is available in the minutes of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping for Wednesday and Thursday, May 6 and 7, 1959, when the president of the Canadian National, Mr. Gordon, was examined. His evidence, with respect to the capital budget, is available on the pages of the committee record starting at page 215. I see no point in repeating any of the information that was obtained by members at that time, other than to point out that on page 223, members might be interested in knowing that this very heavy annual capital expenditure seems to be perhaps on the decline in that the programs for dieselization, road mechanization and road improvement, as well as some other items, are coming to completion. Mr. Gordon said that the figure for this year is $75 million lower than the figure for last year. As I said at the resolution stage, I think we are all impressed with the magnitude of the items of capital expenditure that are asked for by this road and in turn the extra expense that is required to finance this capital debt on a steady annual basis.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-63, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the proposed amendments
5052	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Furthermore, I intend to direct certain questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when the house is in committee.
On June 15 last, while the house was considering the resolution to amend the act, we were glad to hear the minister commend that bill.
After explaining why the act had been adopted, the minister quoted figures which fully vindicate the advantages contemplated by that legislation. In fact, as recorded on page 4736 of Hansard, he stated:
Loans under the act during 1958 totalled 70,278 in number, and $90,539,743 in amount borrowed. This represents an increase in lending of approximately $20 million over the amount lent during each of the preceeding three years.
The minister also told the house that the increase was much more substantial for the first three months of 1959, when loans had increased from $10,436,991 to $14,707,086, that is an increase of 40 per cent. He stated further that there was every reason to believe that in 1959 those loans would reach an unprecedented volume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take too much of the house's time in analysing the report made by the minister and saying all the good I think about the proposed legislation. Besides, it has already been commended by the minister himself when he said, as recorded on page 4736 of Hansard:
The figures give some indication of the credit service which has been rendered to Canadian agriculture through this legislation. The credit has been available and utilized in all provinces.
We, in the province of Quebec, are happy to be able to enjoy the benefits of an act passed in 1934 under a Liberal government, of which the Hon. James Ilsley, then minister of finance, and the Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner, then minister of agriculture, were members.
It is to the latter, especially, that we owe all the agricultural legislation which gave our farmers the prosperity they have known during the post-war years. I am convinced that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) agrees with me.
If our farmers have increased their loans, can it be due to an improvement in farming conditions? No, Mr. Speaker, because they have run into debt to the tune of $40 million in 1957 and 1958, and of over $14 million in the first three months of 1959.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness), saw fit to announce, on various


occasions, that the increase of agricultural production was 8 per cent higher than the year before. However, he did not say by what amount farmers went into debt during the same period.
Apart from having incurred debts to the amount of $54 million under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, farmers have also increased their liability to the extent of $61 million under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. During the last three years, loans granted by the board were $8.2 million for 195556, $13.2 million in 1956-57, $19.3 million in 1957-58, and $29 million for the year 1958-59.
Mr. Speaker, my purpose in giving those figures was to show the house that the farmers' position is not as rosy as the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance have indicated. Farmers are getting deeper into debt from year to year, so much so that many of them will be bankrupt within the next few years, if their position does not improve.
Mr. Speaker, I realize I am not allowed to dwell on this subject or to discuss the farmer's position. However, I reserve the right to revert to this matter when the proposed amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act come up for debate.
I just wanted to say that we have a long way to go to restore to farmers the confidence they had before the Conservative government took over.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are supporting this bill. If I had to reproach the Minister of Finance with anything about it, it would be his failure to introduce this legislation sooner, considering that the fiscal year ended on March 31 last. We are now at the end of June, banks have continued making loans and we are asked to pass legislation that expired on March 31 of this year. If it is decided to change that legislation next year, I hope the Minister of Finance will submit amendments early in the session.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Farm.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this bill, and following up the remarks of the last speaker when he pointed

out, as I understand it, that the three-year maximum allowance expired at the end of March, I see nothing in this bill which is the equivalent of an amendment which I believe was made three years ago under similar circumstances which made clear that any lending done from April 1 to the royal assent to the bill would have approval.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, that is clause 3 of the bill.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, in paragraph (ff) of subsection 1, the following definition is given with regard to the word "farming" ... (Text):
(If) "farming" includes livestock raising, dairying, bee keeping, fruit growing and all tillage of the soil;
Could the minister tell us if a sugar producer is included in this paragraph?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The only change being made in the definition of farming in the present bill is to include bee keeping within the scope of the definition of "farming". Hitherto bee keeping when pursued as a separate avocation has not been included within the definition of farming. The purpose of this amendment is to include it from this point forward.


Samuel Boulanger: Can a sugar producer receive a loan under this clause?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would depend on whether he did nothing but raise sugar. If he is growing sugar beets that is obviously farming; but if he is producing sugar by some other means, such as maple sugar, it depends on whether he is pursuing farming, and this is an adjunct or side line, as it is in most cases.


William Moore Benidickson: Could the minister give us some information about the lending which has taken place from the time of expiry of the last authority to the present time? Has it gone on without any change in pace or pattern? The minister did give some assurance to the banks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The chartered banks agreed to continue lending without interruption on the assurance I gave them that we would be introducing this bill at the present session.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister found any reluctance on the part of the banks to carry on in the same magnitude their lending as a result of the 5 per cent interest rate? Do the figures indicate that lending is continuing notwithstanding this rate, which 66968-9-320J
Public Service Pensions is somewhat low having regard to the tighter money market which exists at the present time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; there has been no diminution in the volume of lending, I am informed. I just hope this bill passes before someone suggests that there should be some increase in the interest rate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-60 respecting the adjustment of certain public service pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the minister made no remarks when we were debating the previous bill with respect to capital funds for the Canadian National Railways. Surely now when we have before us a bill with respect to a general increase in pensions for retired civil servants it might be appropriate for the minister to say something about approaches that may have been made to him by either the Minister of Transport, speaking for the C.N.R., or the Prime Minister who, in days gone by, was a strong advocate for increasing the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees. They are not included in this bill, and I wondered, as I asked previously, whether or not other members of the ministry have approached the Minister of Finance in this connection, because this would require attention on the part of the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has said, there is no provision in this bill which affects the pensions payable to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways or Canadian government railways. This bill applies broadly to three categories: former civil servants, former members of the armed forces, and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
So far as the other subject is concerned, questions were asked on a previous occasion.

R.C.M.P. Act
I think on June 15, on another measure, and in that regard I gave the committee the information that I had at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Amounts payable out of C.R.F.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would you mind explaining exactly what the formula "Carry-Adopte-Carried" means? Is not only one word necessary in those words of approval of Your Honour?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is the tradition to translate the two expressions of this word in both English and in French. In French it is "Adopte" and in English it is "Carried".


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Of course, but Your Honour says "Carry-Adopte-Carried". Why the second "carried".


Douglas Scott Harkness: It means, "Is it carried? Yes."


Murdo William Martin: It is not a criticism; I just wanted information.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-34, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 41-Notice of Appeal.
Gabriel Roberge: When we reached clause 41 the last time this order was called I had the honour to move an amendment which was not carried. That was an honour, too. But the Minister of Justice agreed when the hon. member for Cartier spoke of 96 hours, and after that there was some private discussion with regard to this clause 41, so I wonder if the minister has something to add on this clause. Possibly he may himself have an amendment to move or to have moved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The discussion on the last occasion related to the possibility that a member might be prejudiced because of the short time within which he must file his notice of appeal, as provided in this proposed clause. I pointed out that I did not think there would actually be much hardship because the member would in every

case be at a divisional or subdivisional headquarters. It was not as if he would be returned to some distant detachment where the mails are slow and where this provision might cause some hardship. However, I did agree that I would be prepared to consider an extension of the time, because I do not think it would do any harm and it might save some hardship, although I cannot actually visualize cases in which that would be necessary. I am therefore prepared to ask one of my colleagues to move:
That clause 41 be amended by striking out the comma alter the word "requests" in line 7 on page 13 and inserting the words "within forty-eight hours after the passing of sentence," and also by deleting the words "forty-eight hours" in line 8 and substituting therefor the words "four days".
The effect of this change would be to give a convicted member 48 hours after the passing of sentence in which to decide whether he wants to appeal, and then if he makes a decision to appeal within that 48 hours he has a further 96 hours to proceed with the written notice of appeal so that in effect he will have six days within which to perfect the actual notice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I so move.


Gabriel Roberge: Of course, this amendment is welcome on this side of the house and, as I said earlier, I will have the honour to support it, but I would like to ask the minister this. The request would have to be made within 48 hours after the passing of sentence; there would be a lapse of time during which the transcript is being made, and then he would have four days to decide whether he would appeal or not. Is the minister prepared to say that all this time the member will be stationed at headquarters?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, he would be kept at the place where he is tried.


Gabriel Roberge: Something in the regulations would provide that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say how pleased we are that the Minister of Justice has responded to the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Megantic for an amendment to this clause and to the very logical and wise arguments put forward by members of this group because of their basic humane sentiments.


Leon David Crestohl: It occurs to me that the delay occupied by the making of the transcript may shorten the effective time allowed to the convicted member who is considering an appeal, and this is bound to be the case unless the minister would undertake to introduce some provision which would ensure the transcription of the evidence at once. The minister

certainly sees the point I am trying to make. There may be delay in transcribing the evidence and if he must lodge his appeal within a certain time he may be prejudiced if there should be an unfortunate delay, for some reason or another, that the evidence is not being promptly transcribed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We would be prepared to look at that in the regulations and see that a reasonable time is prescribed there.


Leon David Crestohl: Could we have some provision by which the time at which the appeal should be made would be after the evidence has been transcribed, say from the time of the transcription of the evidence rather than from the moment of the conviction?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the case now.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would consider giving unanimous consent to carry on with the business of the house which was just suspended?


Mr. Winch:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order 15 (3).
There being a number of private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that in accordance with section 1 of standing order 54 they be considered in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-23, respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-302, for the relief of Roger Myre.-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Broome:: Would the chairman of the private bills committee care to comment on this group of divorce bills?
Private Bills-Divorce


John Whitney Pickersgill: Heaven forbid!


Mr. McCleave:: I shall be glad to make a very brief comment. First considering the nature of the interjection of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I perhaps have some information which will be of interest to him and to the bona fide residents of the province of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman whether he will explain what he means by "bona fide"?


An hon. Member:: Everyone except the hon. member.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It would not be up to me, Mr. Chairman, to dare to lecture a student in the law as to what is a bona fide resident of the province of Newfoundland, but it does involve questions of domicile, permanent intention to stay in a certain place, come what political winds that may.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have a question of privilege. No one could have any firmer intention of staying where he now is as long as his constituents want him than the member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sure that will be very reassuring to certain constituents of the hon. member, but we have seemed to drift from the main point. The information that I was going to outline before the committee this afternoon is that this particular group of 38 divorce bills contains the first case involving a Newfoundland divorce this session, and as far as I know from the cases that are yet to be processed in the other place and here this will be the only case and, if so, this would give Newfoundland the very great distinction of having the lowest divorce rate in all of Canada.
The hon. member for Vancouver South has asked for some brief comment, I gather, on the nature of the evidence in the 38 cases which are before us this afternoon. I can point out that only 11 of the 38 fit the so-called hotel or motel category, and this is somewhat below the average that one would find in any particular batch of cases.
The other point I would mention is that 15 of the 38 petitioners whose petitions are before the committee this afternoon are husbands and this is a very high percentage. Normally one finds that in 95 per cent of all these divorces it is the woman who is seeking relief, but here this afternoon we find that 15 of the 38 petitioners are husbands.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall Clause 1
carry?

Private Bills-Divorce


William Arnold Peters: Just on this matter of 15 husbands seeking divorces, has any check been made to see if the dower rights, or the rights normally accruing to the woman through this action, have been protected?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the advantage of legal advisers here this afternoon, but a woman who commits adultery does, I believe, lose her dower rights. That is true of most provinces in Canada. I am not sure about the position in the province of Quebec. I think I can reassure the hon. member who has raised this particular question that the women who are sued for divorce in all the cases are in this position. I go very quickly through them and I see that in all cases but two these women have found another breadwinner to keep them alive.


Charles Edward Rea: The matter the hon. member is discussing is not under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Of those 15 cases were any contested by the wives?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Of the 15 cases where the husbands sued the wives there was one case which was contested before the committee of the other place. The wife and her witnesses were heard and the divorce was recommended by that committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in this particular contested case were there financial arrangements made either in the committee or in some other place?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is that the
woman involved had engaged in some business enterprise, I think in her present business; I am not sure but I believe that to be the case. In any event, she was a businesswoman. There were certain financial dealings between the husband and the wife before the action was brought.


William Arnold Peters: Was there a satisfactory settlement between the parties, or was this part of the reason for the particular case being contested?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I believe they were not
settled to the satisfaction of the wife, Mr. Chairman, because if there were any business brains in that particular duo they belonged to the wife herself. The husband had committed an offence in bankrupty and as a result had spent a certain amount of time in prison.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-303, for the relief of Lee Dacks Moscovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-304, for the relief of Lillian Gold-bloom Howard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-305, for the relief of Giovanni Ca-vallero.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-306, for the relief of Lorna Frances Hutchinson Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-307, for the relief of Jessie Balfour Mains McCartney Manson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-308, for the relief of Guy Charbon-neau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-309, for the relief of Meade Alexander Morgan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-310, for the relief of Carol May Campbell Williams.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-311, for the relief of Adela Hawthorne Pattison.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-312, for the relief of Samuel Currie Millar.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-313, for the relief of Helen Mary Margeson Ransome Scudamore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-314, for the relief of Claire Anna Theresa Verdon Monette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-315, for the relief of Constance Edna Medcalfe Blood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-316, for the relief of Norma Margaret Martin Raymo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-317, for the relief of Audrey Bar-rasford Milburn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-318, for the relief of Sandra Stoll Goldenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-319, for the relief of Edith May Driscoll Jeffrey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-320, for the relief of Joyce Ethel Commerford Brewster.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-321, for the relief of Hirsch Glaser. 

Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-322, for the relief of Maria Gagne Cote.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-323, for the relief of Gail Patricia Northrup Brazauckas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-324, for the relief of Gilbert Forest. [DOT]-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-325, for the relief of Yvon Poulin. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-326, for the relief of Karl Wilhelm Oskar Bartels.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-327, for the relief of Joseph Aime Paul Guy Genest.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-328, for the relief of Allan Ray Wright.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-329, for the relief of Michael Kal-abiha.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-330, for the relief of Joyce Ann Breaker Lee.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-331, for the relief of Zina Goffman Filler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-332, for the relief of Omula Kar-nitis Rakauskas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-333, for the relief of Joseph Bernard Alberia Gustave Lahaise.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-334, for the relief of Michael Palan-gio.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-335, for the relief of Grace Evelyn Heggtveit Richter.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-336, for the relief of Ross Kevin Ladd.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-337, for the relief of Georgina Horne Parsons.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-338, for the relief of Esther Paula Beernaert Martindale.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-339, for the relief of Audrey Bruce Laborgne.-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard for the second reading of Bill No. C-16, to amend the Canada Elections Act (absentee voting).
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, this bill was considered for the first time at this session, for the first time since the government changed two years ago, I believe, and possibly for the first time in the history of parliament, on March 10 of this year. If I may trespass very briefly on the time of the house, perhaps it would be useful, before getting into general observations on the principle of the bill, to point out exactly what the bill attempts to do.
As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the sponsor of the bill, pointed out on March 10, this particular amendment to the Canada Elections Act should not be confused with another amendment standing in his name dealing with advance polls. The absentee voting provided for in this particular measure is not the advance voting provided for in the other measure standing in the hon. member's name. The provisions of this bill would enable one to vote somewhere else on the normal election day. Advance polls, of course, are held before the general election day.
The hon. member had a precedent in proposing this particular measure for our consideration in the practice carried out in two western provinces, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. To a limited extent the right
Canada Elections Act
of absentee voting exists in the province of Ontario but I understand it pertains only to mariners who may be absent from their particular riding on election day. The bill provides two different forms of ballot to take advantage of absentee voting. One is an ordinary ballot for people who may find themselves in the riding on election day but remote from the poll where they would normally be expected to vote. I presume this would apply in the case of very large ridings such as we have in the northern and northwestern part of the country and I can see that it might also be of value in a riding such as I represent which stretches approximately 120 miles along the coast of Nova Scotia and where one might be in Ecum Secum and entitled to vote at Hubbards at the other end. That is one of the ballots proposed in the measure introduced by the hon. member.
The second is a special blank ballot which is for use outside the constituency under the formula set forth in the bill. There may be some confusion with respect to ballot form 36A which is printed as part of the schedule to the bill in that there are two blank spaces on that ballot. As all hon. members know, there are two ridings in Canada which are dual-member constituencies. I have the honour to represent one, the constituency of Halifax, where one is entitled to vote for two members on election day. The other is the riding of Queens in Prince Edward Island.
The blank ballot that is proposed for the absentee voter could of course give rise to problems in single member ridings where, unless there is a great deal of public education on the matter, the absentee voter might think he had hit a bonanza and was entitled to vote for two members instead of one, absence making the heart grow fonder, so to speak, of all politicians. It is not a danger to be fond of all politicians but it is a danger to lose your vote by voting for too many politicians. However, my observation is perhaps of the picayune variety and any danger could be cured when the bill reaches committee by deciding that the ballot should have a single blank space for single member constituencies and a double blank space for double member constituencies.
The formula offered to us by the hon. member for Skeena in presenting the measure is that absentee voting should be confined to those people who are in a province adjacent to the one in which they are resident. This would be of great advantage to the people of the maritimes. Each one of our three provinces is adjacent to the others. Elsewhere in Canada, a person from Ontario would have a chance to vote in Quebec or Manitoba but that is all. A New Brunswick

Canada Elections Act
man who was absent from the province on election day could vote in Quebec, Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia. He would have three chances, as it were, three places where he could vote instead of two. I will say something about the adjacent province formula a little later.
One other proposal made in the bill before us this afternoon is that nomination day take place 28 days in advance of polling day. It is usually 14 days except in certain areas which are most isolated. I must confess that I do not follow the reasoning of the hon. member in making this proposal.
We all grant that the right to vote is one of the most important rights that citizens in a democracy enjoy and at first blush it would seem very important that we do all we can to see that the vote is as heavy as possible. In proposing this measure the hon. member for Skeena will certainly ensure that there will be at least a few thousand votes added in every riding, votes of people who for some reason or another are unable to be at home on election day. I am sure most members would agree that if the case were as simple as that it would be a very good thing for us to have a system of absentee voting in Canada.
Other approaches toward solving the problem of the absentee voter commend themselves. For example, a voter may be away on business and I thought one approach would be to declare election day a holiday, as it is for certain people, or declare it a bank holiday so that the ordinary business of the country would cease and everybody would be free to go to the polls. The danger of that approach is that if you declare a holiday everybody will immediately go forth to their pleasures, and instead of building up the vote you would probably simply build up the necessity for some system of absentee voting.
Another approach, and again this is not the method used by the hon. member, would be to set forth some list of exemptions of those who would be entitled to use the absentee vote. He has done this in a certain respect, in that a person has to show some cause for being unable to be at his poll on election day and therefore asking to use another poll or, if outside the province, a blank ballot.
These are three approaches, and the one he has chosen is to use the adjacent province formula, mixed in with some show of cause as to why the voter is absent from the place he would be normally expected to vote. My problem, Mr. Speaker, is that I could not make up my mind when the measure was debated on March 10 as to what approach I should take to this problem. When I rose to speak at that time the whip of the Liberal

party said I had one minute, so there was not much time to make up my mind. It is a far cry from March 10, but I am still unable to make up my mind whether or not this is really a good measure. The problem I face, Mr. Speaker, is that I am not sure whether or not this is a cheapening of the democratic process.
The right to vote has been a hard fought one; blood has been spilled and heads have been knocked in. People have gone to their graves to ensure that there shall be a democratic process in Canada and in other countries. Now, we are taking this hard fought right to vote, one of our most precious rights, and we are, in effect, debasing it somewhat in making it as available as all the attractive groceries that line the shelves of a supermarket. We are saying to a person that it is possible to feel free to roam at election time because upon showing good cause he will be able to vote. I am sure that the "good cause" would be construed in a generous rather than a narrow sense. I am sure there would be hundreds of people who would take advantage of the opportunity. I feel that this approach to voting does tend to cheapen the value of a particular vote.
However, that is not going to be my main consideration in announcing my decision in due course toward this bill. I should like to hear arguments on the point I have just presented. Perhaps those who follow me in the debate would be good enough to help clear up the doubts that are in my mind about it. There was one point made by one of the previous speakers, and I think the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) raised it by way of a question rather than by any speech of his own. He asked whether there was not a danger that the election results might be rather inconclusive on election night because there would still be these absentee votes to be counted. This happens in any close race now because the armed services' vote is not brought into the final tally until some days or weeks later. I suggest to the hon. member for York-Scar-borough, who raised the question, that it is really answered by comparing the absentee vote to the armed services vote in that respect.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, it is time to make up my mind as to whether or not I am in favour of this measure. I think perhaps I am not, but I would give it support here if I could be convinced that this method of making voting easier is not a means of debasing the sacred right of the ballot. (Translation):


Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions in the past, though I am not terribly old, I have had to

sacrifice a trip and to postpone important business to wait tor polling time in my constituency, because I made it a point to fulfil what I consider as an important duty for any responsible citizen who has regard for our democratic way of life.
I know that a great many people have been doing the same, and I also know that a great many citizens will not bother to vote if it interferes with some immediate pleasure or task.
We find that, under certain circumstances, candidates are elected by an active minority, while large numbers of voters do not bother to vote. This is, of course, a lack of responsibility on the part of people who feel free to criticize those who take on the task of managing the country's business. Indeed, I understand that in some countries, it has been necessary to make voting compulsory, and to force citizens to meet their obligation.
Mr. Speaker, I know I would be out of order in wandering off too far into the field of compulsory voting, but perhaps you will allow me to point out that it is a shame to see so many people show so little consideration for a right that was gained at the cost of untold sacrifices, and often, indeed, through revolt and bloodshed.
Even in Canada, we had to fight tooth and nail to gain the right to vote and to enjoy responsible government, and I think it is because of the carefree life we are used to, and the freedom we enjoy, that people today hardly bother about casting their vote.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to support Bill C-16, as introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I think if this amendment to the Elections Act were passed, fewer people would find an excuse for failing to vote.
In the last election, for instance, I know of scores of people who apologized in advance for being unable to vote because they were planning a trip. Others, travelling salesmen, were unable to take advantage of advance polls, because the rules governing such polls are so strict that very very few people can qualify. I do not have the figures here, but in a constituency such as my own, where there are over 33,000 people on the voting list, less than 15 per cent were able to use the advance poll.
Mr. Speaker, I am even wondering whether the hon. member has gone far enough in proposing to open up the polls only to people 66968-9-321
Canada Elections Act
travelling in adjacent provinces. Personally,
I think every Canadian citizen should be entitled to vote anywhere in Canada. Indeed I would even suggest that those who travel abroad should have an opportunity to vote by calling at the closest Canadian consular office.
An example of this method has been given by the French republic which, in its last referendum, succeeded in getting its citizens in foreign lands to vote, and indeed in getting the vote from French citizens who have since then become citizens of other countries.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I favour the principle of any measure aimed at promoting the exercise of the right to vote, and the normal functioning of democracy; it gives me pleasure, therefore, to lend my support to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena.


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-16.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard) in his statement that the right to vote is a privilege and a duty that every citizen should exercise on polling day. However, I feel that it is a privilege that people normally ignore.
In fact, in the recent Ontario elections, only 64 per cent of registered voters cast their vote.
In the last general elections, over 83 per cent of the voters in my constituency cast their votes. I think this is practically a record.
Across the river, in the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre, 80 per cent of the voters cast their votes, while the turnout in Bonavista-Twillingate was only 75 per cent.
In my opinion, this bill is somewhat too complicated. In my view, the right to vote should not be exercised outside the province itself, because so few voters exercise that privilege. In my opinion, it would be quite difficult to conduct an election in that way.
The advance polls now provided are little used. For instance, in St. Boniface, 78 voters out of a total of 35,000, exercised their right to vote on the appointed days. In Winnipeg South Centre, only 66 voters out of 53,443, voted at the advance polls.
Besides, when you study those figures you find that voters at advance polls generally

Canada Elections Act
vote the same way as the majority of voters in the constituency. For instance, in Winnipeg South, where the Conservative majority was considerable, 45 voters favoured the Conservative party, 14 the Liberal party and 7 the C.C.F. party.
Now, in St. Boniface, out of 78 who voted at advance polls, 34 supported the Conservative party, 26 voted C.C.F. and 17 voted Liberal.
I said just now that the procedure proposed in this bill would be too complicated because people are not even interested in voting, even if, in many cases, their polling station is only a few hundred yards away.
To exercise his right of vote, under this bill, the elector will have first to apply for a ballot paper from the returning officer's office of his electoral district. Then, he would have to get a witness to identify him in the poll where he would vote. In addition, he would have to sign an affidavit, and the person who would accompany him would also have to take the oath. I believe that few people would willingly submit to all those requirements.
However, if some easier procedure could be devised, perhaps I might support the bill.
Besides, it would be necessary, under the bill, that the nomination be held 28 days before election day; under the Canada Elections Act as it now stands, the delay is only 14 days. I believe the suggested system would make elections almost impossible.
Then, too, it would be difficult to get the results on the election day and I believe this practice could lead to certain abuses and allow certain people to vote who are not entitled to do so. Even under the system we now have, fraudulent practices often creep in at election time.
Personally, I believe that we should favour the advance polling system within the ridings themselves, for the benefit of travellers who have to be away from their homes on voting day. I believe that in this way we could give practically all the electors the right to vote in their own constituency, provided they have proper identification, even if their name were not on the voters' list. But, I think it would be a little exaggerated to give the right to vote in another province thus allowing a person from Manitoba to vote here in Ottawa, or in Saskatchewan and so on. When electors show that they appreciate the privilege of

voting by turning out in a proportion of 90 per cent, for instance, perhaps we might then endeavour to find a system to facilitate the exercise of the right to vote.
(Text):


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I think most hon. members realize full well that we are dealing with a most important subject. I feel that all hon. members have the idea that one thing of which we in Canada can be proud is our electoral system. I believe this idea receives the support of most hon. members.
For my part as a member of this house I know that whether I won or lost an election I have always been extremely happy about the way in which the electoral officers have run affairs in my district. Hence, not unlike most hon. members, anything that we do with regard to electoral laws, I look upon as being an extremely important matter. Consequently the first thing I ask myself in relation to a bill of this nature is this: How practical is it in an administrative sense? Actually I think that is one thing that is basically in the minds of all of us this afternoon: Can a law of this type, if it is passed by this House of Commons, be administered in a practical way?
Frankly, I may say that is the question that I have been asking myself ever since I realized that I would have the opportunity of speaking on this subject. I appreciate the fact that most of the clauses of this bill have received a great deal of study. I congratulate hon. members opposite on the preparation they have put into this bill. From the very nature of the draftsmanship of the bill it is obvious that it has received a great deal of consideration and study. At the same time, even after reading it I again return to the fact that I question the possibility of administering it. I know that we want, in a democracy like Canada, to make it possible for as many people to vote as possible, and I will have something later to say about the remarks, with which I fully agree, made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) about the fact that voting does involve certain sacrifices.
Against that consideration I think we should in this modern day and age of communications realize that by and large it is desirable to have as many people as possible voting. Like most hon. members of this house, Mr. Speaker, I only have my own particular constituency to go by when

discussing a bill of this nature. I know that the population of my own area, Brome-Missisquoi, is a little over 40,000, and there are approximately 22,000 on the electoral list. I have always said to myself that it seems a relatively small number of people on a list considering the total population, in view of the fact that I know full well that the enumerators in my particular area, undoubtedly, like most areas, do a very thorough job. In my area the generation of young people is considerable; in other words, I have an area where families are very large. Even so I suspect that the list of voters could be a little larger under certain conditions. Whether or not certain people decide not to go to the trouble of voting, or even decide not to let their names get onto an electoral list because they are going to travel on election day, is a question I cannot answer. I would like to ask members opposite if they have any statistics for this particular dilemma in which I find myself, because it is a question I cannot decide on.
I know, that in my own area many people phoned our organizers, as they must have phoned the organizers of members opposite, and asked them how they might vote in an advance poll because on election day they would be travelling. Although in the last election many, many provisions were made for voting at advance polls, I personally was surprised-and whether or not it was because the law is basically complicated I do not know-at the number of people who actually availed themselves of the privilege of voting at an advance poll. No doubt a person has to be most sincere in his desire to want to exercise his democratic franchise, and go to the trouble of asking questions and usually travelling a little further than he would normally do, on advance poll day. Many people kept coming up to me before election day and asked these questions, and I still feel that there is no doubt a bill of this nature could, as the hon. member for Halifax said, get more people on the list voting on election day.
I was more than interested in the remarks which he made about the double constituencies in the province of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and I certainly hesitate to feel that a bill of this nature should prejudice the ridings which he mentioned. Undoubtedly no such thing was in the minds of members opposite. I am not suggesting that for a moment, but I would like to reiterate the problem which the hon. member brought up in relation to the double constituencies. I point this out only to make sure that this very knotty problem was in the 66968-9-321J
Canada Elections Act
minds of members opposite when they took the trouble to draft this particular piece of legislation.
In reading over this bill I am sure I have asked myself, generally speaking, some questions that most hon. members have asked themselves. For example, should we make it too easy for a citizen to vote? Should we not, in the truest sense of the word, make some sort of sacrifice on voting day? The thought came to my mind that many people would simply say, "Well, we can take a holiday; we can go and travel in any part of the country and still have our right to vote." Frankly, I do not think this bill intends to permit that sort of thing, and for that reason the legislation which is being contemplated at the present moment should actually consider a means test. In other words, the advance poll rules and regulations should specify those people who are going to be allowed to use the privileges of this type of vote. Thus I think it is very important that this particular legislation which we are considering contemplates the fact that only certain people in certain forms of activity can avail themselves of the particular privileges which are contemplated in this legislation. I think it is most important that this be considered, and once more I reiterate the fact that I do not think this legislation should, or even does, visualize the possibility of Mr. X or Mr. Y going on a long pleasure trip on election day and exercising his vote in that way.
Mr. Speaker, the points which I have brought up do indicate in no small way that there might be, as I said at the opening of my remarks, certain administrative difficulties in administering an act of this sort. As I said, most hon. members are well aware of the efficiency of the marvellous electoral system in this country, and I have the feeling that this is one thing which might certainly have been advanced by the chief electoral officer had it seemed practicable.
The hon. member for Halifax mentioned what he called the general neighbouring province rule in this bill, and I not know whether or not it is a little discriminatory. I do not see why, for instance, we cannot visualize the possibility of a travelling salesman from Nova Scotia finding himself in British Columbia on election day. No doubt if he is really travelling on business as a travelling salesman and just has to be in British Columbia, as a voting resident of the province of Nova Scotia I personally see no reason why he should be excluded from voting under this particular type of legislation. It seems to me that he is one of those cases which this legislation should help, and that is why I ask whether or not the general

Canada Elections Act
neighbouring province rule which was enunciated by members opposite should be considered.
These certainly are considerations which I felt were pertinent and which I felt should be brought up at the present time as we consider most important measures in relation to an electoral system which I for one, in conjunction with our parliamentary system of government, feel is perhaps second to none in the western world.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us this afternoon attempts to deal with the problem that arises from the increasing mobility of our people in our type of civilization. Many of the occupations and activities of our people take place outside their constituencies and the places in which they reside most of the year. This is an extension of the principle which has been adopted to permit members of the armed forces to vote while they are away from home. It would permit groups such as construction workers and others who cannot get back home in order to vote in their home constituencies; it would benefit those who cannot benefit at present under the advance poll regulations, in that they will not be in their constituency at the time the advance poll is open, to vote on polling day in the location where they may be, although the bill does limit this opportunity to voting in their own provinces or in adjacent provinces; for example, someone living in Ontario could vote if he were in Quebec or Manitoba.
I think this expresses the good intention of making it possible for the maximum number of qualified voters to vote wherever they may be in order to enable them to exercise that franchise which is so important and sacred to them. I think it is a laudable object but I may, as an aside, say it would be more encouraging or more invigorating to our democracy if we could encourage those who are in their constituencies and who do not take the trouble to exercise the franchise, to do so. However, the fact that we have these people in our constituencies who do not wish to exercise their franchise is in no way an argument against enlarging the opportunities for those who do wish to vote.
I understand that the adoption of this principle would require the adoption of a permanent voters' list, because under the present system where enumerators go out at a time specified in the act after the writs of election have been issued, only those who are contacted or put on the list by the enumerators, can vote at a particular election. Hence it would be more than probable that those who would be out of the riding on construction work, or engaged in commerce, would be apt

to be missed under our present system. A voters' list of the permanent type would overcome the difficulty in our present system where so many people are left off the list and have to be put on afterwards. It seems that under the present system those who are roomers or who live in apartments are the ones who are most often left off, and it has even been found that landlords who have roomers do not encourage those living in their houses to be put on the voters list and have sometimes purposely not given their names to the enumerators, for reasons which are connected with taxation. The provision of a permanent list, as would be required by a bill such as this, would overcome these difficulties.
However, there would be some objections to a permanent list, and one of these would be the cost of maintaining such a list. It would have to be revised periodically and even then, although it might be completed close to a date, say in February, if an election were to come in January there would have to be an opportunity for making additions. I think also that difficulties would arise in areas such as Toronto where there is a constant change in the population. These changes would result in people being on the permanent list yet having moved to another place, and one would have to be careful to ensure that abuses would not arise because of the fact that people might be on two or three lists.
However, these are details which would have to be taken care of if this system were adopted, and I think that any reasonable method could be adopted if we were sincere in trying to put it into effect.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-34, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act-Mr. Fulton -Mr. Rea in the chair.
It being six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 41-Notice of appeal.
Charles Edward Rea: Order. When the committee rose we were discussing an

amendment to clause 41. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock I had asked the minister a question concerning allowing sufficient time to deal with the procedure of appeal after the transcription had been made. I see that clause 41 makes ample provision for that, but I should like to draw to the minister's attention the fact that while the clause is very anxious for the accused to be diligent in making his appeal there is nothing in the clause which speaks of the diligence with which the appeal should be processed. Since, in answer to a question of the hon. member for Megantic, the minister stated that the prisoner is kept in custody if he makes a statement about his desire to go to appeal, I think it would be appropriate for provision to be made that such an appeal should be proceeded with diligently. There is nothing in the legislation which provides for that. It is quite possible that after an accused has given his notice of appeal, the appeal may just drag, things may intervene and the prisoner will be kept in custody all the time. In our language before the courts we say "kept in custody without bail". I do not think that is the intention of the minister or of the legislation. I therefore want to move the following amendment to clause 41, which is seconded by the hon. member for Megantic:
That clause 41, of Bill C-34 be further amended by adding at the end of the said clause the following words:
"and such appeal shall be proceeded with diligently within eight days from the service of such notice of appeal."


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We have an amendment that will have to be disposed of first.


Leon David Crestohl: I beg your pardon. I will reserve mine until after the first amendment is disposed of.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the committee ready for the first amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Leon David Crestohl: Without repeating what I
said Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the minister the following amendment to clause 41, namely that it be further amended by adding at the end of the said clause the following words:
"and such appeal shall be proceeded with diligently within eight days from the service of such notice of appeal."
The reason I make it eight days is that the notice of appeal has to be given very expeditiously, and in the meantime the prisoner is kept in custody without bail. Therefore, it would only be fair to make some provision
R.C.M.P. Act
to deal with the appeal expeditiously. However, if the minister should find that eight days would not give sufficient time-I am not familiar with the procedure in processing these things in the department-perhaps he would suggest a further delay, but the delay should be fixed within which the appeal should be heard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent and the object of the hon. gentleman. I do not like to keep on suggesting that these things must all be left to the discretion of the officers administering the force, though I think such matters generally can be. However, I should be reluctant to accept the eight-day limitation because the appeal has to be forwarded to Ottawa, has to be processed here and then whatever proceedings are to be held must be arranged for at the place where the trial was held. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would consent to leaving a certain discretion with the commissioner, but making it clear that the appeal must be dealt with quickly. That might be accomplished by changing the proposed amendment to read, "and such appeal should be proceeded with, with all due dispatch"? If that would be acceptable I would be very glad to accept the amendment.


Leon David Crestohl: I am prepared to go along in my thinking with the minister's suggestion and have confidence in the commissioner that such an appeal will be dealt with as speedily as possible.


Charles Edward Rea: With the unanimous consent of the committee, the hon. member for Cartier would like to change his amendment to read as follows:
That clause 41, of Bill C-34 be further amended by adding at the end of the said clause the following words:
and such appeal shall be proceeded with, with all due dispatch."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
On clause 43-Board of review.
Leon David Crestohl: On this clause, I wonder whether the minister finds that the word "and" in the second line is necessary? It seems to me to be a bit superfluous. It says:
There shall be a board of review appointed by the minister and consisting of a deputy commissioner-
And so on. I do not see the purpose of the word "and" there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be quite content if my hon. friend wishes to move to delete the word.

R.C.M.P. Act


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, I will move that the word "and" in the second line of clause 43 be deleted. The motion is seconded by the hon. member for St. Denis.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will just write it out if my hon. friends do not mind.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Cartier moves:
That subclause (1) of clause 43 be amended by deleting the word "and" in line 17 on page 13 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 43 as amended carry?


Leon David Crestohl: We were dealing with clause 43 (1). There is a second subclause which I would like to say a word on. Are we dealing with subclause 2, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Edward Rea: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Subclause 2 speaks of appeals by persons convicted of a major service offence. Is there any explanation why this right to have the case dealt with is given only to those convicted of a major service offence and not to those convicted of a minor service offence?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Leon David Crestohl: If the minister will excuse me, I will complete my question. Does that mean that a person convicted of a minor service offence has no right of appeal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. I think this was explained when we were discussing the bill on second reading at which time I pointed out that there are now created two categories of offences, major offences and minor offences. Major offences now are only those offences against the provisions of the act as set out in clause 25. These are serious offences. Minor offences are minor disciplinary offences against the standing orders, rules or regulations of the force and they carry with them a difference as to the maximum penalty that may be imposed. With respect to the major offences, it is provided that they shall all be reviewed by a board of review. With respect to minor offences, it is provided that they are automatically reviewed by the commissioner.


Gabriel Roberge: Under clause 43, subclause 2, I see that the board of review shall examine the record and shall make its recommendation to the commissioner. Does that mean that the offender who is appealing from the verdict and sentence will not be heard by the board of review?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no right of personal hearing. It is impossible due to distance and

a variety of other factors, but the board of review itself reviews all records, the transcript and the whole proceedings.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 44-Powers of commissioner on appeal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may be wrong in my interpretation and I would be grateful for any enlightenment the minister can give. Under subclause 2 of the preceding clause it is clear that any appeal that is taken must be before this board of review, and at first glance I thought that clause 44 must mean that any of the powers given to the commissioner in the clause would be pursuant to a recommendation made by the board of review. I am wondering, however, whether that is the case. In the case of the quashing of a conviction, under this clause would the conviction be quashed by the commissioner only in cases where there was such a recommendation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. There may be cases in which the commissioner quashes a conviction irrespective of the recommendation of the board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was that I thought. The minister may have a very good explanation but as provision is made for appeal in respect of major offences one would think that this power given to the commissioner was a pretty wide power, and likewise with respect to dismissing an appeal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to my hon. friend that he will perhaps observe that the powers of the commissioner do not extend to increasing the sentence or the severity of the sentence or the punishment imposed in any way. The powers of the commissioner relate to quashing a conviction, which is what we might call the exercise of clemency, or dismissing an appeal, which leaves the matter in status quo, or reducing the sentence or the amount ordered to be paid, which again is a reduction, or ordering a new trial, so that all the powers of the commissioner here are in the direction of reducing the severity of the sentence. He has no power to increase the sentence of the court or the recommendation of the board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In other words, the powers given the commissioner are all seemingly directed in favour of the accused.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be impossible. If it were a major service offence it would have to go to the board of review but the commissioner, as I have pointed out, also has the power and the responsibility of reviewing all convictions for minor offences and this power is intended to be exercised with respect to that type of offence.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask the minister, who is certainly an able jurist, whether he can explain what the procedure will be where a prisoner has lodged an appeal and has discovered new evidence which he would like to bring before the court, so to speak. New evidence has turned up which he would like to bring before those sitting in appeal as it might assist him in winning an acquittal. Since no procedure is provided whereby evidence will be heard or argument can be made, but rather the procedure is limited only to a review of the record by the board, how can an accused obtain relief in the event of something in his favour turning up which was not known at the hearing?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In that case there would be a submission made by the accused or convicted member in the course of his appeal and if new evidence were disclosed the normal procedure would be to order a new trial. May I refer to what I said a moment ago in reply to the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: About minor offences.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I think I may have created the wrong impression. The power of the commissioner under clause 44 would extend to dismissing an appeal against a conviction for a major offence but the commissioner could not bypass the board. He could not order the appeal dismissed before the board of review had examined it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But notwithstanding-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Notwithstanding the recommendation of the board of review it is true that he could still dismiss the appeal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the minister feels that is desirable power to give the commissioner? I realize that the officers here are not exactly in the same position that they would be in in civilian life. This is a police force and it may be desirable that the commissioner be given this power but, while I do not press the point, it does seem to me that where an appeal is given all of the advantages of the institution of an appeal
R.C.M.P. Act
ought to be afforded. It would appear that the accused may appeal to the board of review but notwithstanding the recommendation of the board the commissioner for some reason may dismiss the appeal. It is true that in (a) and (c) and (d), as the minister pointed out a moment ago, all the powers given to the commissioner there are directed in favour of the officer against whom the complaint is registered but in (b) that is not necessarily the case. Perhaps the minister might strengthen what he has already said by indicating why it is thought to be desirable that this particular power should be left in the hands of the commissioner.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To do that I think I have to go back to what I said on the last occasion, that these provisions all represent an enlargement of the rights of an accused and convicted member. Previously the only review made of his case was in the case where he was sentenced to a fine or imprisonment. In that event there was a review. Now we have provided that he has the right of appeal in every case, and in the case of a conviction for a major offence it is referred to a board of review. There is here, therefore, nothing new in retaining in the commissioner's hands the power to dismiss an appeal, but he would be extremely unlikely to dismiss an appeal in the face of a direct recommendation by a board of review.
I do point out, however, dealing with the question directly, that there may be cases of breach of discipline of such a nature that it is conceivable that, notwithstanding the recommendation of the board of review, the commissioner might feel that he still has to dismiss the appeal, or the sentence may be a reduction in rank and the commissioner might feel that in the interests of discipline of the force as a whole he must insist upon the sentence being carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 45-Fine fund.
Gabriel Roberge: Clause 45 deals with the disposition of pecuniary penalties imposed under subsections 1 and 2 of section 36, which deals with punishment. The clause goes on to say that these penalties shall form a fund to be managed by the commissioner, with the approval of the minister, to be used for the payment of rewards for good conduct or meritorious service.
Clause 23 of this bill provides that all fines and the proceeds of all forfeitures and seizures shall be paid to the minister, and by subclause 3 the money is paid to the benefit trust fund. Am I right in assuming

R.C.M.P. Act
that the moneys, the penalties, turned over to the minister under clause 45 are going to go into that same benefit trust fund?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, this fund is quite separate and apart from the benefit trust fund. My hon. friend will observe, if he looks at clause 23, that it relates to fines, forfeitures and so on which are part of the sentence of an ordinary court. Those go into the benefit trust fund. Clause 45 refers to pecuniary penalties imposed under subsections 1 and 2 of section 36 which relates to fines imposed as a result of convictions against members of the service for service offences. They are two quite different types of funds and the moneys go into two separate funds. The fine fund referred to in clause 45 is much smaller than the benefit trust fund.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, it might be of benefit to read the entire clause 23, if I may, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other act, all fines and the proceeds of all forfeitures and seizures and all portions of any fine and of any forfeiture or seizure that may be awarded or adjudged to any member of the force in connection with the performance of his duties-
I would think that automatically relates to clause 45 or section 36; there is no other place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, because I think my hon. friend has missed out the significant words, "that may be awarded or adjudged to any member of the force". In other words, a fine or the proceeds of a forfeiture or seizure may be awarded or adjudged to a member of the force in connection with the performance of his duties in the course of successfully pursuing and prosecuting a case. There are still some circumstances under which that might happen, and then the fine or forfeiture is paid into the benefit trust fund.
When we come to section 36 which is read in conjunction with clause 45 it is clear that those are fines or penalties imposed on a member of the force in pursuance of a conviction for a service offence.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 46-Deserters.
Leon David Crestohl: This bill speaks of offenders throughout as "every member" or "the member". I take it from this that the procedure set up here for punishment is restricted to members of the force. Now, we come to clause 46 in which the language is changed and the bill now speaks of "every person", for example, who has deserted from the force. I take it that the jurisdiction over the members of the force is set out in this bill, and I take it too that beyond the

authority given in this bill the commissioner and the other officials have not criminal jurisdiction over persons other than those who are members of the force.
In the next clauses, beginning with clause 46, we are speaking only of offences committed by persons who are not members of the force. Perhaps the minister could explain where the commissioner gets jurisdiction in criminal matters over people who are not members of the force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason for the use of the word "person" in this and succeeding clauses rather than the word "member" results from the fact that these are persons who are not members of the force. My hon. friend should know that if a member deserts he is automatically struck off strength, and desertion is a major offence, defined under clause 25 of the bill, and we will still wish to deal with the deserter from the force. However, he is no longer a member of the force and therefore he has to be described as a person who has deserted.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
On clause 48-Bribes, etc.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have an amendment to offer to clause 48. There is an error in the drafting. If the members of the committee will read carefully they will, I am sure, appreciate that in subclause 2, line 22, the word "received" should be "given". Here we are dealing with the person who is giving a bribe to a member of the force and the offence intended by this clause is the giving or offering of the bribe to a member. I would, therefore, ask one of my colleagues if they would be kind enough to move:
That subclause 2 of clause 48 be amended by striking out the word "received'' in line 22 on page 14 and substituting the word "given" therefor.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: so move.


