1963-09-30

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
'	OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 30, 1963

Mr. Speaker:: May I take this first opportunity to welcome all hon. members back to the house to what I am sure will be a very energetic, strenuous and without doubt profitable session for the public of Canada.

It gives me pleasure to find us all together again, ready to get back to work.
I am quite convinced that the months to come will be of benefit to all our fellow-Canadians thanks to the knowledge and intelligence of all those around me, both on my right and on my left.
Now I have a statement to make, and I thought of expressing myself both in English and in French. On the other hand, it might be better if the French text were distributed immediately so that hon. members who wish to do so can refer to it while I read the English.

Before calling the orders of the day I would crave the indulgence of hon. members in order to permit me to make a statement on a situation which has developed since the adjournment of the house on August 2. The problem with which the house is faced is a new one. May I be allowed to refer, in a chronological order, to certain correspondence by which I was apprised of the facts.
On September 9, 1963, the hon. member for Lapointe wrote me a letter to the effect that his party had chosen a new leader and claiming certain rights and privileges.
On September 13, 1963, the hon. member for Red Deer wrote me a letter to the effect "that the separation of Mr. Real Caouette and his followers from the party poses several problems".
On September 16 the hon. member for Villeneuve wrote me a letter reading in part as follows:

Since September 1, our movement has become a national group under the name of Ralliement Creditistes.

On September 18 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wrote me a letter reading in part:
In view of recent developments it seems quite clear that the New Democratic party, with its 17 members, is now the third largest group in the House of Commons.
Later on in the letter he adds:
Since we are now the largest of the smaller parties we will expect to be seated immediately next to the official opposition.
The events which have taken place and the correspondence in relation thereto, which X am prepared to lay on the table if the house so desires, have given rise to a number of questions. Among them is first the recognition of a new party and of its leader; second, the seating arrangements in the chamber; then the question of the allowance to "the leader of a party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons"; and following that the allocation of rooms, personnel, and other matters. I do not think it is necessary to deal with those problems at the moment; it is sufficient to mention them.
"Party" as defined by Burke in the classical passage on the subject, "Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontent" is a body of men united for promoting the national interest on some particular principle in which they are all agreed.
Have we a new party according to this definition and, if so, has this party been recognized by the house? To my mind this is a question for the house to decide.
The question of third parties in itself is not a new one. After the last election, apart from the Liberal and Conservative parties, as all hon. members know, there were recognized the Social Credit party and the New Democratic party.
Third parties have existed continually in the house practically since 1921. In 1921 there were 117 Liberals, 50 Conservatives, 66 Progressives and 2 other members, independent and labour. This third party situation has continued throughout the years, that is after the elections of 1925, 1926, 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1962 and 1963.
If the house is used to third parties, that is to having a third and fourth party in the house, it will be admitted that it creates quite a new situation to have a third party divide

Seating Arrangements in Chamber into two sections or blocks a few months after a general election and during an adjournment of the house.
I have already indicated some of the problems which are created by this unprecedented situation. There now remains to consider my position as Speaker of the house in connection with these recent events.
The legal rights and duties of the Speaker are to be found in the statutes of Canada, the standing orders of the house, in the constitutional and parliamentary authors and finally in the customs and precedents which have become constitutional conventions. According to Campion, the Speaker is the representative of the house itself, in its powers, proceedings and dignity, and the chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. Campion states also that it is the duty of the Speaker to see that the house is properly constituted before it proceeds to business.
It is in consequence among the duties of the Speaker to see that the standing orders of the house are followed in the course of its procedures and that the privileges of the house, once they have been defined and recognized, are protected. It is also the duty of the Speaker to be impartial and removed from politics, which has always been my aim since, hon. members, you did me the honour to elect me as your Speaker.
Sir Erskine May, sixteenth edition, page 42, has stated:
that parliamentary privilege is the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each house collectively as a constituent part of the high court of parliament, and by members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exception from the ordinary law.
Dawson, in his book on "The Government of Canada", writes:
The privileges, immunities and powers of the house of parliament of Canada are thus potentially those of the British House of Commons, although their primary basis is statutory and not established custom and inherent right.
In the Canadian house, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the house collectively, the rights of recognized parties, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character. In this category may be placed questions affecting the recognition of a party, touching the seat or election of members, questions affecting the internal economy or proceedings of the house.
If the Speaker is to take any notice of these privileges and at the same time to
[Mr. Speaker.!
exercise the high degree of independence and impartiality which is justly expected of him, it is well that those privileges be first defined and decided by the house itself. Anson, in "Law and Custom of the Constitution", at page 130, as quoted by Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 94, says:
The house has always asserted the right to provide for the constitution of its own body, the right to regulate its own proceedings and the right to enforce its privileges.
Allow me to refer once more to the special traditions that surround the office of Speaker. While he is the servant of the house he is, at the same time, its spokesman and its symbol. His value to the house and its members continues effectively only when the house assists him in every way to maintain his dignity and his impartiality, and during my short term I have had the confidence of the house to the point where I know I can place myself and my problems in its hands.
It seems to me that having in mind the authorities from Sir Erskine May to Lord Campion, from Bourinot to Beauchesne and from Anson to McGregor Dawson and many others, a situation such as that now facing the house must be resolved by the house itself. It is not one where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where any group of members might feel that their interests as a group or a party have been prejudiced. Nor should the Speaker be put in the position where he must decide, to the advantage or to the disadvantage of any group or party, matters affecting the character or existence of a party, for this surely would signify that the Speaker had taken what was almost a political decision, a decision where the question involves the rights and privileges of the house itself.
I cannot conclude this statement without some reference to the significance of these events for the future of the definition and status of parties in this house. It is not my place to evaluate the significance of these matters for the future of the ever changing structure and character of political parties; yet it is my duty, I believe, to bring to the attention of the house the novel character of the situation now before it, and more particularly the payment of allowances and the effect on the organization of parliament and parties and of the work of this house that naturally must be reflected by the emergence from time to time of new groups that invite the house to accord them the status of parties. Profound constitutional questions arise; for example, can a group of members which did not exist as a party at the time

of the election of a parliament be recognized as a party before it has submitted itself to the electorate?
Having indicated this new development to the house with its suggestive consequences, may I end my statement by relying upon the house to give me the necessary guidance required for the due administration of my duties in view of the issues presented to me by the letters from the hon. members concerned, and which have required me to make this statement today.
For these reasons I am of the opinion that the interests of the house, of members and of all parties will best be served if the questions raised by the hon. members for Lapointe, Red Deer, