1962-12-12

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That the reports of the Canada council for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1961 and March 31, 1962, laid before the house on July 1, 1961 and October 10, 1962 respectively, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide for a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts, volumes I, II, and III, and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, and the financial statements of the Canada council for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1961 and 1962, and the reports of the auditor general thereon, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate, in order for Votes and Proceedings to be proper, that these motions were made at this stage by consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to extend for an additional two years the period within which the construction of a sewage treatment project in respect of which a loan has been or is to be made must be completed if the municipality or municipal corporation is to be granted a reduction of indebtedness.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


Mr. MacEachen: 1.	Has the government decided to undertake a winter works program in the Cape Breton Highlands national park and, if so, when is the program to begin?
2.	How many additional employees will be required?
3.	What additional sum of money will be spent, and what particular projects will be involved?


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1. Yes. The program will be under way this month.
2.	361 man-months (est.)
3.	Approximately $165,000, on the construction of a fire equipment building and a paint and carpenter shop at Ingonish compound; continuation of campground developments at Broad Cove and Cheticamp, construction of a warden service garage and storage building at Pleasant Bay, and roadside clean up along the Cabot trail.



ECCLES DIVORCE CASE-REPORT ON EVIDENCE

Mr. Howard: Since April 1, 1961, has any report been received as a result of the investigation into the nature of the evidence given to the miscellaneous private bills committee at the time the committee heard the so-called Eccles divorce case and, if so, what are the details of that report and the action taken or contemplated?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Yes, a report was received following an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Police reports are confidential and it would not be in the public interest to disclose them. No further action is contemplated.



EARNINGS OF C.B.C. EMPLOYEES AND ARTISTS

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	How many employees of the C.B.C. have yearly earnings of (a) $35,000 or over (b) between $20,000 and $25,000 (c) between $15,000 and $20,000?
2.	How many artists working for the corporation earn less than $1,400?


Mr. Halpenny:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The number of employees with yearly salaries of: (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) 18.

Questions
2.	In 1961 there were 17,688 artists who received from the corporation less than $1,400 for occasional or part time employment during the year.



* MEETINGS ON CHINESE IMMIGRATION, LORD ELGIN HOTEL, OTTAWA

Mr. Howard: 1.	Were the "meetings" and "discussions" "of a general nature" which took place in the Lord Elgin hotel in February of 1960, in connection with the alleged illegal entry to Canada of people of Chinese origin to which some employees of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration were "invited", and at which Mr. J. K. Abbott was present, held and conducted with the approval of the then minister of citizenship and immigration and, if not, when did these "meetings" and "discussions" come to her attention, what action was taken as a result thereof, and by whom was this action taken?
2.	With respect to the said "invitation" (a) who tendered it (b) how many employees of the department were so "invited" and, of these, how many were (i) male (ii) female (c) what are the names and positions of the employees so "invited" (d) what form did it take, was any element of authority attached to it and, if so, what degree (e) did any of the employees object to so attending the "meetings" and, if so, how many, and what form did the objections take?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The answer to this question covers approximately a full page and perhaps it might be printed in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that this be taken as read and that it should appear in Hansard in the ordinary course?
Some hon.. Members: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1 and 2. Discussions held between departmental officers relating to the official business of the department do not require specific ministerial approval in advance, and in the meetings referred to, no specific ministerial approval was sought or obtained. Two senior employees of the department with special knowledge of the problems involved in handling Chinese applications for citizenship and immigration were invited to participate in the discussions with the director of inspection services and the R.C.M.P. The employees were selected and invited by the director of inspection services for the purpose of explaining the procedures followed and the problems encountered in processing Chinese applications for immigration through the Hong Kong office and Chinese applications for citizenship through citizenship courts and offices in Canada. The officers selected were (1) a former superintendent of Canadian immigration in Hong Kong who had recently returned to headquarters; (2) the then deputy registrar of Canadian citizenship. Arrangements made were entirely informal and by mutual consent and no objection of any kind was raised by any of the participants.
The decision to discontinue arrangements for further meetings was taken by mutual agreement after discussions between the then deputy minister and the director of inspection services, following reports which came to the minister's attention that such meetings were being held.
The foregoing reply is based on the recollection of the then minister, the then deputy minister, the director of inspection services, and the participants concerned, since the written records of the department contain no information bearing on the questions raised.



CANADIAN GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

Mr. Laing: 1.	In each year since 1950, what has been the gross national product of Canada?
2.	In each such year, what percentage of increase is accounted for by (a) real volume output (b) wage-price inflation?

Questions


Mr. Nesbill:: 1 and 2 (a) and (b>* *.
Percentage Change From Preceding Year
		Gross National Expenditure		Implicit
Gross National	Current	Constant 1957	Price IndexProduct	Dollars	Dollars	Gross National1949	(millions of dollars) 16,343	(millions	of dollars)	Expenditure1950	18,006	+ 10.2	+ 6.9	+ 3.01951	21,170	+ 17.6	+ 6.1	+ 10.81952	23,995	+ 13.3	+ 8.1	+ 4.91953	25,020	+ 4.3	+ 3.8	+ 0.41954	24,871	- 0.6	- 2.9	+ 2.41955	27,132	+ 9.1	+ 8.6	+ 0.41956	30,585	+ 12.7	+ 8.6	+ 3.91957	31,909	+ 4.3	+ 1.3	+ 3.01958	32,894	+ 3.1	+ 1.2	+ 1.91959	34,784	+ 5.7	+ 3.1	+ 2.61960	35,928	+ 3.3	+ 1.9	+ 1.41961	36,844	+ 2.5	+ 1.8	+ 0.7
*No information is available on wage-price inflation. The final column in the above table indicates that portion of the increase in the gross national product which is attributable to price changes arising from a variety of causes.



RADIO STATIONS UNDER SECTION 14(1) OF ACT

Mr. Marcoux: Are there any radio or television stations operating within the provisions of section 14(1) of the Broadcasting Act and, if so, (a) which stations (b) at what date were enabling orders in council passed and (c) does the government intend to repeal section 14(2) of the Broadcasting Act?


George Ernest Halpenny: There are 5 television stations, 2 radio AM stations and 2 radio FM stations whose ownership status does not meet the requirements of section 14(1) of the Broadcasting Act.
(a)	These stations are:
Television: CFCF-TV, Montreal; CFCM-TV, Quebec; CKMI-TV, Quebec; CKLW-TV, Windsor; CKCO-TV, Kitchener.
Radio (AM):	CKLW, Windsor; CFCF,
Montreal.
Radio (FM): CKLW-FM, Windsor; CFCF-FM, Montreal.
(b)	(i) 18 August, 1959; (ii) 16 February, 1961.
(c)	When a decision is taken in this regard the house will be advised.



SEAWAY AUTHORITY


Mr. Lamoureux: 1. What was the total amount spent for the purchase of stores and equipment by the St. Lawrence seaway authority through its Cornwall headquarters during the years 1960 and 1961?
2.	What was the total amount spent by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for purchases from Cornwall suppliers during the years 1960 and 1961?
3.	In its purchases of stores and equipment made through Cornwall headquarters, does the St. Lawrence seaway authority give preference, when prices are competitive, to Cornwall suppliers?


Mr. McBain:: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:	1. In 1960,
$850,940.96; in 1961, $1,218,902.26.
2.	From Cornwall suppliers in 1960, $46,316.46; from Cornwall suppliers in 1961, $88,308.18.
3.	Only with respect to requirements for the Cornwall area.



MACKENZIE HIGHWAY


Mrs. Hardie: 1.	What was the (a) tonnage and (b) value, of freight carried on the Mackenzie highway for the years 1959, 1960, 1961?
2.	What was the (a) tonnage (b) value, of fish trucked over the same highway in the years 1959, 1960, 1961?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1 and 2. The available statistical data do not include the information requested.



* TELEVISION RECEPTION, GASPE REGION, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,057
Mr. Marcoux:: 1.	Has the secretary of state department or the board of broadcast governors received any complaints about the reception or non-reception of television broadcasts in certain regions of the Gaspe peninsula?
2.	Has the secretary of state department or the board of broadcast governors received any complaints about the quality of reception of the broadcasts of the Matane TV station (CKBL-TV) in the Matapedia valley since the installation of the antenna on mount Logan and the installation of a satellite on mount Climont?

Questions
3.	Are any steps being taken to ensure adequate television reception in the regions of the Gaspe peninsula and, if so, what is the nature of such steps?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. The station at mount Climont has just recently started operations and the B.B.G. has not yet been advised that it is operating at full efficiency.
3.	As the first step in extending and improving television service in the Gaspe peninsula the board has recommended the licensing of five additional rebroadcasting stations at the following locations: Chandler, Port Daniel, Perce, Gaspe and Gaspe west. The extension of service to the villages on the north shore of the Gaspe has been initiated by the recommendation for the licensing of a rebroadcasting station at Mur-dochville.
(Translation):



SAINT JEAN DE LA LANDE


Mr. Legare: 1.	Has the Department of Transport investigated the circumstances surrounding the plane crash which occurred at Saint Jean de la Lande around November 25, 1962?
2.	What were the circumstances surrounding the accident, what were the causes, what were the consequences, and what were the conclusions of the department?


James Alexander McBain: 1 and 2. Yes, but the report of the investigators is not yet completed. The airplane, a Cessna 172, property of Eastern Airways Limited, crashed around 9.15 a.m. during a flight between St. Georges de Beauce and La Guadeloupe, in the province of Quebec. The pilot, Mr. Jacquelin Vachon, of La Guadeloupe, and his passenger, Mr. Gaston Halley, of St. Honore de Chenley, were both killed and the airplane was destroyed. It is not possible to give information on the cause of the accident or on the conclusions drawn from the investigation as long as the report is not completed.
(Text):



COLUMBIA RIVER POWER


Mr. Davis: Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources recently received any engineering or other information which questions the safety of one of the Columbia river treaty projects, namely the high dam on the Arrow lakes in Canada?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My attention has been drawn to a letter to the editor of the Nelson Daily News which appears in the October 24, 1962, issue of that paper, and which raises this question.
Competent engineers have advised that a dam of the proposed height can be built quite safely at the suggested site; see, for example, the testimony of Dr. H. Q. Golder before the British Columbia comptroller of water rights at Castlegar, October 3, 1961, which reads in part:
Finally, I would just like to say that this dam is possible at this site because the head is not very large, only 78 feet; although we call it High Arrow dam, it is not really a high dam. Second, the loss by seepage is not important and we can control the amount of seepage. Third, very good materials are available for building the dam, and the materials in the foundation are excellent as foundation materials.
Therefore, Mr. Comptroller, I have no hesitation in saying that a dam of this height can be built quite safely at this site.
The more recent subsurface investigations at the site of the High Arrow dam have confirmed Dr. Golder's conclusions.
(Translation):



*C.N.R.-FRENCH CANADIANS OCCUPYING SENIOR POSITIONS

Mr. Gregoire: Are there any French Canadians among the 28 officers of the C.N.R.?


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the C.N.R. as follows:
Information given to the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping in connection with this question, showed that French Canadians hold high offices in the C.N.R.



C.N.R.-CONSIDERATION OF FRENCH CANADIANS FOR SENIOR POSITIONS

Mr. Gregoire: Has any consideration ever been given to the appointment of French Canadians among the 28 officers of the Canadian National Railways and, if so (a) when (b) who was considered for such appointment (c) what was the substance of the decision made in each case?


James Alexander McBain: The C.N.R. authorities have given us the following information:
Information given to the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping, in connection with this question, showed that French Canadians hold high offices in the C.N.R.
(Text):



* SPECIAL LIVING ALLOWANCE, R.C.M.P., NFLD.