Lionel Chevrier: Where are the copies of this bill, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Edward Rea: There are some coming up from downstairs.


Leon David Crestohl: This clause makes a little clearer the condition which I suggested to the minister might exist because here we are describing people who are not members of the force. This measure proposes to give criminal jurisdiction over people who are not members of the force. Clause 48 to me is very clear on that point. I wonder whether the minister can say whether the commissioner or the other officers would have the authority to impose penalties which are

punishable on summary conviction or would these people be prosecuted by virtue of the provisions of the Criminal Code? If so, under what section of the Criminal Code would they be prosecuted and what would be the penalty imposed? I think the minister should clear up this conflict, as I see it, of jurisdiction in criminal matters as between the courts of the land and the commissioner and officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no conflict here at all. No jurisdiction is given to the commissioner or the minister or any other person especially under this clause. Clause 48 specifically provides that persons who are guilty of the offences enumerated in subclauses (a), (b) and (c) are guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. This refers, of course, to the ordinary summary conviction proceedings in the criminal courts of Canada. As I am sure my hon. friend is aware, if he stops to think about the matter, there is in the Criminal Code a section which provides that in the absence of the provision of any specific penalty anyone convicted of an offence against a statute on summary conviction is liable to a fine of, I think it is, $500. However, in this case, clause 51 provides a specific penalty. It provides as follows:
51. Every person who Is convicted of an offence under this part is liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
As I recall it, that is the same provision as is found in the summary conviction part of the Criminal Code.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister is quite correct in that matter, if I may say so with all due respect to the hon. member for Cartier. This is legislation under the guise of criminal law passed by the legislative body in our country that has the power to pass legislation dealing with what is a criminal offence. But the question that I was suggesting to the hon. member for Cartier in private is this: What do we mean by "every person", for instance, in clause 46 where we find the words "every person who has deserted from the force"? The minister said that the kind of person that was envisaged there was not necessarily an officer or a member of the force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I said he would no longer be a member of the force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After seven days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After seven days. The hon. member for Cartier asked the question: why do you not use the terminology which you used previously, namely "a member of the
R.C.M.P. Act
force". I explained that a person who has deserted from the force is after seven days no longer a member of the force and we therefore have used the word "person".


Paul Joseph James Martin: But in clause 48 we find the following:
48(1) Every person who
(a) gives or offers or promises to give to any member of the force any bribe, pecuniary or otherwise-
That person may well be a member of the force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But "person" in this case would include "member of the force", although it is not restricted to a member of the force. This is ordinary Criminal Code terminology.


Leon David Crestohl: The minister will appreciate the fact that as to a deserter who has been absent for two days and who offers a bribe to someone to remedy his situation, he has not yet been a deserter for seven days and therefore is still properly a member of the force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But he would also be included in the word "person".
Amendment (Mr. Hamilton, Notre Dame de Grace) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 51 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 52-Limit on prosecution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Clause 52 reads as follows:
No proceedings in respect of an offence under this part shall be instituted more than two years after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose.
Was that provision in the other bill or was it already the law? Was not the time different?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. The time for instituting proceedings was unlimited.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 53-Member of force deemed a servant of the crown.
William Arnold Peters: What is the situation, for instance, in the case of a member of the force driving an automobile and where an accident arises out of that fact?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, section 60 of the Exchequer Court Act determines the rights of members of the public against servants of the crown in such circumstances.
This clause merely makes it clear that members of the force are in the same position. They have no preferred position but they are in no worse position than are other servants of the crown in respect of determining liability

R.C.M.P. Act
in any action or other proceedings against Her Majesty arising out of the act of such crown servants.


William Arnold Peters: What I am wondering is this. Is there any protection for them in view of their duty? I can remember the case that concerned the R.C.A.F. where an ambulance driver in the course of his duties driving the ambulance with a patient had an accident and the crown refused to have anything to do with the matter. It cost his father $50 thousand or $60 thousand before all the litigation was ended because the crown did not assume any responsibility, even though he was acting in performance of his duties at the time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure that was some time ago. I am not aware of all the details but I am sure my hon. friend will be aware of the fact that the rights of ordinary citizens suing the crown for the torts of its servants were considerably enlarged by a number of amendments made to the Exchequer Court Act a few years ago. There is protection again to the member of the force or crown servants in that the provisions of sections 60 and 18 of the Exchequer Court Act, I believe, say that the servant acting in the course of his duties shall not be held to be personally liable but that the crown will pay damages. We have, of course, an overriding right in the department-we have at least with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-to make a specific finding that the member should contribute to or reimburse the crown in whole or in part for the cost to which the crown has been put if in the opinion of the deputy attorney general of Canada he was himself guilty of negligence. That takes a specific finding by the deputy attorney general.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or was acting not in the course of duty.


Lionel Chevrier: Does this clause change the common law?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At common law the crown could not be sued.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have already changed the common law by statute to provide that the crown can be sued and that the crown is liable for the torts of its servants. This clause does not change that situation and carries into effect, so far as members of the force are concerned, the changes already made by statute with respect to servants of the crown.


Murdo William Martin: I understand the importance of this clause, but supposing in an action against Her Majesty it was decided by the court that the act complained of, let us say a tortious act, was not committed in the course of duty. This clause as presently drawn would still not affect the position of a member of the force who "shall be deemed to have been at such time a servant of the crown".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe my hon. friend is now asking me to comment on matters about which I have not my advisers or the books before me; but my understanding is that the crown can always defend an action on the ground that its servant was not acting in the course of his employment. I think that defence is open to the crown as well as to any civilian, and it does not change that position.


Murdo William Martin: I think my hon. friend is right on that, that the crown can take such a course. But notwithstanding that, the officer in question shall continue to be a servant of the crown as this clause is presently drawn?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: Then I ask is that a desirable thing?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I think so. The fact that he was not acting in the course of his employment does not change the fact that he was a servant of the crown. There are cases at law where, for example, A is the servant of B and A acts in a manner in which he is not called upon to act in the nature of his employment, and that does not change the fact that he is still the servant of B. Perhaps I should also point out that the wording here is exactly the same as the wording of an amendment to the act passed in 1957.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, can the minister explain this situation; An officer is constantly under orders, whether he is at a particular moment performing special duties or whether he is on his way home, for example, in his car or going elsewhere not in the course of his service. He is at that time also under command, under orders. Would he then be considered to be in the performance of his duties if he commits a tort during that period?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. I think the law is quite clear. As I said a moment ago, if A is the servant of B, A may be called upon to do certain things in the course of his employment. If he does things which he is not called upon to do in the course

of his employment but which lie quite outside the scope of his employment, his employer is not liable. But the fact that he acts in a manner in which he is not called upon to act by his employment does not alter the other fact that he is the servant of B. The same with an officer of the force. He is subject to discipline and liable to orders at all times. But if, as is the ordinary case, he is called upon to keep office hours and he keeps such office hours from nine to five, and then in the course of an ordinary day, after five o'clock leaves the office to drive home-he may of course be called on the radio at any time and ordered to go somewhere else-but if in the course of driving home he has an accident involving another vehicle or a civilian pedestrian, he is still an officer of the force; but clearly the act which he committed of driving into somebody else was not committed in the course of his duties as a servant of the crown.


Lionel Chevrier: Does this clause apply only in regard to motor accidents?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh no; to all actions carried out by members of the force.


Lionel Chevrier: To all acts of tort, or does it apply to contracts as well?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would think it would apply to actions on contract as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: To any actions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To any action, yes. The clause says:
For the purpose of determining liability in any action or other proceeding by or against Her Majesty, a person who was at any time a member of the force shall be deemed to have been at such time a servant of the crown.


Leon David Crestohl: I would like to explore the minister's illustration a little further. If a person leaves his duties in his office, for example, as the minister explains, and then drives home and in the course of driving home has an accident, the minister says that under those circumstances there would be no responsibility against him personally. That officer is under command-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I do not think I said that. I think as far as I went was that I said the action committed or engaged in by the person at that time would clearly not be in the course of his duties as a servant of the crown. I did not go on to discuss the question of liability.


Leon David Crestohl: That is correct; I appreciate the correction. But while he is not in the performance of his duty and commits another offence, he is nevertheless under his contract and under command still answerable and is
R.C.M.P. Act
liable to be punished by his seniors. Now, there is a conflict. Either you carry full responsibility for his actions or not. You cannot just carry partial responsibility in one case and full responsibility in another.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if the officer committed a service offence, such as breach of discipline or any other offence against the regulations or act while actually not on duty during office hours, he would of course be liable to be punished; but I do not see that that alters the situation we are discussing in the context of clause 53. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this in case I have been guilty of unintentionally misleading the committee. I was asked whether this clause changes the common law. I believe not this clause but possibly clause 43 (a), to which I have referred already which was enacted in 1957, did change it because, as I understand it, at common law a member of the R.C.M. Police is not a servant of the crown. The new section added in 1957 makes it clear that he shall be deemed to be so for the purposes set out in the section.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister able to say what effect, if any, it has on the civil code of the province of Quebec?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it would have any effect on the civil code in the province of Quebec because this provision is only put in here for the purpose of making applicable thereto sections 60 and 18 of the Exchequer Court Act, which is the only act by virtue of which a civilian can sue the crown.


Leon David Crestohl: I do not seem to be able to reconcile the fact that he is a servant of the crown and under its command during the entire term of his duty, yet he is not responsible for acts which he commits during the hours when he is not actually on duty. He is subject to command 24 hours a day right through the entire period and he must follow orders during that entire period. When a person is subject to the orders of his employer, the employer is responsible for any tort which he commits.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid my hon. friend is mistaken in the law there. Surely the situation is capable of being stated on a common sense basis. Certainly a member of the force, officer, n.c.o. or constable, is subject to call 24 hours a day. But if the orders he has received make it clear that his ordinary duties extend from nine in the morning until five in the afternoon, then that does not mean to say that he is on duty from five in the afternoon until nine the next morning unless he is specifically ordered to be on duty. He may be called out on duty, but in the absence of such a call any conduct, any action which he carries on during that period after five o'clock in the

R.C.M.P. Act
afternoon and before nine o'clock in the following morning are clearly and distinctly not actions in the course of his employment.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister not consider that some clarification might well be made of this clause? I am particularly concerned about some of the things which have happened involving members of the armed forces under similar provisions, particularly where there have been automobile accidents and where the question of whether or not the man was on duty has arisen. It has been argued-and successfully, in some cases, where there may have been improper conduct on the part of the man or officer concerned-that he was no longer protected, and yet he was still doing the duties he was supposed to be doing. As we all know, the act was designed originally to cover conditions which, in many cases, no longer exist. If an officer on patrol were to have a serious accident even though a court were to find him partly responsible, I think the fact that he was on duty and that he was doing the job because of his orders should place some responsibility on the part of the crown. Officers involved in a situation like this should not be thrown to the wolves as has sometimes been the case, and be obliged to fight their own cases without assistance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have endeavoured to explain already-and I am sorry if I have not made it clear-that if a member of the force is involved in an accident in he course of carrying out his duties the crown stands behind him and there is no question of calling upon a member of the force to pay damages as an individual. The damages must be recovered in an action against the crown; the other party to the accident will sue the crown and by virtue of the provision of the Exchequer Court Act may recover damages against the crown. The crown pays the damages. The only situation in which there would be any penalty imposed upon the member of the force would be not by way of telling him that he must pay the damages but by virtue only of an express finding by the deputy attorney general that the member of the force was personally negligent and that his negligence contributed to the accident to such a degree that the crown should look to him for the recovery of the damages which it has paid to the other party. Such situations are few and far between. I should say also that the terms, to the best of my recollection, of the order in council or regulation under which such findings of the deputy attorney general are made, require the finding that the negligence of the member of the force was not of a minor character. It is only 
when the negligence is of a major nature that there would be any attempt made to recover from the member the damages for which the crown has been liable, and then only a proportion of those damages.


William Arnold Peters: We agree with the explanation that the minister has given, but what I am suggesting is that the explanation is not necessarily going to be the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I tell the hon. member that it is the law at the present time.


William Arnold Peters: It does not say that. I do not think legal counsel could find that in this particular clause. What I am suggesting is that this protection should be written into this measure and that it be much better defined so that we do not have to refer to a lot of other precedents, regulations or orders in council, whatever they happen to be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The law of the land is that the master is liable for the torts of his servants. The crown is now in the same position as an ordinary civilian in this respect, and the master cannot recover from the servant in respect of damages caused by the servant in the course of his employment unless the servant is negligent, and the policy of the government is that even in such a case we do not attempt to recover from the servant unless the negligence amounts to gross negligence, and then only a part of the damages for which the crown has been held liable.


Leon David Crestohl: There is a basic difference in the relationship between the ordinary employer and his employee and the relationship between the government and an officer of the R.C.M.P. I think it is wrong to assume that the relationship is the same.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This section which we are now discussing makes the situation the same; it makes the relationship between the ordinary master and his servant and the relationship between the crown and a member of the force exactly the same in so far as liability for torts is concerned.


Leon David Crestohl: That is just what we are discussing. We do not think this is a fair clause. The relationship between master and servant is different because ordinarily an employee would have working hours from, say, eight to five-


Edmund Davie Fulton: So has the member of the force.


Leon David Crestohl: But after working hours an ordinary employee has no master to give him orders. He is not subject to be given any commands. He cannot suddenly be called out and told to go on a mission. On the other

hand a member of the force can be ordered to do something at any time of the day or night, and he must obey that command.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Precisely.


Leon David Crestohl: The private employee does not have to obey any such command and he is not subject to discipline if he does not obey a command given to him after hours. That is precisely the difference as I see it, and that is what we are trying to discuss. An officer of the force is subject to be ordered to go out and do things 24 hours a day and therefore the relationship between master and servant is altogether different from what it is in private industry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The crown is liable for the torts of the servant if the servant is carrying out the orders of the crown but, as I have explained, in the ordinary course of events the members of the force are not on duty between-I do not know precisely what the hours are, but I use office hours as an example-five in the afternoon and nine in the morning. They are not on duty unless specifically called. If a man is called outside those hours the crown is liable for his torts, but if he is not on duty and pursuing his own private pleasures or pursuits, then his relationship with the ordinary civilian is exactly the same as that of any other member of society, and so it should be. I can see no reason on earth why the crown should be held liable or be placed in a position where it is liable for the tortious acts of a member of the force committed without any relationship to his employment whatever.
Suppose a member were on his annual leave. He is still subject, it is true, to be called back on duty and if he received a telegram that he must report back to duty at once is my hon. friend suggesting-if his argument were carried to its logical conclusion he would be suggesting-that if that member of the force while on annual leave, holidaying on a lake, drives a motor boat negligently and recklessly and injures somebody, that the crown should be held liable? Of course not. The situation is exactly the same if the member is off duty between the hours of five in the afternoon and nine in the morning.


Leon David Crestohl: I ask one question. Is the officer subject to orders from his employer during the 24 hours of the day?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not unless he received a specific call. If the orders and regulations lay it down that in his detachment the office hours are from nine to five and that he is off duty in other hours, then, unless he receives a specific call or order, he is off duty.
R.C.M.P. Act


Leon David Crestohl: But if he gets a call he is under obligation to obey it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. And if he gets a call and in the course of discharging that call he is involved in an accident the crown is liable because he is on duty.	[DOT]


William Arnold Peters: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in speaking of these matters that while in the legal profession it is reasonable, I presume, to use the term "master and servant" I particularly and I think most Canadian people do not appreciate that particular term as being what we have in mind. I do not think it is something that we in Canada have in mind. Some hon. members may use it. The 65 members who are members of the legal profession may agree with it but I would suggest that the Canadian people and the House of Commons should not be hearing the employer and employee relationship referred to as master and servant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend must want to rewrite every law textbook that has ever been written because the law on that subject has been called from time immemorial the law of master and servant.


William Arnold Peters: We would certainly like to see it changed in this particular clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: We shall go back to clause 11.
On clause 11-Civilian staff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On clause 11, Mr. Chairman, I raised a question with the minister the other day about the status of persons who are employed in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not in the category of casual employees but on a regular basis, but who are not now civil servants. The future persons so employed are to be civil servants. But the point I raised was what was to be the status of those persons now employed and how were they to be integrated into the civil service, and were they in future to have all the rights of civil servants? I suppose the minister has an answer to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that this group who are not members of the force at the present time but are known as employed civilians and are not now civil servants will be given an option to elect whether they will be civilian employees or civil servants. Then, of course, if they elect to become civil servants they will have all the advantages of the Civil Service Act. With regard to their present pension rights, they will be

R.C.M.P. Act
taken care of under the related bill dealing with the superannuation of members of the force.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the status of their employment? Of course, the persons who are employed on a casual basis at prevailing rates are regulated by the general law, but these persons are not. These persons, I take it, are employed at a salary under some kind of statutory authority.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They can continue to be employed on that basis or they may elect to become civil servants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point is, what is the basis? Where in the act is that basis defined?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the present act it is stated that:
The governor in council may authorize the commissioner to employ in emergencies such persons as may he necessary to perform the duties of scouts, artisans, cooks, stenographers, tailors, engineers, agents, interpreters, guides or for any other purpose or for general duty for such periods as may be required and at such rates of pay as are authorized by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the present law but that law is being repealed, as I understand it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If those people are to have a status they must have a status under some law that has not been repealed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will they not be the ones who are covered in clause 11 (1), which reads:
Subject to subsection (2), such civilian officials, clerks and employees as are necessary for carrying out the functions and duties of the force shall be appointed or employed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
Those persons who are employed at the present time as employed civilians are employed under the provisions of the clause I just read from the present bill. I will not say they have not a status but it will be noted that they are employed for such purposes as may be required and at such rates of pay as are authorized by the minister, so they have in a sense no protected status.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister appreciates my point. I know that until this bill passes and he proclaims it these people can continue to be employed under the old status, but when it is proclaimed and that status disappears there will be no authority that I have been able to find anywhere that provides for the continued employment of these people in any way except the civil service.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think my hon. friend has read clause 11 (2), because this clause provides that:

The commissioner may employ such number of temporary civilian employees at such remuneration and upon such other terms and conditions as are prescribed by the treasury board, and may at any time dismiss or discharge any such employee.
But when we have the new act in force all the present employed civilians will become either civil servants under 11 (1) or continue as civilian employees under 11 (2).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Temporary employees; in other words, they are all temporary employees at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, all those who are not civil servants and members of the force are temporary employees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said that those persons who are employed regularly the year round would be given the option of remaining under the status they have now or of becoming civil servants. Will they be expected, before becoming civil servants, to pass any special test; or, in view of their long service, will they simply be integrated into the civil service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They would, of course, have to pass the ordinary civil service requirements before they would be entitled to be integrated into the civil service under 11 (1); and if they could not pass those requirements, then they would continue to be employed as civilian employees under 11 (2).


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, although those persons may be performing the service satisfactorily and they may have reached relatively an advanced age where they would not have much aptitude for examinations, they will never be anything except temporary civil servants, unless they can pass the tests that a new entry to the service would have to pass.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, they will not be some nondescript, grey shadowy group. If my hon. friend will look at clause 7 (2) he will see that those persons contemplated under 11 (2) will fit into the situation there described, namely:
The ranks and grades of members other than officers, and the maximum numbers of persons to be appointed to each rank and grade shall be as prescribed by the treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but they will still be temporary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They will be or may be what is described as civilian members of the force.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But they cannot be brought under the superannuation act. It would appear so. Can they?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that is provided for in the other bill, yes, and we shall look for that when we go through it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister has satisfied all my questions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 19-Municipal bylaws.
Gabriel Roberge: Clause 19 is of a general character and clause 20 is more specific. I would suggest to the committee that we should deal with clause 20 and then revert to clause 19, if that is agreeable.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall we deal with clause 20 first?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are we on clause 19?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; it is suggested that we deal with clause 20 first.
On clause 20-Arrangements with provincial and municipal governments.


Gabriel Roberge: I will not read clause 20 in full but in line 8 there is a reference to "the laws in force therein", and "therein" means the municipality or the province. I should like to ask the minister if that includes by-laws.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to contracts for municipal policing, it is a standard clause in every contract that the members of the force will not be responsible for carrying out the provisions of any certain municipal bylaws, and that is by virtue of the provisions of clause 19 which reads as follows:
Unless authorized by the governor in council, members shall not be charged with any duties under or in connection with any municipal by-laws.
Therefore contracts with municipal authorities have to spell out specifically what municipal by-laws members may be responsible for enforcing, if any.


Gabriel Roberge: Do the different agreements with provinces and municipalities include by-laws?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have here, for instance, a standard clause from one of the municipal contracts which provides that the unit shall perform such duties and render such services and no others as are ordinarily performed by police constables in aiding the administration of justice, and specifically the unit will not be called upon to engage in the issuing of licences, collection of licence fees or inspection regarding licences, in the collection of taxes or costs other than fines and costs, the impounding of cats, dogs and/or other animals, carrying out of inspections in respect of by-laws relating to health, sanitation or fire. We specifically provide that the members will not be responsible for that type of duty.
R.C.M.P. Act


Gabriel Roberge: But if it does happen that a municipality has the right to enact a by-law with respect to speed-ordinarily that is a provincial matter but sometimes a municipality has the power-would the mounted police acting as the municipal force be allowed to lay a charge because the speed by-law had been broken?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be the type of by-law for which we would accept responsibility and that would be covered by the words of the contract.


Gabriel Roberge: I think it is nine provinces that have agreements-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Eight.