Mr. Batten: 1.	Is there a special living allowance paid to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stationed in certain areas in Newfoundland and, if so, what are the names of these areas?
2.	What was the amount of this allowance on January 1, 1962?
[Mr. Marcoux.j

3.	Has there been any reduction In this allowance since January 1, 1962 and, if so (a) how much was the reduction (b) at what date was the reduction effective?
4.	Are any further reductions in this allowance contemplated?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this answer is about one page in length. With permission, it could be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: One foolscap page of typescript? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore it will be taken as read.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	Yes.
(a)	Special Newfoundland allowance payable at St. John's, Grand Falls and Corner-brook.
(b)	Isolation allowance payable at-
Baie Verte, Bell Island, Bonavista, Boone Bay, Botwood, Buchans, Burgeo, Burin, Channel, Clarenville, Deer Lake, Ferryland, Fogo, Gander, Gloverton, Grand Bank, Hampden, Harbour Breton, Harbour Grace, Lewis-porte, Placentia, Port Saunders, Springdale, St. Anthony, Stephenville, Stephenville Crossing, St. George's, St. Lawrence, Twillingate, Whitbourne.
(c)	Northern cash allowance payable at-
Cartwright, West St. Modeste, Battle Harbour, Hopedale, Goose Bay, Nain, Labrador City, Twin Falls.
2.	The amount of these allowances on January 1, 1962 was:
(a)	special Newfoundland allowance-
When rations and quarters are not provided:
(i)	If accompanied by dependants, $55 per month; (ii) If unaccompanied or single, $43 per month.
When rations or quarters are provided: (i) If accompanied by dependants, $30 per month;
(ii)	If unaccompanied or single, $30 per month.
(b)	The isolation allowance is $45 for a married or single member.
(c)	Northern cash allowance: Married, $90 per month; Single, $60 per month.
3.	Yes-in the special Newfoundland allowance only.
(a) When rations and quarters are not provided: (i) If accompanied by dependants, reduced by $25 per month; (ii) If unaccompanied or single, reduced by $20 per month.
Questions
When rations and quarters are provided: (i) If accompanied by dependants, reduced by $14 per month; (ii) If unaccompanied or single, reduced by $14 per month.
(b) The reduction in the special Newfoundland allowance was effective August 1, 1962.
4.	Not at the present time.



COMBINES


Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many applications to the director, for inquiries under the provisions of section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act, have been received, by years, since August 10, 1960?
2.	How many charges have been laid under the provisions of part V of chapter 45 8-9 Elizabeth II, by years, since August 10, 1960?
3.	How many convictions have been registered under the sadi provisions of Part V of chapter 45 8-9 Elizabeth II by years, since August 10, 1960?
4.	How many convictions were registered under the provisions of sections 411 and 412 of the Criminal Code, by years, since 1955?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. 1960, 1; 1961, 0; 1962, 2.
2.	* 1960, 1 (1); 1961, 3 (3); 1962, 7 (9).
3.	** 1960, 0; 1961, 0; 1962, 6 (7).
4.	** 1955, 3 (47)***; 1956, 2 (14); 1957, 3 (45); 1958, 2 (28); 1959, 1 (5); 1960, 2 (19)****; 1961, 1 (3); 1962, 0.
* The number of charges is shown by cases while the number of separate indictments or informations or persons charged in these cases is shown in brackets.
** The number of convictions is shown by cases while the number of individual convictions registered in these cases is shown in brackets.
*** On appeal in one case 26 accused included in the bracketed figure were acquitted.
**** The bracketed figure includes one accused whose trial and conviction occurred in 1961.
Note: The reply to part 4 of the question includes convictions under section 498 of the Criminal Code, the predecessor of section 411.



NET FARM INCOME

Mr. Matheson: What is the average net realized income of Canadian farm operators from farming operations, in constant dollars, for each year commencing 1956, using the index of prices of commodities and services used by farmers, including farm living costs, for converting the net income figures to constant dollars?
27507-3-164

Questions


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1956	Realized farm net income $000 1,238,093
1957	1,196,958
1958	1,402,218
1959	1,273,163
1960	1,303,065
1961	1,340,922
Price index numbers of commodities & services used by farmers*
i-39 = 100	1956 = 100
230.3	100.0
238.7	103.6
242.7	105.4
249.8	108.5
254.8	110.6
259.0	112.5
Realized net income adjusted by price index numbers of commodities to services used by farmers $000 1,238,093 1,155,365 1,330,378 1,173,422 1,178,178 1,191,931
* Inclusive of farm living costs.
Note: Average income for farm operators has not been calculated because of the diversity in estimates of numbers of farmers and the fact that farmers receive considerable income from sources other than the farm.



* TRADE PROGRAM &quot;OPERATION WORLD MARKETS&quot;

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale): In connection with the national Canadian samples show and other activities contemplated under the program described as "Operation World Markets", has the government made provision for any procedure to determine from participants the number and quantity of orders for Canadian products attributable to that program?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes. Approximately six months following the conclusion of this event the department will ask participants to indicate the results. This is the normal procedure. Experience of the past indicates that about half of those asked for information will provide replies outlining in a general way the degree of success achieved. Approximately one quarter of those responding will tell us, on a confidential basis, exactly what business they have done.
(Translation):



MONTREAL


Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	Has the Associate Minister of National Defence received briefs from the Montreal east businessmen's association and the municipal council of Ville de Repentigny suggesting Maisonneuve park or some other location in Montreal east as the site of the 1967 world fair to be held in Montreal?
2.	Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that there is in Montreal east an 800-acre piece of land available as a site for the world fair?
3.	Before a decision is taken in this connection, will public bodies, such as the businessmen's association and the municipal council of Ville de Repentigny, be consulted?


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Speaker, the answers to this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Representations submitted by municipalities or by civil and civic organizations will receive the fullest consideration as far as the
[Mr. Matheson.l
selection of a site for the world fair is concerned, but the final decision will be made by an independent body.



CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE, MONTREAL    REVENUE AND MAINTENANCE COST

[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Lessard (St. Henry): 1.	What Is the total amount of tolls paid on the Champlain bridge and the cost of maintenance, etc., of the bridge during the last three months?
2.	Does the government intend to abolish tolls on the Champlain bridge in the near future?


Léon Balcer: 1. Operating revenue for the three months September to November, 1962, totalled $74,196 and the estimated administration, operation and maintenance cost for the same period was $94,257.
2. Any decision in this matter will be announced in the usual manner.
(Text):



INCREASED PENALTIES FOR COMBINES OFFENCES

Mr. Mather: Has the government given consideration to initiating substantial increases in the penalties for persons or firms violating the combines laws to make these regulations more effective in the protection of consumers?


Thomas Miller Bell: Contraventions of the combination, merger and monopoly, discriminatory and predatory pricing, discriminatory promotional allowance and resale price maintenance provisions of the Combines Investigation Act (sections 32, 33, 33A, 33B and 34) are indictable offences and penalties on conviction provided either directly or indirectly by reference to the Criminal Code are imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine in the discretion of the court or to both. There is, therefore, no limit to the fine which may be imposed upon individuals or corporations and the latter are not subject to imprisonment.

A contravention of section 33 C which prohibits misrepresentations as to the ordinary price of an article is punishable upon summary conviction and the penalty is the general penalty provided in the Criminal Code for summary conviction offences.
Consideration is therefore not being given to initiating substantial increases in the penalties for violations of the Combines Investigation Act and if any decision were made in this regard, it would be announced in the normal way.



SALARIES OF POSTMASTERS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. Tucker: 1.	What is the lowest and highest rate paid per year to officials who provide postal facilities and act as postmasters and postmistresses in Newfoundland?
2.	What is the lowest and highest rate paid per year to officials for similar services in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1. Lowest rate, $245; Highest rate, $3,840.
2. Same as No. 1 above.



SECOND FRENCH LANGUAGE TELEVISION STATION, QUEBEC CITY

Mr. Perron: Will the board of broadcast governors shortly be in a position to render a decision concerning the licensing of a second French language television station at Quebec city?


George Ernest Halpenny: I am informed that the board of broadcast governors expects to make a recommendation to the Minister of Transport concerning the licensing of a second French language television station at Quebec city following its public hearing in Ottawa which opens on January 15, 1963.
(Translation):



FLOOD CONTROL WORKS, CHAUDIERE RIVER, QUE.

Mr. Perron: Have the Quebec provincial authorities requested, during the past three years, that federal works be undertaken on the Chaudiere river to permanently ensure against flood hazard?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is no.
(Text);



* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STATISTICS

Mr. Deschalelels: 1. What are the most recent statistics of the unemployment insurance commission with respect to the number of unemployed persons' who have registered with the commission's offices for employment?	'[DOT]	[DOT];
. 2. What are the most recent statistics of the unemployment insurance commission with respect to the number of unemployed persons who are now in receipt of unemployment benefits?
27507-3-164J
Orders for Returns


Mr. Hales:: 1. The total number of persons registered for employment at the local offices of the unemployment insurance commission as at October 31, 1962, were 232,316 males and 105,488 females, making a total of 337,804.
2. At September 30, 1962, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of 197,799 persons were claiming unemployment insurance benefit. The number of persons actually receiving benefit is not known.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Badanai: How many immigration offices are there where applicants are examined and (a) what is the location of each (b) what is the number of applications on file in each?


*CORA BROWN SUBDIVISION, SEA ISLAND, VANCOUVER
Mr. Laing: 1. Have veterans' applications for loans under section 65 and reference to section 64 of the Veterans Land Act been refused to residents of the Cora Brown subdivision. Sea Island?
2.	What number of properties in this subdivision have already been negotiated for or expropriated, for airport extension?
3.	What total payment has been made for the properties acquired?
4.	Is it the intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs to acquire all the properties in the subdivision?
5.	Are improvement loans being refused on the balance of the properties because no firm decision has been taken in reference to total acquisition?


*LOW RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS
Mr. Rinfrei: 1.	Since January 1, 1948, under agreements entered into by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, dealing with the removal of blighted areas and the construction of low-rental housing projects (a) how many such projects have been carried out in Canada (b) how many are now being carried out (c) how many such projects have been completed in each province, and what are the names under which they are known (d) how many low-rental housing projects have been completed in Canada under such agreements?
2.	Concerning all such projects which have been carried out, what amounts have been paid out by the federal government for each project (a) in Toronto, (b) in Montreal?


Mr. McCleave:: This is a starred question, but the answer is .some five pages long. If the hon. member is agreeable it might be made an order for return, tabled herewith.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for: return,.

Motions for Papers


PENSIONS TO WIDOWS AND DEPENDANTS OF SOLDIERS, POLICE AND GUARDS
Mr. Malheson: What total moneys are payable monthly to the widow and to each dependant child of personnel whose death arises through service to Her Majesty in the following cases (a) a private soldier killed by enemy action (b) an R.C.M.P. constable killed while apprehending a criminal and (c) a custodial guard killed by a convict in penitentiary?


SUBSIDIES TO VARIOUS INDUSTRIES
Mr. Mather: In the fiscal year 1961-62, what is the amount of subsidies granted to (a) the butter industry (b) the coal industry (c) the gold mining industry (d) the railway industry?


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Clermont: 1.	To date, what amount has been paid annually to each province of Canada, including the province of Quebec, under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
2.	To date, what other amounts, if any, are to be paid to each province, including the province of Quebec, with respect to the trans-Canada highway?
3.	To date, how many miles of highway have been built in each province, including the province of Quebec?