Gabriel Roberge: Eight provinces. Are the agreements the same or is there a difference and, if so, what is the difference?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The provisions of the contract are in the main similar with the exception of Saskatchewan and Alberta where, as my hon. friend will appreciate, the history of the contracts between the force and the provinces run back appreciably farther than it does in respect to any of the other provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be inclined to suggest, if it were not for certain circumstances that will be in the minds of all members, that there should be substituted for this clause a wholly new clause making a standard contract with the provinces part of the law laid down by parliament. The reason, of course, why I make the suggestion that this is desirable will be obvious to every hon. member. I do not intend to enter into those reasons unless I am asked to do so. There is, however, as hon. members are well aware, a case before the courts involving the interpretation of one of these contracts and I realize that it would be ridiculous to ask parliament at this time, while that action is before the courts, to lay down standard terms under which agreements could be made so that everyone would know what the law really was and would know that it had been made by parilament. But I do think this is desirable and I do not think anyone in parliament should be satisfied unless it is done at the earliest opportunity.
For that reason, sir, I intend to propose an amendment that a third subclause be added to this clause to the effect that the power given to the minister under this clause shall not extend beyond December 31, 1960. I am not moving the amendment yet. I want to explain why I have picked that particular date. In all human probability, however slow the courts may be, this action should surely be concluded by that date, but if the minister thinks that is improbable and would prefer to have a somewhat later date that

R.C.M.P. Act
would still be within the reasonable life of this parliament I would naturally be quite prepared to consider that such date be substituted. But it does seem to me that at the first opportunity when parliament can debate freely the question involved in clause 20, which we cannot do now, legislation should be brought before parliament and parliament itself should determine the conditions upon which this very unusual and extraordinary power is at the present time given not to the governor in council but to the minister with the approval of the governor in council.
This is a very great power indeed to be given to a minister, the power to provide by contract the police force of another jurisdiction which under our constitution is a sovereign jurisdiction and to make a force for which this parliament pays, for which the taxpayers of Canada pay, available to another jurisdiction and under the exclusive control, because that is what sovereignty means, of that other jurisdiction for provincial purposes. It does seem to me that this is something which grew up over a period of time mainly under the initiative of Liberal governments, I admit, and I have no apology to make for that, and about which until recently no one perhaps thought there would ever be any serious question. But a question having arisen it seems to me that in a matter of relationships that are fundamental to confederation itself parliament, not a minister even with the approval of the governor in council, should lay down the fundamental conditions-


Mr. Clancy:: Oh, stop wasting time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member, who favours us so frequently with his intellectual efforts like to take my place and speak for a while? I am quite willing to sit down.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: My intellectual efforts, really, I have to sit here and listen-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You do not have to sit here, you can leave.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman having exercised himself, perhaps I can now continue in what I believe is still a free parliament. I suggest that in order to meet this particular situation in which we find ourselves at the present time, when it would not be proper to debate the merits of these contracts or the issues involved in them-I am the first to recognize that-parliament should not give power to the minister beyond a reasonable period that may be necessary for the resolution of this question in the courts and that we should incorporate this

limitation, a limitation of a character with which the minister will be very familiar because it is precisely the kind of limitation that he urged upon the previous government with respect to other legislation.
I therefore move:
That to clause 20, subclause 3, there shall be added as follows: The power given to the minister in this section shall not extend beyond December 31, 1960.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have to make it clear that I could not accept the amendment. I should like to give my reasons, but before doing so I should like to correct another of the historical inaccuracies of the member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The hon. gentleman said that contracts with the provinces for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I think he said were started by- I do not know whether those were his exact words, but the impression he left is that they were created, in the main, by Liberal governments.
My hon. friend is, as usual, quite inaccurate. The great majority of the contracts were started between 1932 and 1935 under the commissionership of Sir James Mac-Brien, who was appointed by the late R. B. Bennett. I have not made an historical check, but I think I am right in saying that, with respect to every province with which we now have a contract, except British Columbia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, the first, contracts were made under the commissionership of Sir James MacBrien between the years 1932 and 1935.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question on that point?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was not the first contract made with Saskatchewan?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was it not made before Sir James MacBrien was commissioner?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend had been listening instead of being so concerned with what he said he would have noted that I specifically pointed out Saskatchewan was one of the exceptions. I said, with respect to every province with which we now have contracts, except British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, the contracts were first made under the commissionership of Sir James MacBrien.
This government and I, Mr. Chairman, attach a great deal of importance to these contracts, not only as a matter of historical interest but in connection with all aspects of this matter. We believe that these contracts are in the interests of Canada as well as contributing to the efficient policing of

the provinces. I am, therefore, concerned, that I do not do anything which will make it difficult to continue these contracts in force. I point out to my hon. friend that conditions do vary from time to time and that it is necessary to negotiate contracts with provinces. The provision has been, and I assume still will be, that contracts are negotiated on the basis of five years and therefore I am unwilling to tie my hands now, in advance of negotiations, or limit the powers to negotiate contracts with provinces or do anything which would, in effect, present the provinces with a fait accompli, with a deadline, by accepting an amendment such as that offered by my hon. friend.
It is a well known fact that we have called for negotiations with the provinces with respect to the contracts. I expect those negotiations to proceed as soon as may be convenient. I certainly would not be prepared at this time to write a deadline into the statute by which the power of the minister or the governor in council to make contracts with the provinces would be limited. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I have to reject the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 70.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the minister has declined to accept the amendment I have proposed, I am going to suggest to the minister- I am not going to move another amendment- that the government should propose an amendment to this clause. The amendment should be to the effect that the terms of any arrangement entered into with the government of a province or municipality should be laid before parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.
The act calls these things arrangements, and they are made by the minister. They are not orders in council that would normally be tabled under the Regulations Act. They are, however, matters of the utmost importance in our whole federal system, and it does seem to me that, unless I might be mistaken and there might be some adequate statutory provision for these contracts being tabled, if there is no provision there should be in clause 20 a subclause making specific provision for the laying of these contracts before parliament at the earliest possible date.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am under the impression that these contracts, certainly the provincial contracts, are laid on the table at the present time as soon as they are made. They are, of course, 5-year contracts which are automatically extended from year to year unless one year's notice is given of cancellation. It is my impression that each one of these has been
R.C.M.P. Act
laid on the table when it was first made. I could not speak with anything like definite recollection with regard to the contracts for policing municipalities.
I would, however, make this suggestion. I believe the objective of the hon. member is reasonable and acceptable, but I would not care at the present time to write a specific requirement such as he suggests into the bill because there is something in the back of my mind which tells me that there is a provision under which they are tabled. However, I will do this: I shall be glad, first of all, to undertake that every such contract that is made in the interim will be laid upon the table of the house. When I say "interim" I am referring to this: If I find that there is no requirement under which they must now be tabled, I will be prepared, at the first convenient time, to introduce an amendment containing such a requirement because I think it is a reasonable proposal. I will, in the meantime, table any such contracts that may be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to attempt to construe the statute. It would be quite beyond my capacity to do that. However, as I read this clause, it does not appear to me that one of these arrangements would be a regulation within the terms of the Regulations Act. I know of no other statute of a general character that makes it obligatory- and I am speaking again from my research and recollection of the period when I had a certain responsibility in this field-that requires the tabling of documents in parliament. It seems to me that in every case, except such documents as those required under the Regulations Act, documents are required to be tabled only if there is a specific provision in a specific statute. There does not appear to be such a provision in this one. However, if the minister still thinks that there is some general provision I would be willing to accept the suggestion he has made. However, may I say this. Even though it were slightly redundant, I would be much happier-and it does seem to me that it would take the minister's advisers only a minute or two to do it-if they were to put such a simple provision as this one in the statute.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could dispose of the matter in this way, if my hon. friend thinks it is a reasonable suggestion. On reflection, I think he is right. There is no regulation that these contracts be tabled. I think it has been the custom, and it is a custom that I now undertake to continue until such time as there will be statutory provision written into the act. I would not care to draft in a moment such a provision at this time. I would be prepared to give this undertaking,
5076	HOUSE OF
R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act if my hon. friend will accept my commitment. When the bill is in the other place we will arrange that some hon. gentleman over there will introduce an amendment to the effect of the hon. member's suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say that I think the minister has been most reasonable about this matter and that I do not intend to persist further.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this clause passes I cannot refrain from observing that the most reasonable attitude of the minister in this respect and the unusually self-effacing modesty of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have made a contribution to the welfare of Canada in this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall the bill as amended carry?


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to ask the minister if there is in this bill any clause to deal with the matter of restoring the pension to the former commissioner or whether there is in the act any provision by which that could be made possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is nothing in this act. All the pension provisions will now be found in the bill which will be before the house in a few moments after this one is passed. If my hon. friend wishes to do so, perhaps he would raise the subject at that time. I think that would be the proper time to do it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-57 respecting the superannuation of members of the .Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, after the election of March 31, 1958 Reverend Dan Mclvor said to me, "Whatever you do in Ottawa, I want you to put on the order paper a resolution for legislation to increase pensions of civil servants and R.C.M.P. who were retired when salaries were low, so as to bring such pensions more in line with those of the present". I therefore did so. However, unfortunately, this resolution will not be reached before the end of the session for 1959.

I am sure those hon. members who knew Reverend Dan Mclvor will agree with me when I say that there is no greater humanitarian that I know of in Canada than the reverend gentleman who represented the constituency of Fort William for 23 consecutive years. He always championed the cause of the helpless, the sick and the poor. I am glad to report that he celebrated his 86th birthday a couple of months ago in good health and although retired he still shows a keen interest in the doings of the House of Commons.
It should not, therefore, surprise anyone if I am particularly happy to participate in the debate on this bill which was so close to the heart of my predecessor. It is truly my purpose to do all I can on behalf of those whom this bill is designed to benefit. I commend those responsible for its introduction at this session, even though the long wait for it has been an added burden to those concerned.
This bill will authorize the minister to appoint a Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension board. I think this is a step in the right direction.
In speaking in support of the bill I could do no better justice than to quote from what was said by my distinguished predecessor when he first introduced the measure in March of 1957. I am quoting from page 1844 of Hansard of 1957. He said:
This resolution is very simple. It deals with men and women who gave long service in the armed forces, in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in the civil service at a time when wages were low. Conditions of service then were not what they are today. There was no 40-hour week; people had to work ten hours a day. One section of the civil service, the postmen, were on duty six days a week, and when snow was on the streets and the streets were not cleared they often worked more than ten hours a day, though they never received any overtime pay.
More than two years later conditions are far worse in so far as the value of the present dollar is concerned. No one can deny the fact that the cost of living has risen to the point where the majority of our superannuated civil servants-and I include many others-are now caught in a vicious cost-price squeeze forcing many of them to recourse to welfare agencies. It is quite evident that inflation has inflicted more hardships on retired pensioners than on business or industry. High cost of living and inflation are like Siamese twins, inseparable, and no amount of talk to the contrary can make one believe that we are not now going through a period of destructive inflation, exacting the highest price from those least able to withstand the onslaught.

In support of what I am saying now I have only to quote the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) as reported on page 1855 of Hansard of March 4, 1957. He said:
We are all conscious of rising living costs and the inflation which faces us at the present time. We know that some attempts have been made by the government to check this inflation. After having given it the original impetus by the tremendous spending of the various government departments, they are frantically trying to adjust the brakes in order to stop the runaway car to which they gave the original push. However, inflation is here, and something has got to be done for these senior retired civil servants.
If the government is not able to check inflation, then it seems to me only fair and just that the government must find some other means of helping those who are really the underprivileged class of the nation. I could read a number of letters I have received from Vancouver island during this session pointing out the plight of these people, but I shall not take up the time of the house by doing so. I merely repeat that these elderly men and women who have served this country in numerous capacities in the past are now in desperate straits. It is only by increasing their pension at the present time that some measure of relief can be brought to them, until such time as the government is able to check this inflationary trend.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if these were the conditions existing two years ago, ably reported by the present Minister of National Defence at that time, conditions now are such that the problem has become one of urgency. His reference to the inflation apparent at the time is of double import now. His statement was to the effect that the then government was not able to check inflation; but we can all agree that it made a good try and that had they been returned to power I believe conditions would be different today.
A well known professor of economics at Queen's University, appearing before a Senate committee recently, made the observation that the whole purpose of inflation is to "gyp the saver". In other words, stealing from those dependent on set incomes or pensions. Three years ago the danger of inflation made its appearance and promptly the government of the day took measures to restrain it. The opposition at that time accused the government of adopting a tight money policy and with remarkable success made the majority of the people believe that it was so and won the approaching elections.
Now, because of a heavy federal deficit which did not exist then, we face large scale unemployment plus inflation. I suggest in all seriousness that in order to safeguard the incomes of our pensioners and the stability of our dollar the government should undertake a study of the trend of inflation in Canada and put into effect ways and means to stop inflationary trends which are now beginning to affect the saving habits of our people.
R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I realize that the hon. member may refer to inflationary trends and that sort of thing, but I do not think that he should go into a speech on economics as far as this bill is concerned, and I am sure he will restrain himself.