FEDERAL WELFARE SERVICE UNITS
Mr. Mather: 1.	Which departments of the federal government include a welfare service unit in its organization?
2.	Has consideration been given to combining such units in the interest of efficiency?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Winch:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged, between any federal cabinet minister or departmental head with any cabinet minister or departmental head of the province of British Columbia relative to matters relating to offshore mineral rights or the continental shelf of British Columbia, since January 1, 1958.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept this motion subject only to the usual reservation regarding privileged or confidential documents and the concurrence of the provincial government involved.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, may I add one word in view of the importance and urgency of this matter. Would it help the minister if I were to state that I am now prepared to file, if required, a letter from the minister of mines and petroleum resources of British Columbia in which he says that he certainly has no objection to my moving a motion in the House of Commons for the production 
of all papers, correspondence or telegrams relative to the question of offshore rights in British Columbia, and that this appears to be the most proper form of procedure in this instance.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances and subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, perhaps the minister and the hon. member could get together with respect to the letter that is in the possession of the hon. member and come to some happy agreement in this regard. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister arises out of the answer he gave yesterday on the matter of the application of economic sanctions. Can the Prime Minister tell the house the policy of the government in respect of the proposal made by the United Nations secretary general to apply sanctions to Katanga, which I understand is being considered at the moment by the advisory committee on the Congo, of which Canada is a member?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Congo situation is concerned I will answer to the extent of the information that is before me at the moment. The Leader of the Opposition did not let me know in advance, and I have not got a complete answer to the question as posed by him.
The government has indicated its support of the United Nations plan for reconciliation in the Congo. The plan provides among other things for a new federal constitution, an equitable division of Katanga's mining revenues, an amnesty for political leaders and the unification of all Congolese forces.
As the hon. gentleman has said, the secretary general is making new efforts to persuade those concerned to implement the plan, and a number of suggestions have been made to solve the question. This is one matter that is demanding, and properly so, the concentration of the United Nations with a view to finding a settlement in the Congo so that the heavy burden which the Congo operation has placed on the United Nations can be brought to an end.

So far as the particular question is concerned, I think until further discussions have taken place with the secretary general and member nations it would be better that I do not go further than I have gone at this time.



REQUEST FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL MISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the decline in employment by some 56,000 and the increase in unemployment by some 59,000 in the last reported period, which was shown in a release by the minister's office this morning, will the minister give the house an assurance that the suggestion made yesterday by the Canadian Labour Congress, to the effect that the unanimous recommendations of the special mission to Europe of the productivity council be implemented at once, will be adopted?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the increase in unemployment has been in the farm sector, which the Canadian Labour Congress described very aptly yesterday as being characteristic of our seasonal unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that this is an important matter, will the minister not dodge the question and answer it?


Michael Starr: We have been talking about cooperation between labour and management for the last four years. The hon. member woke up to it only four months ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are moving into debate now.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture on his welcome return to the house. Would the minister care to comment on the reported cool reception his proposals received before farm organizations, and the further report that when he appeared before the Manitoba farmers' union he was booed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is asking the minister to embark on a contentious answer, and I do not think the question is quite proper in the manner in which it is phrased.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF PREMIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Due to the fact that Christmas presents are coming from all sides at this time of the year, can the minister tell me whether the premium on grade A hogs will be restored between now and December 20?
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter on which I have previously made known my opinions in the house, and when an announcement is ready it will be made in the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister of which I gave notice this morning. Since Senator McCutcheon has been appointed to effectuate the recommendations of the Glassco report, will he also be in charge of the recommendations of the Therien report of the same Glassco commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Senator McCutcheon is concerned he is chairman of the committee of ministers established to look into all matters in connection with the report which will, of course, include the recommendations and suggestions of Mr. Therien.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister see what he can do to extend the pay increases to those civil servants in the lower brackets who were missed the other day?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by "missed." There are some who might be termed missed in the recommendations of the civil service commission, and under the act the government acts on the recommendations of the commission and can only act after those recommendations are received. In the lower categories there are some employees who have

Inquiries of the Ministry not been dealt with, but they will be dealt with as soon as recommendations about them are received from the commission.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John H. Addison (York North):: I wished to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Associate Minister of National Defence. My question concerns the unmanned United States tanker aircraft which was allowed to fly over the province of Quebec last Monday night, and which incidentally passed within 200 miles of the city of Quebec. Why did not the R.C.A.F. shoot this aircraft down into an unpopulated area, since it could have endangered lives when allowed to crash after its fuel was exhausted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.



PAYMENT OF SESSIONAL STAFF DURING HOLIDAY RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, you have authorized me to give a reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East, who on Friday last asked a question concerning payment of the sessional staff during the holiday recess. The answer is that the employment and pay of the sessional staff will continue during that period.
(Translation) :



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that the Russians, fishing in the bay of Fundy recently, fished some information of a military character?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be put on the order paper.
(Text):



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY CANADIAN CULTURAL SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from the strong statement made in [Mr. Nowlan.l
the last 24 hours by Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways, in favour of a royal commission to inquire into the relationship of the two cultures in Canada. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is any further along in its consideration of such a commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought up on a number of occasions. When the government is in a position to advise or inform the house, then that will be done.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give the house an estimate of the number of Sons of Freedom the premier of British Columbia is sending to Ottawa for Christmas?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a little too early yet to deal with presents for Christmas.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the Prime Minister has acquainted himself with the report of what was said by the minister of defence, which was the basis of my question yesterday, as follows:
Is the government pushing ahead with an estimated one billion dollar program of converting over 4,000 public buildings into community fall-out shelters, as has been reported by the minister of defence to the press?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say the report was delivered to me yesterday. When the minister returns from Paris the matter can receive consideration, and I am sure there is no excessive haste needed at this time.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: May I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Could he say whether he is aware of any billion dollar program of this character?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, government programs are being studied at the moment, and they will be brought before the house at the proper time.

Atlantic Development Board


James Edgar Walker: May I ask a supplementary	PENSIONS
question?



INQUIRY AS TO COMMUNICATIONS FROM

Mr. Speaker:: Of whom?	Quebec and Newfoundland


James Edgar Walker: I was going to put it to the Prime Minister, but as this has been referred to the Minister of Finance can the minister say whether budgetary approval of parliament will be sought before firm commitments are made regarding this program?


George Clyde Nowlan: Budgetary approval is always sought, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State concerning question No. 642 which was placed on the order paper in my name on November 6 and made an order for return on December 3. Will the Secretary of State endeavour to have this return made available before the Christmas recess?


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do that.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to address a question to the Minister of Justice, but since he has left the house perhaps I can address it to the Minister of Finance. On October 4, 1962, as recorded on page 224 of Hansard, the Minister of Justice, in speaking of the so-called austerity program, stated:
When the time comes when we can begin to reduce the program I can say that we shall first remove the import surcharges and then cancel the suspension of civil service salary increases.
Since the government has announced an end to the suspension of civil service salary increases, can we expect immediate removal of the import surcharges, or has the government once more reversed its policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member was laying a little trap there for a controversial reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not in keeping with order, at least not to have controversial replies anyway.
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the elections are over in the two provinces which have not previously agreed to the proposed amendment to the British North America Act regarding contributory old age pensions, can the Prime Minister say whether he has had any communications from Mr. Lesage and Mr. Smallwood regarding this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: No, sir.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer)? Could the minister tell us if the management of the Canadian National Railways has completed the recruiting of the staff needed for the efficient administration of the railway line Unking Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts, which should be finished soon?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, in this case as in all others, the C.N.R. will hire the staff needed when required.
(Text):



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board- the Minister of National Revenue.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege in connection with proceeding with third reading of the bill that has just been called. It has been brought to my notice that there is someone in Ottawa who is purporting to be the secretary of the Atlantic development board, and it seems to me we should have this matter cleared up at once, sir. I would not say this if it were a mere matter of idle gossip, but perhaps I may, in the most uncontentious way possible, ask the minister about this; because I am sure he will want to clear it up.

Atlantic Development Board


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I raise one question. I have some doubt that the minister could reply on third reading, and I am just wondering how this is going to be accomplished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely why I raised it as a question of privilege, because it did not seem to me to be fair to the minister for me to intervene in the debate and raise this point. I can raise it very briefly now, and I do not intend to embellish it in any way, so the minister may clear up the point at once. The premier of Newfoundland telephoned me this morning-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Benidickson:: The Prime Minister
laughs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister seems to find this very amusing, but it is a serious matter dealing with the business of the house. As I was saying, the premier of Newfoundland telephoned me this morning to inquire if there was anyone in Ottawa who was authorized to act as secretary of the Atlantic development board. I said "Of course it is quite impossible, because the board has not been established. The legislation has not even been through one house, much less two". However, he said "This morning I received a telegram from the deputy minister of economic development, from Moncton, where he is attending a meeting of APEC". I intend to read only the first sentence of the telegram, which is as follows:
Secretary of the Atlantic development board phoning from Ottawa asking APEC to have ready Monday a list of projects recommended by APEC branches of each province.
The telegram went on to suggest to the premier that such a list should be prepared. It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker that it could not possibly be that anybody had been designated to this post, and that the minister would want to clear up that matter before we proceed with the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some difficulty in deciding just what is the point of privilege in this particular instance. The hon. member might be able to assist me in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone has been designated by the government to be the secretary of this board, before parliament has approved the setting up of that board, it would be a very serious contempt of parliament. That is the matter of privilege involved. I do not believe for a minute that this has happened and I would not have paid any attention to it if this message had not come to a respected organization like APEC, been passed on to the

deputy minister of economic development of Newfoundland, and from him to the premier. I am sure the minister would want to assure us that the government is not anticipating any action by parliament in this regard.


William Moore Benidickson: Where does the pay come from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There must be an answer to this.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some difficulty on the matter of privilege. If I let the minister reply I would be assuming that it is a question of privilege, and I think that would be somewhat irregular. There has been no motion for third reading. Under the circumstances, perhaps for clarification and seeing that the minister wishes to rise, I will permit him to deal with the question.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge as to where the information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was perhaps a little precipitate, in so far as my remarks regarding third reading were concerned. I shall put the motion so that the minister may reply.


Hugh John Flemming: the third reading of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is certainly completely unknown to me. I think I speak for the government as well. We have never heard of such a thing. It was never even contemplated. I am unable to understand this. Usually stories of this sort have a little basis in fact, but so far as I am concerned and so far as the government is concerned this has no basis whatsoever.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay unduly the decision of the house by taking part in the debate on third reading of this bill. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to take part in the earlier consideration of this measure, but that in itself would not have encouraged me to take part in the debate on third reading were it not for a desire on the part of members of the official opposition to make another effort to remove what we regard as a fundamental deficiency in the terms of this legislation. For the first time the principle of the bill and all its clauses are before the house for a final look, and the House of Commons is now in a position to find out whether the committee of the whole did

what it could have done to improve the bill. If we are of the opinion that the committee of the whole did not do that, then it is open to the house to refer the bill back for further consideration. That is what I would hope to do by moving an amendment at the close of my remarks.
The general purpose of this legislation is to promote the economic development of the Atlantic area of Canada. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, economic development even in the most underdeveloped countries of the world is associated with a supply of capital and capital formation. Capital and investment is the economic side of development in general. We had expected when this legislation was first heralded that provision would be made for the spending of capital in order to accelerate the development of the Atlantic provinces. As a matter of fact I think every authority ever investigating the economy of our area has come to the conclusion that large quantities of additional capital are required, not only in the public sector of the economy but also in the private sector.
The Minister of National Revenue, as premier of New Brunswick, took the occasion more than once to point out the difficulty that private business had in acquiring capital, not only working capital but investment capital, owing to the stringency of the Canadian banking system. The hon. member for Davenport headed a royal commission which investigated the economic prospects of Canada as a whole, and one of the studies in connection with the commission's work did nothing more than insist upon the necessity of additional quantities of capital not only to provide for improved transportation facilities and public facilities in general but also to provide for the improvement of the productive capacity of the primary industries of the Atlantic region. In the light of that analysis the royal commission proposed the establishment of a capital projects commission. It was not to be an advisory board. It was not to be a research agency. It was to be an agency with capital at its disposal in order to meet the fundamental requirements of the economy.
Indeed, that idea of a capital fund caught on v/idely. It was subscribed to by APEC and has been mentioned very often in this debate. It became one of the fundamental planks of the Conservative members' platform in the federal election in 1957. The creation of an Atlantic provinces capital projects commission was among the highlights of that successful election manifesto.


Hugh John Flemming: You
haven't read it.
Atlantic Development Board


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Indeed I have. No action was taken in the last parliament to institute the capital projects commission which was heralded by the Conservative members at that time. There was never any difference of opinion on the necessity for this development, because the Liberal party at its 1958 convention asked for the establishment of such a capital fund and at our national rally, where I had the opportunity to serve as chairman of the policy committee on the Atlantic provinces, one of the main ambitions of the delegates from all parts of the Atlantic provinces was to give support to an agency which would have capital at its disposal in order to benefit that region.
So I say the concept of an agency has developed inseparably from an agency having capital at its disposal. As a matter of fact the Minister of National Revenue himself referred to a question addressed to the Prime Minister last April by the hon. member for Cumberland, and in asking that question the hon. member had in mind what we all had in mind, namely that any agency would be a fund; a development fund, a capital fund. I say this because he asked the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the government to bring forward a measure to establish a development fund; not a board, not an advisory agency. The Prime Minister in his reply left out the crucial word, of course, and said it was the intention of the government at some future date to bring in a measure to establish a development board, not a fund.
So we want, on third reading, once again to bring to the attention of the government, to members of the House of Commons, and to the people of Canada generally the fundamental weakness of this legislation, because this is primarily a board to give advice and to make recommendations. There is nobody who is more aware than I am of the necessity for research and inquiry. But nobody who has followed the history of the Atlantic provinces in the last 30 years is unaware that the best economists and the best judges have been brought together in one royal commission after another to examine the situation and tell us what is wrong with our economy and what ought to be done about it. More recently the Atlantic provinces economic council, of which the minister was a charter founding member, has spent itself producing advice and recommendations to public authorities as to what ought to be done. Mr. Speaker, we have an abundance of advice and an abundance of recommendations. All we lack is the capital, and fiscal measures by the central government to put into effect those important recommendations.

Atlantic Development Board
It is not possible for a private member on this or any other side of the house to get up and move an amendment which would place upon this board an obligation to spend money. That is impossible because of the proscriptions surrounding this kind of legislation. But it is possible for a private member to call attention, by an amendment, to the necessity of developing a capital program for the Atlantic provinces. It is possible for a private member to move an amendment which would make it one of the functions of the Atlantic development board to draw up each year a capital program which would go before the minister for consideration. If that recommended program proved sound and satisfactory, then the minister could make the necessary recommendations and provide the necessary estimates for carrying out the proposals made therein.
I would hope that members in all parties, and certainly those in the opposition parties, would find it possible to support this amendment, which would at least tell the people of the Atlantic provinces that this board will seriously study the capital requirements of that area, and that it will present to the minister each year a program for possible implementation. We cannot go beyond that as private members, but if we do not go that far we are not doing anything to meet the expectations of the people of the Atlantic provinces,
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud):
That Bill C-94 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering an amendment to clause 9 as follows:
That the following be added as paragraph (e) to section (1) of clause 9:
(e) Prepare annually for the consideration of the minister a program of capital projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member prepared to discuss the question whether his amendment is in order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yes. I am satisfied that the amendment is in order. I think the most usual objection which is taken to an amendment of this kind is that such a request places a burden or an additional charge upon the minister. If that is not an objection, the only other possible argument that might be put forward is that this amendment somehow goes beyond the scope of the bill. Clause 9 reads:
(1) The objects of the board are to inquire into and report to the minister upon measures and projects for fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada-
That is the general authority granted to the board by this bill. Then in four paragraphs which follow there is an effort to delineate
in some detail the particular functions which may be assigned to the board. The additional paragraph which I propose simply specifies that the objects of the board, namely to inquire into and report to the minister, be carried out in one particular by preparing an annual list of capital projects which the board would give to the minister for consideration. In that way it seems to me that the amendment is fully within the scope of the bill and within the principle adopted on second reading.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I wish to make is quite simply directed to the viewpoint which the hon. member has expressed with regard to relevancy. I would refer your honour to Beauchesne, the fourth edition, citation 418, which is found at page 288. That citation says:
-All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill-
With all due respect to the hon. member, I submit that the effect of this particular idea formulated by him in this amendment is to add something to the bill which is definitely not contemplated. This point was debated extensively yesterday, and I think hon. members of the official opposition recognized this during an attempt yesterday to move an amendment in committee very much along the same lines. I think they recognize that this is an addition to what is proposed in the bill. I simply leave it at that, Your Honour. This is an attitude, a point of view, which is not contemplated by the bill in clause 9. This is an addition to it, and is consequently out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the citations one needs to look at in connection with this matter, so far as Beauchesne's fourth edition are concerned, are really only two in number, and perhaps they might be put on the record at this point. Citation 415 reads:
(1) When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular-
That is, of course, what the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) has sought to do. However, there is the restriction to which the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin) has referred, spelled out in citation 418, which says, in part:
-All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the

third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill-
Mr. Speaker, that seems to boil the issue down to a very simple one. The hon. member has the right to move an amendment of this kind, but clearly it must deal with something that is contained in the bill. I suggest that the bill does contain, as one of its objects, that the board shall "inquire into and report to the minister upon measures and projects for fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region of Canada". It shall also "keep under constant review appropriate methods of furthering the sound economic development of the Atlantic region". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment deals with that very aspect of the bill. The only suggestion the hon. member is making is that there be an annual report to the minister along the lines already contemplated by the bill.
At the risk of repetition, may I say that one of the powers in the bill is the authority of the board to report to the minister on projects for the improvement of conditions in the Atlantic region. All this amendment does is to require that these reports to the minister shall be made annually. As a matter of fact, this is the main object of the bill, which is set out in the first part of clause 9. That clause already has some details, some delineations of the specific and main object of the bill. All the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond is doing is adding one further area of delineation, namely that these reports shall be made annually. Therefore I submit that it is an amendment dealing with a matter contained in the bill, and should consequently be considered as in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any further argument on the question whether the amendment is out of order? Then I find, on reading subsection 1 of clause 9 of the bill, that there is a general direction given to the board that the objects are to inquire into certain matters. Then it says:
-without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board may-
That is permissive; it is not a direction to the board.
The clause goes on:
-the board may, in furtherance of its objects-[DOT]
This power given to the board is a permissive one. If it is held that what is proposed in this amendment is already within the objects of the board, then the amendment is redundant. In the alternative, if it is not included, then it is adding something to the bill, which is contrary to citation 418. I think
Atlantic Development Board the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was aware of this particular point.
It is my view that the use of the words "and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board may" means that this is permissive. There is no obligation stemming from the use of the word "may". The bill does not say that "the board shall, in furtherance of its objects", and so forth; the bill says that "the board may". Therefore, I find either that the purpose of this amendment is included in the general objects and powers of the board and therefore this amendment is redundant or, in the alternative, if it is not within the objects of the board, it adds something which is not contained in the bill and that is contrary to what the hon. member has said under citation 418. That is my ruling. I cannot accept the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, may I ask Your Honour to observe that Your Honour-and I say, with regret, that I am sure of this-made a mistake when you said that the word "may" is to be construed in its literal interpretation. The Interpretation Act is clear in stating that where the word "may" in a statute appears it shall be construed as meaning "shall". It is not permissive. Your Honour may express surprise, but if Your Honour will do me the honour of examining the Interpretation Act you will find that is the case. We have had this matter discussed on a number of occasions in this house. To take any other attitude would mean to negative completely the whole bill. Under the Interpretation Act the word "may" means "shall". That is what the Interpretation Act provides with regard to this particular word. This being the case, Your Honour's whole argument falls to the ground.


Mr. Jones:: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is my impression that you ruled on this question yesterday, as found at page 2542 of Hansard, when a similar proposal was made in committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: His Honour is not in committee.


Henry Frank Jones: As I understand the rules of this house, particularly those which have been referred to already today, may I say this. Citation 418 reads:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading-
The hon. member could not move on second reading an amendment which had already been ruled out of order. Therefore he could not move today an amendment which had been ruled out of order yesterday.

Atlantic Development Board


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the reason I interrupted with the word "no" at one point when you were speaking was that I feel that you are misinterpreting the key sentence of citation 418. A moment ago you said that either the amendment is redundant or that it proposes something which is not in the bill and therefore, I think Your Honour said, it could not be in order. The point I wish to make is that the key sentence in citation 418 does not say that you cannot move something that is not in the bill. It says you cannot move something that deals with any matter which is not contained in the bill. If the other interpretation were allowed there would be nothing at all that one could move. Everything would either be redundant or would not already be in the bill. Surely the wording of that sentence is quite clear that an amendment is in order if it deals with something that is there in the bill. This one does so. There are in the bill provisions for the making of reports to the minister. This amendment deals with the making of reports. It is adjectival in a sense, in that it proposes that these reports shall be made annually. I submit that the amendment comes within the provisions of that key sentence in citation 418.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the able
additional arguments which hon. members have addressed to me and for which I thank them, I am still of the same opinion with regard to the use of the word "may" in the principal clause, and that if we wish to leave the meaning of the word "shall" we should use the word "shall". In any event the word "may" is permissive in my interpretation and does not add to the duties of the board. Anyway, if it is included in the first portion under clause 1, then the amendment is redundant. If in the alternative it is not included, and in particular having regard to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said regarding reports, may I say that if there happens to be a report somewhere in the bill, this amendment concerns the drawing up of a program of capital projects. This is not just a report. This deals with a program of capital projects as I see it, by the wording of the proposed amendment; and that in my judgment cannot be a mere report or other report as designated in the bill. Therefore, the amendment does not meet the requirements of citation 418 and I would so rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect I must, unless my hon. friend wishes to do so-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I intend with regret, Mr. Speaker, to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Will those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows: To the motion for third reading of Bill No. C-94, an act to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development hoard, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) moved an amendment as follows:
"that the following be added as paragraph (e) to section (1) of clause 9:
(e) Prepare annually for the consideration of the minister a program of capital projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces."
The Chair ruled that the proposed amendment purported to deal with a matter not contained in the bill and was not in keeping with citation 418 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, whereupon the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Macnaughlon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's decision.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. Richard:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; otherwise I would have voted against your ruling.
(Text):


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Had I voted I would have, with regret, voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the ruling sustained. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

["It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired."]
George Clyde Nowlan: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168, 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225, loans investments and advances item L20, $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
He said: Mr. Chairman, you have just concluded reading the various items which are set forth in this interim supply motion that I am proposing to the committee at this time. The proportions requested in this bill are intended