Lionel Chevrier: It is economics in connection with this bill.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I will try to refrain from mentioning the word you object to. However, I was saying that the most satisfactory way to project the value of pensions is to prevent inflation, which so far this government has blamed the former government of not being able to do, and which is incapable or unwilling to adopt measures that would work toward the solution of the problem. Pensions or superannuation should be brought under constant review and increased to the point where a retirement after a lifetime of service means a peaceful rest from labour and worry.
The Clark report which was tabled in the house a few months ago, which is a study of the United States and Canadian old age pension systems, should receive more serious consideration than it has received thus far. The report includes the suggestion that the contributions to the universal old age pension fund be made up with 2 per cent from income tax, 2 per cent from corporation tax and 2 per cent from sales taxes. As this would not quite meet the total required to pay the present $55 per month, perhaps a higher contribution would not only meet the requirement but would have the effect of keeping inflation under a better control. The monthly pension increase from $46 to the present $55 made by the present government has already been nullified by the increased prices of food and commodities-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I regret interrupting the hon. gentleman, but may I point out to him that this bill is a bill for the purpose of amending the pension provisions of the R.C.M.P., not specifically for increasing them but for altering their basis. I do suggest to him that a discussion of recent increases in the old age pensions and the extent to which they may have been offset by inflation is really not related to the principle of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I was listening to what the hon. member was saying and hoping that he was just referring to the old age pensions, but he went on to speak on the subject of old age pensions and I am sure he will once again restrain himself and get back to the particular bill we are now discussing.


Hubert Badanai: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I just cannot seem to figure out what a woman of 60 has got to do with this bill, and I must ask the hon. member to stick to the principle of Bill No. C-57.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point of order, I think the minister told us in connection with a previous bill that there were some temporary employees of the force, including women, who would be covered by this superannuation bill, so I suggest that on the basis of the information given by the minister my hon. friend from Fort William might very well be in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I gathered that the hon. member was not referring to temporary employees.


Hubert Badanai: I do not intend to go into detail with regard to these pensions provisions. It should not be necessary to call the government's attention to such a humanitarian consideration. The realization of the plight of the lowest income group of our


nation should not have to wait until people are on the edge of despair before applying wise leadership and the adoption of fiscal policies designed to give every Canadian an opportunity for a decent standard of living.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words concerning the principle of this bill? With my colleagues in the official opposition, I have examined the bill quite thoroughly, and we have found it to be along the same lines as the Public Service Superannuation Act and the act we have been discussing this afternoon, namely the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
On the whole, I may say that we have no quarrel with the principle of the bill; we merely intend to ask a few questions of the minister when the bill reaches the committee stage.
Let me say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) that he is fortunate to have had his colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) introduce his bill before this one.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suggest that in view of the excellent progress being made, and it being one minute before ten, we might call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Charles Edward Rea: Was the suggestion made that the committee might continue with unanimous consent?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood so, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the committee agreeable to that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: I heard some "noes". Therefore, it being ten o'clock-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you sure you heard a "no"?


Charles Edward Rea: I will put the question again. Will the committee give unanimous consent to sit a little longer on this bill?
It being ten o'clock I do rise, report progress-


Some hon. Members:: We are all agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: I will try again. Will the committee give unanimous consent to sit longer on this bill?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Would the leader of the house tell us what we shall be doing tomorrow and the next day? Friday, as the hon. gentleman knows, the house adjourns. And could we be told, also, what business the house intends to take on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we will take the estimates of the Department of Justice and
Business of the House
then those of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I cannot, as yet, give the business for Monday.


Lionel Chevrier: Are we going to continue with this bill? The house seems to be in a very good mood.


Howard Charles Green: No, I think we will take the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received a resolution from the Windsor city council alleging the dangers of further imports of small cars being manufactured in the United States, and urging that the content of cars produced in Canada continues to decline?
2.	If so, will the government initiate a study of the automobile Industry for the purpose of mitigating consequential unemployment.
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Yes. A resolution passed at a meeting of the Windsor city council on March 9 was sent to the Prime Minister on March 13, 1959.
2.	On May 18, 1959 the Prime Minister gave information to the house concerning his meetings with the presidents of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, the Chrysler Company of Canada and the General Motors Corporation. The meetings were held to discuss the manufacture of small cars in Canada. In his statement Mr. Diefenbaker said that any announcement that may be made from time to time respecting this matter will have to be made by the companies.



LOCKAGE TIMES, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Mr. Argue: 1.	Is the actual lockage time on each of the locks constructed by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, the same as the design lockage time?
2.	If not, what is the variation at each lock?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transpori):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	No.
2.	St. Lambert, Cote Ste. Catherine and Beauharnois locks filling and emptying time:
The time required to fill or empty a lock is governed by two basic factors: (1) the volume of water to be let in or out. This is directly proportional to the height of lift, and differs at the various locks; (2) the average rate of flow of the water into or out of the lock. This is controlled by the extent to which the taintor valves are opened.
Inherent to the filling characteristics of a lock is the development of a longitudinal surge, accompanied by transverse currents, which act upon a ship to different degrees, dependent upon the size and shape of the ship's hull, and dependent upon the rate of filling. Seaway locks and their hydraulic
systems have been designed to reduce these forces to within practicable limits.
Also inherent to the operating characteristics of a lock is the over-filling and overemptying which is directly proportional to the rate of filling or emptying, and which results in a reverse head acting on the upper or the lower gates, tending to open them. To avoid undue stresses in the operating mechanism, the normal procedure of opening the gate is commenced by the lock operator at about the same time as the reverse head commences to act. This procedure has been adopted at the American locks and at the Welland canal locks.
Prior to the opening of the seaway to shipping on April 25, all lock facilities, including the mitre gates, taintor valves and their operating mechanisms were subjected to mechanical, electrical and hydraulic tests to make certain that they would withstand the maximum loads for which they were designed. The test loads for the operating mechanism were appreciably greater than the actual operating loads to which they will be subjected. Tests were conducted by fully qualified engineers under the direct supervision of the structural engineer, the assistant hydraulic engineer and/or electrical-mechanical engineer. Although during the course of the tests some defects were observed, they were of a minor nature and all were remedied without difficulty.
Naturally, it was not possible to conduct complete operating tests with ships in the locks, nor was it possible to fully train the operators until after the opening of the seaway to shipping. It was decided, therefore, that until this could be completed, the rate of filling and emptying should be restricted, so that the surges in the locks and the reverse heads on gates would be of insignificant magnitudes. This was done, by limiting the opening of taintor valves to about one-half of their maximum, which, with prevailing water levels, resulted in the following operating times for filling and emptying, as compared with design times:
Lock
St. Lambert Cote Ste. Catherine Upper Beauharnois Lower Beauharnois
Design
time
6	minutes
7	minutes
8	minutes 8 minutes
Operating
time
7 minutes 12 minutes 14 minutes 14 minutes
Recently a more complete series of tests was conducted under the direct supervision of the senior assistant hydraulic engineer and the electrical-mechanical engineer. These tests were made with various sizes and types of ships in the locks. They clearly demonstrated the practicability of ultimately setting the taintor valve controls and limit
switches to fill and empty the locks at even less than the design times. This is apparent from the following test results:
Lock
Design Minimum test time

Questions
2. Since January 1, 1957, has any money been (a) paid; (b) allocated to (i) municipalities; (ii) school boards, in the province of Nova Scotia for maintenance and repair work? If so, how much in
each case?
time	to	fill	to empty		Answer by: Hon. Henri Courtemanche
St Lambert					(Secretary of State):
6 minutes	3J	min.	44	min.	1. (a), (b), No.
Cote Ste. Catherine					2. (a), (b), (i) (ii) No.
7 minutes	6i	min.	6	min.	Upper Beauharnois	CAPE TORMENTINE-BORDEN FERRY SERVICE	BOAT8 minutes	7	min.	6	min.	REPAIRSLower Beauharnois	
Question No. 437-Mr. Argue:
8 minutes	6i	min.	6	min.	1. Have any of the boats in ferry service between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and Borden,
It is desirable that more extensive tests be made, and that the lock operators be given additional training before making any change in the present operating procedure.



AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, N.S.  FEDERAL PAYMENTS

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1957. has any money been (a) paid; (b) allocated, towards the cost of the agricultural college buildings in the province of Nova Scotia? If so, how much?
Prince Edward Island, been repaired at any time during the last five years?
2.	If so. what was the cost of repairs to each boat in this service, during each year since 1954, and what was the nature of such repairs?
3.	Between what dates was each boat out of service in each year since 1954 while repairs were being made?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2. M.V. Abegweit
Year	Cost of repairs	Nature of repairs1954	$ 59,645	Annual refit-routine hull and engine room repairs carried out as required by C.S.I. service.1955	$ 72,816	Do1956	$ 47,716	Do1957	$ 65,552	Do1958	$ 55,789	Do5.S. Prince Edward Island	1954	$ 51,471	Do1955	$ 82,967	Annual refit-additional accommodation added and renewal of worn deck and shell plating.1956	$41,051	Annual refit-routine hull and engine room repairs.1957	$339,033	Major overhaul due to age of vessel.1958	$ 12,349	Emergency drydocking due to seizure of port tail end shaft.i.S. Scotia II	1956-57	$328,722	Under the jurisdiction of the Department of1957-58	$ 17,935	Transport, this vessel was overhauled and refitted for the Prince Edward Island ferry service in 1956 and was delivered at Borden, P.E.I., on October 6, 1956.3.	M.V. Abegweit: April 11 to May 9, 1954; April 12 to May 18, 1955; April 22 to May 19, 1956; April 20 to May 17, 1957; April 10 to May 12, 1958.
S.S. Prince Edward Island: May 26 to June 15, 1954; May 26 to June 14, 1955; May 22 to June 20, 1956; November 21, 1956 to April 19, 1957; August 8 to August 18, 1958.

Questions
S.S. Scotia II: This vessel is used on relief service as required and has not been out of service on account of drydocking since delivered on October 6, 1956. It is due to dry dock in 1959.



HEATING FACILITIES, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING

Mr. Macnaughlon: 1.	Have plans and specifications been prepared and finalized for the heating of the new terminal building at Dorval airport?
2.	If so, when were tenders called for the new heating outlay and to whom, and at what date was the contract awarded?
3.	What is the amount of the said contract?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1. Design of a new central heating plant and distribution system for the new terminal building and various other buildings at the Dorval airport is being carried out by consulting engineers.
2 and 3. Tenders for boilers and ancillary equipment closed on May 1, 1959, and are now being evaluated by the consulting engineers. It is expected that tenders will be called for the distribution system within the next month, and for the remainder of the plant and building within three months.



D.B.S. REPORT  LISTING OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Does the government's report of the industry and merchandising division of the dominion bureau
of statistics list the Atlantic provinces separately or as a group?
2,	If listed as a group will the government give consideration to listing the provinces separately?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	The industry and merchandising division of the dominion bureau of statistics publishes a number of reports which provide data for each of the Atlantic provinces separately. In some reports issued by the dominion bureau of statistics data must be consolidated and statistics published for the Atlantic provinces as a group.
2.	Where resources are available and where the data published by the dominion bureau of statistics does not disclose the operations of an individual plant or company, every effort is made to show statistics for each of the Atlantic provinces separately. In some instances, the limitations of source data do not permit the refinement and publication of figures for the Atlantic provinces separately. For instance, in the case of retail trade, until recently, the estimates of sales for intercensal periods were provided for the Atlantic provinces as a whole. However, steps have been taken to enlarge the monthly and annual surveys by the addition of 4,000 stores, which will permit the preparation of estimates for all Atlantic provinces separately.

Wednesday, June 24, 1959