Interim Supply
to provide for all necessary expenditures up till January 31 next. In other words, we are asking for a further 30-day supply to carry us through the month of January. In no instance is the amount of any item being released by this bill. The form of the bill which will be submitted if the committee approves the resolution will be the usual form of interim supply bill which has been customarily adopted in this house for many many years.
Mr. Chairman, I can give the usual assurance which all ministers of finance give at this time, that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure. I should also point out that in the bill when it comes down-it is not before us at the moment-there will be a provision for further borrowing power. Mr. Chairman, I had one once before and I forgot to mention it, and I want to mention it at this time so the committee will be advised of that. That is all I propose to say at this time except to say that this resolution covers all the various items of the departments. The items are, with one exception-which is for ten twelfths-for one twelfth, and we are maintaining each item uncurtailed so that there will have to be further votes and an opportunity to discuss them at a later date.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, it is of course the historic right of the commons to discuss any matter of expenditure of moneys before granting supply. I propose in the time available to me today to talk about the Columbia river treaty, in that it involves over the current 12-month period an expenditure approximating $250,000. However, before doing so I would like to make a few general remarks.
On the two previous occasions my party has not engaged in an extensive debate when the government requested another 30-day interim supply of funds with which to carry out its commitments to the nation. But it should be pointed out that this house is now being asked for the tenth instalment of what in total will amount to an outlay in the current fiscal year in excess of $6 billion. This is indeed a unique situation. We are being asked to approve the tenth instalment of a total of 12 monthly instalments without a single item of the estimates having been passed after a full scale debate in this house. True, ithe first item in respect of agriculture has been introduced and some discussion has been: held, but it has not been passed. The
[Mr. Nowlan.J
estimates in respect of this and indeed all other departments of government remain to be discussed. Opportunities early in the new year will also be limited. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, you should expect that some hon. members will want to discuss matters of general concern and of particular concern to various parts of the country.
I would like to stress that the Columbia river treaty in western Canada, and more particularly in British Columbia, is a subject of very considerable concern. It also involves very substantial expenditures in respect of the development of not only hydroelectric power but other resources as well. The Columbia river is a river after which British Columbia takes its name. It is important. It is the third largest river on this continent in terms of the volume of water flowing. It is the largest source of hydroelectric power in North America. It is eight times larger, in terms of its water power capability, than the St. Lawrence. This is a tremendous resource. It is also a resource which spans the international boundary. It rises in large part in Canada and it descends into the United States. It is important not only in respect of power but also in respect of flood control, navigation, irrigation and the consumptive uses of water. As hon. members know, the states to the south, notably California and the southern parts of Oregon, are arid or semi-arid. Water is vital to their development; consequently great sums of money are being invested in those states in order to bring water to those areas. These great schemes are reaching northward to Columbia and eventually, I have no doubt, they will be affecting Canada as well. We have a golden opportunity in this great nation of ours to develop our resources in conjunction with those of the United States. We can help to hold back the flood waters of the Columbia river as they descend into the United States.
At present, ten times as much water flows into the United States during the freshet period of the summer as in the winter, flooding over the dams, flooding real estate and diminishing land values in that country. The intent of man is to iron out that pattern and eventually, I have no doubt, the flow in the summer will be sufficiently reduced to make it less than in wintertime.
Canada has been pressed to enter into agreements to hold back the headwaters, and the terms of such agreements are important because those terms could reduce our resource potential. The works immediately to the south of Canada today, in the United States, total in value approximately $3 billion. There is more hydroelectric power developed on the Columbia in the United States than there is

actually developed in the whole of the province of Quebec. There are investments running into hundreds of millions of dollars in irrigation schemes, flood control and navigation measures. Consequently, the United States is very interested in how we manage our resources to the north, and particularly interested in the expenditure we incur in developing those resources. They would like us to develop them in such a way as to maximize their development as well. I know, as do other hon. members, that through a co-operative development the increase in benefits which must follow will be to the advantage of both our countries.
In the early days, the United States approached us essentially with the view that these waters rising high in Canada and flowing into the United States would inevitably be available to the United States and that sooner or later, as we put works in the upper reaches to hold back the flow for our own purposes, they would be able to reap advantages. So, they thought, they need only wait. But beginning around 1944 and, to an increasing extent, more recently, they did press on us certain developments which they felt could be accelerated to their advantage. They argued at first that they should only buy the land-that they need only compensate the land owners for flooding occurring in Canada. This was resisted. They certainly were against giving us any part of the downstream benefits-the great improvements and savings resulting in their country. But it is to the eternal credit of that great Canadian, General McNaughton, that the idea that a sharing of these downstream benefits might take place and that Canada might gain some of these additional advantages in terms not only of more power produced but of flood control, began to take root. The argument advanced by the Americans in the most summary way was: The water may originate in your country but it has to flow down our hill. General McNaughton's answer to that was: Yes, it originates in our country but it does not necessarily have to flow down your hill.
We can, under the boundary waters treaty signed by our two countries in 1909, divert these waters in Canada so that they flow into other watersheds, perhaps into the Fraser, or perhaps, eventually be diverted through the Rocky mountains to irrigate the more arid areas of the prairies. These are great and imaginative schemes. We must have this flexibility-this freedom to develop the resources of our country which, under the boundary waters treaty, is ours. We have the sovereign right to develop those resources
Interim Supply
as we choose and, indeed, the United States has insisted that this be the case with respect to its own resources in the past.
But there are many problems connected with the development of the Columbia and, certainly, the negotiators of the existing Columbia river treaty have run into them. One of these problems is that it is we who have to put up the dams, and the dams are very expensive. The United States, on the other hand would be concerned on the other side of the international boundary with the construction of relatively inexpensive works to capture these effects. We find under the terms of the present draft treaty that the capital outlays to be made by Canada will be of the order of four times those to be made by the United States. To complicate matters further, the United States Pacific northwest -and I believe Alaska will share in this treatment-is most fortunate in that it is in a preferred position in the eyes of the United States government. It receives funds for the development of these great river resources at an interest rate of 2J per cent. It has been doing so for several decades and there is no indication that the United States federal government will, in the immediate future at least, make money more expensive in this connection. They do not have to borrow at the current interest rates in the United States, of between 3 and 4 per cent. They receive this special subsidy. So not only are the projects in the United States cheaper to build, but the money itself is cheaper. Consequently, the rates for power, the annual charges and so on will be only a fraction of the cost on the Canadian side. We are putting up four times as much money for the works, and our money may cost 5 per cent as compared to 2J per cent. The result is we have a more expensive product on our side of the line. There has to be more give and take in this so as to balance out the situation.
There is another difficulty. This project, when completed, would have immense consequences in terms of production. It would make available, all of a sudden, more power than is at present generated by all the utilities in British Columbia. Many Canadians would have us bring back as fast as we could absorb it the extra power produced in the United States as a result of pur controlling these flows. Thus we have the problem of markets as well as capital costs.
Finally, in entering upon any arrangement of this kind we do lose some of our sovereignty. We must make sure in respect to treaties of this kind that we do not agree to conditions or set precedents which tie our hands with respect to the use of water in our own territory. As to whether the present treaty, signed nearly two years ago, is a good

Interim Supply
treaty or not, let me say this: I personally believe that the treaty must be renegotiated. I believe many hon. members hold the same view. It must be renegotiated for several reasons, reasons about which I shall be more explicit. One is the cost of the power we shall receive as a result of this treaty. The cost of power coming back from the United States, is approximately four mills per kilowatt hour. We have many other sources in British Columbia which can produce power at or about this price. The net advantage to this country is approximately zero, so we have no considerable incentive to go ahead with these works at the present time under the terms of the treaty. The United States, on the other hand, because they do not have to build great dams, reservoirs, and so on, but merely put in the occasional generating machine, get their energy for less than one mill per kilowatt hour, which is less than one quarter of the cost to Canada. Their alternatives are of the order of three or four mills. They have the great net advantage of a great saving with respect to power. They have a real incentive to pursue this treaty in its present form in terms of the cost of power. This is one of the reasons why the senate of the United States passed that treaty with a vote of 99 to 1, and in record time.
There is also the matter of what happens to the amount of power we get under this treaty as the years go by. Under the formula which is built into the treaty, this is bound to diminish and eventually be extinguished over the 60-year life, or at least be substantially reduced during that period, under any possible operating conditions. While this is strictly policed, under the treaty we are prepared, apparently, to make a lump sum, all-out and forever settlement with respect to flood control.
Flood control clearly grows more important as the population of the United States grows in the Pacific-northwest area due to the development of industries. So why make a flat, all-out, lump-sum settlement, even if it is $64 million when this great advantage increases with time? Why not do the same as is done with respect to power, and police that advantage year after year into the indefinite future? Because this is the way the treaty is drawn, and we are obliged to make this service available to the United States forever.
I heard one hon. member ask why not, when I mentioned $64 million. In the evidence given before the United States senate, it was claimed by one of the officials who helped negotiate the United States treaty on the American side that the cost of alternative works to provide flood control for the United

States would be in the order of $500 million. Consequently one can see that $64 million, while it is a substantial sum in the eyes of people who look only a few years ahead, is a very low price for the United States to pay for this service in perpetuity; forever, holding back these billions of tons of water each year and letting it down in an orderly fashion so as to protect real estate in the United States and to generate more electrical energy, provide better navigation control, and so on.
In this treaty we are up against certain penalties. We have to complete three immense projects totalling $350 million at a minimum by definite points in time. On the other hand, the United States, with respect to one project of similar character, has no definite deadline to meet. It may or may not build this project; and if it does decide to build it, it may do so within a considerable time span and with considerable latitude. I contend that we should have similar latitude with respect to the completion of our much more expensive projects.
I should like to skim very briefly through the bill and list a few more points. One of them is with respect to the over-all operation. This is a tremendous investment and expense, yet the general orientation of the treaty is towards producing the greatest benefit for both countries. Throughout the treaty the criterion of maximization applies to both countries-not maximization of benefit for Canada, but on the greatest benefit for Canada and the United States. Consequently, I myself have reservations and I should like to hear many learned people, both from the engineering and legal fraternities, tell me how Canada can be sure in each instance of its own maximum advantage in this connection, while also sharing in the great gains made by the United States. With regard to these works which the Americans are putting in downstream, the term referring to them is "useful life". It is not the life of the treaty, but the useful life. The useful life means the life of a dam or any other works downstream of Canada providing there is adequate maintenance; and adequate maintenance can be such as would keep those particular works in being forever. This is the real reason why the United States will be forever able to take advantage of those routines which we are required to set up under the treaty. Admittedly the treaty runs for 60 years: our obligation, I fear, will run on forever.
Under the treaty we are called upon, with respect to flood control, to operate according to calls made by entities named by the United States. We must respond to these calls not only until the expiration of the life

of the treaty, but beyond. I should like simply to quote from the treaty. It says:
For the purpose of flood control until the expiration of sixty years from the ratification date, Canada shall
(a)	operate-
The named projects under the treaty. In addition it shall-
(b)	operate any additional storage in the Columbia river basin in Canada, when called upon by an entity designated by the United States of America for that purpose-
Then beyond that:
(3) For the purpose of flood control after the expiration of sixty years from the ratification date, and for so long as the flows in the Columbia river in Canada continue to contribute to potential flood hazard in the United States of America, Canada shall, when called upon by an entity designated by the United States of America for that purpose, operate within the limits of existing facilities any storage in the Columbia river basin in Canada-
I think that is quite definite with respect to Canada's long term and continuing obligations.
A great deal has been made of the fifty-fifty sharing arrangement. I might mention in passing that Canada gets approximately 40 per cent of the additional firm, reliable power produced in the United States as a result of the treaty.
Finally-and on this point alone I certainly want to see the treaty renegotiated-there is the disposal of surplus power produced in the United States. I mentioned that there was an amount comparable to the present total utility production in Canada. We will have a surplus in the early years. Terms and conditions of sale in the United States must be established. The price and the time over which it is sold in the United States must be determined. Yet the treaty clearly says that while we are obliged to build these projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars, the price at which we can sell these surplus benefits can be determined only after the treaty is ratified. In other words, we have to sign the treaty and go through with a tremendous investment and then go back, cap in hand and say to the United States: "Please, what will you pay us for what is demonstrably surplus to our relatively small economy in the west? One day we need it, but we cannot absorb it at the moment. It is going over your dams; what will you give us for it?" They will give us next to nothing and we will have this tremendous investment with a high interest rate and carrying charges to contend with. I suggest that this is not a provident arrangement for a country like Canada to enter into, particularly in a period of austerity like this when our balance of
Interim Supply
payments is in need of a shot in the arm in the form of larger payments from the United States.
As to a solution which will enable us to turn around and take a more positive approach to this whole program, there are certain projects which are contentious. Certainly the Libby project, which captures part of the Canadian flow, I contend forever, should be postponed, if not eliminated entirely. Certain projects involving flooding in Canada are contentious. These should be postponed. Then we should get back to the principles which were agreed upon under the international joint commission when it advocated the principles for the negotiation of such a treaty. I believe that the treaty should be renegotiated in the matter of principles only, naming the entities responsible for the development on each side of the border, and naming the procedures, the sequences and the principles under which the results can be divided. But no more than that, and not naming projects, because we are getting into difficulties over the individual projects.
With a treaty expressed in terms of principles already laid down and agreed to between Canada and the United States, we would then be able to proceed in a more leisurely, certainly a more circumspect, way as far as Canada is concerned. I would advocate our immediate start, once such a treaty had been ratified, on the largest single project which is not contested by any principal interest in this country, the Mica creek project. This would provide all of the flood control which the United States wants at this time, and two thirds, perhaps three quarters, of all the additional power the United States wants at this time. For a much smaller investment than that to which we are obligated under the treaty, we can proceed with this project, yield the results the United States needs and fit into existing programs in the province of British Columbia. In other words, there would be less contention in Canada. The United States would get largely what it wants and certainly we would be spending less money to achieve the downstream results of the present treaty.
I would leave the Libby project out at the present time. I would want to name the amounts of water that we would send down to the United States over a period of years and would not want to be tied up specifically to any individual development in any particular place after the Mica creek project was advanced. I would certainly want our hands to be free at the end of the life of a 60 year treaty, so that we could bargain, as we would at that time and in the light of the circumstances in that day, in order to improve the situation in which we find ourselves then.

Interim Supply
There are many advantages to this more flexible approach in terms of principle, and then the taking of one project at a time. We could in a matter of months renegotiate the treaty. Such a treaty permitting us to proceed with agreed projects would fit in much better with the requirements for power and other advantages in British Columbia. The Mica creek project, for example, would not in the early stages be a direct competitor with the Peace river project or any other power project in British Columbia. For that reason I would imagine the government of the province of British Columbia would be more amenable to that suggestion or that arrangement than it is to the present treaty which faces us with a great surplus of power within the province as well as outside. I would certainly want to see this come about.
Let me briefly run down several other advantages which I see to a general treaty expressed in terms of principles followed by step by step development. Another advantage is that the benefits to each country can be more accurately forecast if the major projects are undertaken one at a time. Certainly the alternatives open to us under those circumstances and at a later date would be much better known than they are today.
Second, most advantageous projects could be undertaken first. Rather than being obligated to build three big projects, as we are now obligated, we could put in the first one which attracts the greatest benefits under the calculation of benefits recognized by both countries. We would get the greatest yield on our investment, and this is to our greatest economic advantage.
Third, the construction of individual projects can be timed in such a way as to fit much more properly into our needs in western Canada and into the sequence of other projects which are also under there or which can be initiated in a proper integrated sequence with the development of the upper Columbia.
Fourth, it certainly permits the bargaining process to take place in stages. We need to learn a great deal about the United States side of the line, the power systems and the developing economy there, in order to bargain intelligently, to improve our position and to gain our share of a larger pie to be divided between our two countries.
Fifth, I believe this general approach which I have suggested improves the chances of immediate action by putting off until a subsequent stage decisions on such controversial projects as the High Arrow dam where there is considerable flooding in Canada and the Libby dam with its implications of the United States being able to hold on forever to the flows of the upper Kootenay orginating in Canada.

Sixth, some loss of sovereignty is implicit in any international undertaking. However, by proceeding a step at a time this loss may be minimized. At least its consequences for Canada will be more easily understood both by the experts in the power industry and by others who are concerned with the general development of the western part of this country.
I realize that we have a great opportunity in that the United States is looking to us for a very valuable service. If we do not move reasonably quickly, and certainly if we do not move in a predictable way and do not honour our agreements, they will perhaps make unduly expensive arrangements in order to provide some of these services for themselves. We can provide them more cheaply. If we can provide them more cheaply, I suggest that we do so, but that we share in the savings which accrue to the United States. This is the intent of the present treaty and certainly I would not criticize in any way that aspect of the treaty. However, we must move quickly.
I also believe that we should bring this subject perhaps to a committee of the house. Certainly we should focus on it now in terms of removing numerous difficulties. Some I have mentioned. About some of them I am not entirely certain myself. However, I have heard other people whose opinions I respect express great concern about them, including General McNaughton, various engineers and economists in eastern Canada, and others in western Canada including members of the Vancouver board of trade, engineering consultants and so on. These people should be heard.
I believe that one of the problems or one of the great failures of recent years has been our inability to bring issues of this character before the Canadian public and to have full public disclosure of all the aspects of them. The pipe line debate was unfortunate in many ways. It should have been preceded by hearings before various boards, certainly by hearings before a national energy board of the character of the one we have today. In respect of the Columbia treaty may I say that I believe this matter should have been before one or several boards for the purpose of the production of evidence on alternative plans for carrying out an immense development which has tremendous long term consequences for the country. This has not happened. I therefore believe that all members of this house should join in an understanding whereby we could, through some committee, explore all these alternatives, possibilities or projects and produce an alternative for action. I believe we have an opportunity-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to inform him that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Rémi Paul: Is it the pleasure of the committee to give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course; let us give him time in which to wind up.


John (Jack) Davis: We should hear the views of the various utilities. The power companies in British Columbia were not consulted in respect of the Columbia river treaty and its evolution at any stage. I believe that people like that should be heard in advance of a great international commitment of this kind.
I believe we have here a great chance to set an example for other countries. About a year and a half ago I was at a gathering sponsored by the United Nations. It was sponsored and held by the United Nations in Vancouver and people from all over the world came to it. On the last day of a week long meeting with respect to the development of international river basins, the Columbia river treaty was featured. On the facts in respect of the Columbia a good paper was given by a prominent representative of the United States. However, before the meeting was over the Canadians and the Americans were arguing loudly the great disadvantages and obligations put on Canada under the treaty. I think this was a very poor performance before the United Nations. I believe that we have here an opportunity to produce a treaty which will be a great example for others to follow outside of this continent. I certainly believe in the old dictum that we should "make the sale clear and plain that none may afterwards complain". Certainly this is the great objective that I think we should all pursue, and I would argue that this treaty is not a matter of partisan advantage or approach but is something with which we should concern ourselves and try to expedite as rapidly as possible.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out we are now asked to approve another interim supply motion that will involve altogether ten twelfths of the total budget for this fiscal year. I think this is an indication that something is wrong with parliament with regard to expediting the business that we ought to be doing. As I have said, we will have voted ten twelfths of the entire amount that is to be spent this year, but the situation is that we have not passed any of the estimates and have not passed a budget. Unless we speed up the operations of
Interim Supply
the house we will probably have passed twelve twelfths without approving a budget or passing the estimates of the various departments.
We in this party are becoming increasingly disturbed because of the lack of action on the part of the government, even respecting legislation that has already been passed by the house. I refer specifically to acts such as ARDA. Not long ago members of the government were going about the country holding forth that this legislation was an allinclusive plan to rehabilitate the agricultural segment of our economy. Many of them suggested that the provinces, whose co-operation was being sought, were dragging their feet in implementing what is contemplated in ARDA. In December of 1962 we have now reached a point where several months have gone by since the provinces have actually undertaken extensive studies of suitable projects for this legislation. They have submitted these projects to the federal government and so far very few, if any, substantial projects have been approved.
For example, there is the matter of community pastures. I know this project has been submitted to the federal government but it has not yet been approved. Projects of this type should be approved now so that the planning and other necessary requirements can be completed in order to be able to undertake these projects early in the spring. I am told that suggestions have been made by responsible ministers in the federal cabinet that they would be willing to make some of their contributions retroactive, and the provinces therefore could go ahead with these matters. I think this is an unreasonable suggestion to make because certainly this kind of co-operative action in this area has no precedent, and the provinces simply have not had any guidance from the federal cabinet as to what they will approve and what they will reject. The problem facing the provinces is that if they undertook these projects they might find later that they had to carry the load.
Action under ARDA is not the only thing that is being held up. Earlier today and yesterday, for example, we spent a great deal of time discussing the Atlantic development board, and the bill has now been passed. I suggest that there was a board already in existence, the Atlantic provinces economic council, which has essentially all of the powers that this new board has. If the government is not willing and anxious to take positive steps with regard to the studies and recommendations that have already been made, then this new board is probably redundant.

Interim Supply
As we went through the clause by clause study of the bill respecting the Atlantic development board certain amendments were suggested, some of which were perhaps good. At the same time, however, we feel that the usefulness of any such board is primarily determined by whether or not the government takes positive action on the findings and recommendations that are submitted to it. We suggest that this has not been the practice in the past. We are also going to have another new board, the national economic development board. I submit that the government already has the necessary information regarding the whole economic structure of business and industry in the Atlantic provinces and, so far as agriculture and ARDA are concerned, complete studies have been made and recommendations have been submitted to them. Therefore if the government is prepared to take any action it is not necessary to go on setting up one board after another.
We are also a little disturbed that no action has been taken on the O'Leary report, and no substantial action has been taken on the MacPherson report. I suggest that if positive action had been taken on these reports when they were submitted many of the problems now existing in the fields where these commissions made investigations simply would not be facing the country today.
There is another matter I want to bring up which falls into the same category. I refer to the inquiry into the air services in the prairie region. Over the past number of years we have been told by the government that they were prepared to take action to improve the airports along some of these routes as soon as there was a long term plan for the provision of air services to these areas.
For example, in 1958 there was an item in the estimates of $500,000 to improve the airport at Medicine Hat. This has never been done, and in the years since, the Minister of Transport has told us repeatedly, that the government would have to inquire into the application by Trans-Canada Air Lines to abandon this run or to be relieved of the responsibility for providing this service, and that they were going to hear applications from smaller air lines to take over the service. Over a year ago an inquiry was held in Regina. The government has had the report before it now for several weeks. They were completely aware of the problem that existed before the report came to them, and now that they have the recommendations contained in the report we would like to see them keep some of the promises they made about improving this service. We realize, of
rMr. Olson.)
course, that many of the airports along this route simply cannot take the new, modern aircraft that Trans-Canada Air Lines is using.


Rémi Paul: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private member's business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It now being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions as they appear on page 23.



Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of encouraging early vesting of pension rights of employees by disallowing in whole or in part the employer's claims for a reduction of the expenses of pensions for income tax purposes where reasonable vesting provisions are not adopted.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving this
motion I wish to say I realize that pensions come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. I also realize that the ideal arrangement would be an agreement with the provinces so that we might have pensions on a national scale and that we might have vesting from the start of employment. This would provide for portability of pensions.
Portability of pensions was mentioned in the speech from the throne this year, and I believe last year also, and some reference was made to calling representatives of the provinces together to deal with the matter. Up until now we have not heard anything further about it, and I do not know whether the government has any disposition to do it; but in the meantime I feel we have to do whatever we can within our jurisdiction to remedy the situation.
I also know that in the speech from the throne at the opening of the Ontario legislature the question of early vesting and portability of pensions was mentioned; but even were this to become law in Ontario it would not help working people in the other provinces. Neither would it help working people moving from one province to another, even those who now live in the province of Ontario.
Industrial pensions come under two groups. First we have the group where the employer and the employee both contribute, and the second group is where the employer contributes the whole amount towards a pension

plan. The matter of contributions and the amount of the contributions generally result from an agreement between management and labour, and form part of a contract. In a sense the employer's contributions are withheld wages, as they form part of the contract. Now, since most large employers are in the 50 per cent income bracket, it follows that the people of Canada have about a 50 per cent stake in these pension funds, and since they have a 50 per cent stake in them it is only right that we should have something to say concerning the administration of these funds.
Not long ago, when the income tax resolutions were before the house and amendments to the income tax bill were discussed, we made it possible for participants in a deferred profit sharing plan and for participants in retirement savings plans to transfer their funds to other similar plans exempt from income tax. The Minister of Finance said this was also possible for participants in industrial pension plans, but unfortunately it cannot take place until the participant in an industrial pension plan has some vesting in his pension plan, this vesting does not take place for a number of years.
At the present time under such plans an employee can usually get a return of his own contributions, but the contributions made to the fund on his behalf by the employer do not accrue to him until he has completed a certain number of years service or until he has reached a certain age, and generally the minimum number of years of service is around 20 years or more.
There are many reasons why an employee may not be able to work for 20 years or for some other number of years up to the time of the maturity of his pension. The employer, for instance, might discontinue operations. A mine might run out of ore or wood operations might discontinue. I have heard of this happening in the north country, and there are other reasons why an employee may have to discontinue his service before he can qualify for a pension.
Quite often there are medical reasons beyond his control. Skin and other allergies can be caused by certain chemicals in the plant where he works and may make life miserable for him. In other cases certain gases and poisons are present which affect him and make him unable to continue work. Such an employee is not sick in the sense that he is confined to bed, but in some plants he cannot qualify for a partial pension like others who are sick suffering from, say, a heart disease or arterial disease.
Further, I believe a workman should be allowed to change his job because of family reasons, and these embrace the education of
Portability of Pensions his family. I do not think he should be wedded to one job in one location all his life unless he wants to be.
In my experience most plants in the Niagara district have been very fair with their workmen and have treated them fairly when, for some reason or other, they have had to discontinue work before the maturity of their pensions. I know of other cases in Canada which I could name, but I do not want to, where employees have not got very good consideration in this respect, and I even know of one or two employees who missed out on their pensions by just two or three months or so. In such a case an employee would stand to lose a lot of money. A man aged 65, with the life expectancy that he has at that age, would lose, on just missing out on a pension of $100 a month, around $11,000 or $12,000, I believe.
The purpose of this motion is not to make our working force a transient population. I think most of our people are satisfied with their work, and this would not make much difference to them. But I am proposing this resolution to help those who must move for one reason or another. I think the whole working force should have some vesting rights in their pension before they have to work for too many years. The earlier vesting would help the older worker. We all know that a man of 45 or over, or even younger, has difficulty getting work at different plants because of their pension plans. I think this would help these people to obtain work at certain plants because they would be bringing certain funds with them which would add to their new pension fund. I know that we have no power in this house to legislate in connection with pensions, but we do have the power to give exemptions in respect of income tax on contributions to pension plans. I think this could easily be worked under the Income Tax Act.
I have not attempted to define the words "reasonably early" because I think other hon. members will have different ideas as to what they mean. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the ideal arrangement would be to have vesting from the first day of work, if it was on a national scale. But I realize that with the plans such as we have in Canada at the present time we must have a definite minimum length of time. I would say that five to ten years would be infinitely better than what we have at the moment because now, as I said before, a man has to serve right up to the date of maturity in most cases. A bill based on this resolution would not allow a workman to get his hands on his pension money early. At the present time he does get his hands on his pension money; that is to say, on his own contributions when he quits work at a plant. A bill based on this resolution

Portability of Pensions would prevent that, and I think it would help all our working people to build up a reserve lor their years of retirement.
(Translation):


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: First, I wish to point out that the question concerns not only the members of this house, but also the employers and employees.
It has surely been considered by Canadian unions for a number of years. I am satisfied that these discussions will be beneficial.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, with other hon. members I feel I should thank the hon. member opposite for bringing to the attention of the house in this resolution a subject of great importance. If my memory serves me correctly, it is a subject which has very seriously occupied the attention of our union leaders in latter years and it is naturally a subject which deeply interests both employers and employees in our country. I think all members of the house, no matter what party they support, would have to see much merit in many of the points raised by the hon. member from Welland who has just spoken. It is obvious that the particular cases he has put before us deserve much consideration and attention. I would, sir, at this time, very briefly- because I do not think this subject can be discussed in a vacuum apart from considerations of portable pensions-like again to put on the record a portion of the speech from the throne. It contained this paragraph:
As pensions plans have become ever more widely extended in Canadian business, it has been increasingly recognized that measures are essential to protect the interests of those affected and in particular to ensure that the benefits earned are portable when workers move from job to job. Provincial legislation would be required for this purpose in most cases, and several provinces are considering proposals of this nature.
In terminating, this paragraph goes on to say:
My government will be prepared to place before you complementary legislation to deal with industries under federal jurisdiction when adequate progress has been made by provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I think those words should again be put on the record just to remind all hon. members, and in particular the hon. member who has just spoken that most certainly the government is well aware of this problem. I have already said that there is much merit in what the hon. member has said. Without discussing the actual merits of the substantive part of the subject on either side, I feel there are some facts that should be put on the record. Between 1942 and 1956, with regard to the various pension plans that had to be registered with the Department of National Revenue vesting rights were a requirement before the plans were duly and

properly registered. In 1956 by administrative rule, the Department of National Revenue changed its attitude in relation to the necessity of vesting rights and I can only say that the present government by and large has carried on this trend. There is another consideration involved here. It is simply whether -and I am not entering into the merits of either side of this discussion-the government by taxation measures should actually enter into the pension field in this way. I personally am not saying whether they should at the present time, but I think all hon. members who are vitally interested in this extremely important subject have heard this point raised time and time again; that is-I repeat- whether the government by taxation means or methods should influence pension schemes in this manner.
Apart from this brief reference to the historical aspects of the subject, I feel I should at this time put on record some interesting facts which were made public after a dominion bureau of statistics survey in 1960. I must say I am not sure whether the employer plans I am about to mention were those registered with the Department of National Revenue or whether they include other plans. I want to qualify what I say to that extent. But out of 8,920 employer plans surveyed by the d.b.s., 330 of those plans had absolutely no vesting requirement. I should also mention the fact that though only 330 of the plans had no vesting requirements they covered 31 per cent of the employees involved. On the other hand, 2,612 had immediate vesting rights but only 4.7 per cent of the employees were involved in that figure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that for Ontario or all Canada?


William Heward Grafftey: Canada. To continue, 2,925 of the plans covered 41 per cent of the employees. Herein rights are made dependant on the length of service. Half the requirements were ten years and over while the other half involved more than ten years.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house by giving too many statistics, but I hope that for the purpose of this important discussion these d.b.s. figures will be of use in the debate. Let me close simply by saying that the speech from the throne in the paragraph I have mentioned relating to portable pensions does demonstrate that the government is aware of this problem, a problem which, as I said before, affects both employers and employees. I might add that the hon. gentleman opposite, speaking from his vast experience, placed the human aspect of this matter particularly well before the house. I have put before hon. members the fact that while between 1946 and 1955, or 1956, vesting rights were required, this approach was

changed in 1956 and the present government is more or less carrying on in the same way. I would once again stress the fact that this is an important debate from the viewpoint of employer-employee relations. I think there has been much discussion of this subject both in union circles, among the rank and file, and among union leaders, for obvious reasons, and I can only hope that the discussion in which the house is now engaged will produce many useful suggestions.


Murdo William Martin: It is not my
intention to speak for very long on this subject, for two reasons. First, I imagine a number of hon. members would like to speak on this motion and, in the second place, I should like very much to see the resolution come to a vote today.
I should like to compliment the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) on proposing this resolution. I think it is a good step in the right direction. I do not think it is any solution to the problem, nor do I believe the hon. member really thinks it is a permanent solution. But, as he has mentioned, it is a step which can be taken now by the present government, not something which might be done at some time in the distant future. I approve of it, particularly because 'I think it puts the idea of pensions on a proper basis.
I do not think that has always been the case in this country. I think pensions have been used in a number of different ways until they are no longer what they were supposed to be, namely a means of providing an income for employees when they reach pensionable age. We have, for example, what we see offered by so many assurance companies. In order to sell these pension plans they combine them and make a glorified savings plan out of them. At one time or another an employee may want to withdraw his savings, or he may be rooked out of them, and then the pension he has supposedly been building up all his life no longer exists. We have seen pension plans used as an excuse not to hire people after they have reached the age of 40. We had a case of a distinguished member of my constituency who applied for a job. He got a nice letter back saying that he was qualified in every respect; in fact, he was the best qualified man who had applied for the position. But because he had reached the age of 40 he could not qualify for the pension plan of this company and, therefore, his application was turned down. We have seen pension plans used to keep employees tied to a job. That, I think, is not the proper function of a pension plan. We have even seen pension plans used as a recruiting device for trade union membership. With all due
Portability of Pensions respect to these trade unions I maintain that this, too, is not the proper function of a pension plan.
The result of all these procedures in the past is that there are two groups who suffer. The first consists of the employees affected, those who, as I have said, run the risk of seeing the pensions they were supposed to be building up over the years frittered away. The other is, of course, John Q. Public who pays the taxes and has to pick up the tab for welfare in respect of people who could have been provided with good pensions if we had a real pension plan rather than the hodgepodge of plans which are in existence across the country today.
I am pleased to see that at least one province finally appears to be taking some real steps in this direction. For years we have seen the federal government and the provincial governments passing the ball back and forth, each waiting for the other to make the first move. I noticed in the Star, I believe it was, of last Saturday an article by Mr. Dick Snell who writes:
When Ontario passes its portable pension act during the current session of the legislature it will be blazing a trail in Canada for this social security measure.
In the speech from the throne which opened the session two weeks ago the government indicated it will go ahead with an Ontario plan-under study since 1960-which means it has given up hope Ottawa will bring in a national plan at this time.
The parliamentary secretary has referred to the speech from the throne in which, once again, this matter was mentioned. Unfortunately, as we know from past experience, a mention in the speech from the throne may not develop into action. I do not know whether the writer I have just quoted was giving an accurate report of what the Ontario government feels about the federal government. I would prefer to hope that this government really means what it says and intends to take constructive steps along this line. I notice that the Ontario government has passed, effective from the first of the year, a measure making pension plans portable as far as municipal employees in the province are concerned.
As the hon. member for Welland mentioned, while this is a welcome step, in fact the first real step in the right direction, it is no answer to the problem. If we have a portable pension plan within the confines of the province, it does not meet the need of Canadian citizens as a whole. Although there are other hon. members who want to make points on this question, I will be brief in the hope that this resolution will come to a vote and will be passed on to the government for its consideration. All I would say is that if the federal government will at this time take even

Portability of Pensions this small measure, it will demonstrate to all and sundry that it means business as tar as proceeding with the question of portable pensions. I think that in this regard this resolution can be recommended to the house, and I hope that action will be taken upon it.


Mr. J. C. McNully (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member for Welland suggests action which would be of benefit to all classes of workers. It would not be the be-all and end-all which we might expect from full legislation, but I think it would bring about the immediate remedial benefit which is needed at the present time. I realize that the parliamentary secretary has said that the government is aware of this problem; but as the hon. member for Timmins pointed out, if it is aware of the problem then possibly it will accept this motion and implement it so that some immediate action can be taken to help our workers in Canada. They are the ones who are most maligned in respect of the portability of pensions and the vesting rights of employees.
During this past year we have had some incidents of this problem in my riding. English Electric Company of Canada closed its St. Catharines plant and over 300 heads of families were left without employment. Many of these people are still unemployed, and the prime reason given by many industries in the area for not employing some of these people was that they were too old to fit into their pension plans. The companies could not take a chance with those who sought employment and felt that company pension plans could not be extended to them. The Foster-Wheeler plant closed their processing division, and the same thing happened with them. Many of these people were skilled employees who had put in anywhere from 15 to 18 years with the company. All they were able to get from the funds they had put in to provide for their security in retirement years was the exact amount of money they had contributed. In endeavouring to seek new employment they were at a loss, even though they were specialists in their type of work. Very few companies wished to hire them because of their age and their inability to fit in with company pension plans. The Canadian National Railways at St. Catharines terminated its bus transportation franchise in 1960 and all their employees endeavoured by all legal means to have the pension funds which they had built up transferred to the municipality of St. Catharines so that they could continue with some possibility of security in their retirement years. This was not possible and they had to become employees of the city of St. Catharines transit commission and start all

over again. Despite the number of years these people had worked for the C.N.R., they will not be able to provide adequately for their retirement years. This means for example that their families will not be provided with proper educational benefits. As the hon. member for Timmins pointed out, this motion is not intended to cover all the factors, but it will provide the government with a chance to show that it really is aware of the problem facing workers today, and of the need for portability of pensions.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, every one of the speakers in this debate has testified to the importance of this resolution, and I certainly agree with them. This is a most important resolution, and we must look carefully at it. I want to say how much I appreciate the interest in this question shown by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan). However, I point out that he stated explicitly during the course of his remarks that portable pensions are a matter for provincial governments. This is clearly set out in the British North America Act under section 92 which relates to property and civil rights. Old age pensions generally, so far as they might be affected by this matter, are provided for in section 94. I do not think I need refer further to it, except to point out that there is perhaps an analogy here. Section 94A says:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
I submit that those provisions were put into the B.N.A. Act because there was a clear recognition of the fact that matters such as pensions-all pensions-are within the field of provincial jurisdiction. They are a matter to be decided by the provinces. The recognition of this problem is clearly demonstrated in the speech from the throne presented by this government to this parliament. I refer to page 9 of Hansard, where the speech from the throne states:
As pension plans have become ever more widely extended in Canadian business, it has been increasingly recognized that measures are essential to protect the interests of those affected and in particular to ensure that the benefits earned are portable when workers move from job to job.
Then I would underline this sentence.
Provincial legislation would be required for this purpose in most cases-
That is in all cases except those which come specifically under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Henry Frank Jones: Would the hon. member mind if I finished my quotation? The speech from the throne continues:
-and several provinces are considering proposals of this nature. My government will be prepared to place before you complementary legislation to deal with industries under federal jurisdiction when adequate progress has been made by provinces.
The point has been stated, indeed admitted, by the hon. member for Welland-and it is clearly demonstrated by the citations I have given-that portable pensions are a matter for the provinces. They are a matter of provincial rights. The hon. member for Welland said that this resolution is to help bring about or force portability of pensions in the provinces. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is an attempt to do indirectly what the parliament of Canada cannot do directly. It is an attempt to subvert the constitution.
Can you imagine the situation, Mr. Speaker, if we were to agree to a resolution such as this whereby the federal government could use taxing measures to force the people in the provinces to disobey provincial laws? If we were to use taxing measures in order to force the people in the provinces to act in conformity with federal thinking, whether those actions were matters relating to the provinces under the constitution or whether they were matters relating to the possibilities of the federal government, this would be a clear invasion of provincial rights. It is an insidious sort of invasion and I am sure the hon. member for Welland did not intend that. As the course of this debate develops, I am sure my friend the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) who is an expert on constitutional matters, and my friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who is highly qualified in this regard, may develop further this particular point. However, I would draw it to the attention of the house that it would be most unfortunate if this business of portable pensions were to become muddied up and involved in a conflict between the provinces and the federal government. This is something which I think all hon. members would wish to avoid. It has been the course of the Conservative government to try to advance the cause of portable pensions.
References were made to this matter earlier, I think a year or so ago, in his budget by the then minister of finance, the present Minister of Justice. Again, it is referred to in the speech from the throne of this year. Always the emphasis has been on co-operation with the provinces in order to bring about the objective of portability which eventually will 27507-3-165
Portability of Pensions bring about so much good to the people of this country. The matter of portable pensions is something of which I think we can say all hon. members in all parts of the house are in favour. A few moments ago the hon. member for Vancouver East wished to ask a question. I must apologize to him for asking his permission to finish that portion of my remarks before accepting it. Perhaps he might ask the question now, if he so desires.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon for his consideration, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering whether the hon. member has actually read the resolution. If so, would he not see that this resolution with respect to the Income Tax Act is asking for a regulation which was in effect up until 1957 or 1958, as I recall it.


Henry Frank Jones: No. The resolution here is quite a different thing from the one mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay East. What the resolution says is this-and I will quote it right now so that he may have the advantage of studying it with us while we are discussing this particular point. The resolution states as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of encouraging reasonable early vesting of pension rights of employees-
How?
-by disallowing in whole or in part the employer's claims for a reduction of the expenses of pensions for income tax purposes where reasonable vesting provisions are not adopted.
In others words, this is an invasion of the rights of the provinces by the federal government through the back door of the Income Tax Act. This is the point I am making. This is the thing we must avoid. We must avoid the invasion of provincial rights. I think all hon. members in this house will join with me when they come to realize the danger there is in this sort of resolution, particularly all those who are sincerely interested in advancing the cause of portable pensions.
It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to go much further into this particular matter. However, I wished to point out some of the problems which have been raised incidentally by the hon. member for Welland who, I am sure, enjoys the respect of all members of the House of Commons. However, he gets led into a situation and it is a rather dictatorial one. He said that a bill based on this resolution would not allow a workman to get his hands on his pension money. Although he said that, I am sure he could not possibly have meant it. I do not think this house or any other legislature should dictate to workmen what they shall do with their own

Portability of Pensions money. That is their business. Any relationships they may be able to work out with their employers over pensions is a matter of business, too.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, what I said was "get his hands on his pension money early", as he does now if he quits after two or three years. I did not mean that he would never get his hands on his pension money.


Henry Frank Jones: This is the point. I would think that one of the rights which all people assert is the right to do with their own what they wish to do, so long as it does not hurt somebody else. Therefore, if in their wisdom they decide they wish to get their hands on their pension money, that is their decision, unless they enter into some sort of arrangement with the employer which by agreement, either individually or through their unions, precludes them from doing this. Surely it is fundamental, Mr. Chairman, that we should not start legislating in order to force things down other people's throats if they themselves do not want them. To take such a course is the essence of the over protective socialist state. We have already had so many examples in so many parts of the world of the stultifying effect of this state paternalism that I am sure the hon. member for Welland, on reflection, would wish to avoid that course.
I know there are many others who wish to enter into this debate. I will therefore close my remarks at this stage, hoping that the hon. members who follow me will be able to deal further and more extensively than I have done with this particular problem of the invasion of provincial rights.


William Moore Benidickson: My point is only a question. The hon. member who has just taken his seat indicated that he did not wish to accept a question during his major remarks. However, I thought the important part of his remarks was that in which he suggested that responsibility for portability of pensions related to provincial jurisdiction. As he was the first speaker representing the government after the resolution was introduced by my friend the hon. member for Welland, may I ask him this question. What would his remarks be with respect to the portability of pensions either interprovincially or internationally?


Henry Frank Jones: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that there are a number of incidental and quite unimportant assumptions here. One was that I was the first government speaker following the mover of this resolution. Of course, that is not so. However, that has nothing to do with the point at issue. The question of whether pensions are portable internationally takes us no further at all on this question of


unconstitutionality. Once you establish pensions on a basis of agreement with the provinces so that the constitution is not infringed, it can then become a question of relationship between the governments involved in passing enabling legislation to deal with international portability of pensions. This matter does not pose a major problem at all. The problem we face at the moment with regard to the question of the portability of pensions is that of getting rapport between the provinces and the federal government on the best means to follow in obtaining portability of pensions, by combining their legislative powers and by passing enabling legislation, as has been suggested in the speech from the throne and on other occasions by ministers of this government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to compliment the hon. member for Welland for his tenacity in bringing this matter forward again. I know that for quite a number of years, going back I think, as far as 1956, the hon. member together with myself and other members raised this question in the interests of those receiving pensions not on a contributory basis. The history of this matter goes back as far as 1953 when the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers first took it up in a serious way in an endeavour to make industrial pensions more portable. They were frustrated in their efforts to negotiate, particularly because the large industries maintained that with respect to non-contributory pension plans the employee had no claim on the pension until he reached retirement age.
That union went into the matter quite thoroughly and unearthed the government blue book containing regulations with respect to income tax. They found that there was a regulation in the blue book which, among other things, provided that in order for a pension plan to be accepted by the income tax authorities certain vesting rights should rest with the employee. I might say that this regulation was not enforced in the case of non-contributory pension plans.
The union pressed its case year after year with the assistance of the hon. member for Welland and other members in the house and some industries finally recognized the force of their argument. I know this is true in the case of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. Up to that time they had refused adamantly even to discuss the matter of vesting any rights of employees in their pension plan which, as I have said, was noncontributory. Following a great deal of negotiation and pressure by the union officials, although they actually had no authority to discuss the matter, the company finally saw that this was a very justifiable request and

Business of the House
in June of 1958 the bylaws of the pension plan were amended to provide that an employee who had served for 20 years and had reached the age of 50 would have his rights preserved in the plan. As I have said, this was a move that was made under pressure from people such as the hon. member for Welland and others.


An hon. Member:: And the government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member says "and the government". I have not been informed of any great action on the part of the government. I inquired why this change came about so suddenly and I found that there was no action on the part of the government. As a matter of fact, the present government withdrew the blue book from circulation. The hon. member cannot take any credit for the government whatsoever. It was the pressure exerted by the union and by members in the opposition who brought this matter forward from time to time. While I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) that this is not the answer, it is something that the federal government can and did do for years and could have continued to do on the basis of their authority to make regulations under the Income Tax Act. This is not an invasion of provincial rights. Let us not have any of that small talk.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Welland, people age, become ill and for various reasons need to leave their employment. Certainly it is only right that they should have a vesting interest in their pension plan. What has happened so far is the thin edge of the wedge and something has been accomplished. Let us give the hon. member for Welland full credit for what he has done in the past and let us vote on this motion now and pass it.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Siralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, if we were going to vote on this motion I am afraid I would find myself unable to vote in favour of it. On reading the resolution the first thought that occurred to my mind was that the Income Tax Act can be used as a quite powerful weapon. The suggestion here is that the weapon of disallowing pension contributions in whole or in part as an expense item be used if there is not reasonably early vesting of the pension rights of employees. This sounds to me like pushing somebody pretty hard, and I wonder whether the hon. member who moved the motion has really considered what he is doing here. The resolution is broad enough to cover contributory pension plans where the union and
the employer have come together and have made an agreement between them as to when the pension plan will vest. As a result there is vesting according to their agreemnt.
The resolution suggests that the federal government will have to set up a body which would be responsible for deciding when pensions should vest, and what schemes they thought were suitable and werer regarded by them as vesting early enough. The government point of view would then be imposed on those companies in substitution for the point of view agreed on by the employer and the employees.
I am afraid there is not time to go into many of the considerations that an employer has to take into account when he is setting up a plan to cover people who are going to be working for a long time. There are many good and pressing reasons why he wants to encourage the employee as much as possible to stay a long time with the company. Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: I simply wish to ask the
house leader, having regard to what he said at the conclusion of debate last night to the effect that certain consultations might take place today between leaders of the various parties, whether he could announce in a straightforward way the program of the house between now and the possible Christmas adjournment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We had certain consultations today and we will have another meeting tomorrow. The items we would like to consider tomorrow are interim supply and, if that is concluded, item No. 20 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. That would be followed by the item dealing with the national economic development board, which is Bill No. C-87. I think it is likely that that amount of business would carry us through Thursday and Friday; but certainly it will do for tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It now being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27507-3-165J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 13, 1962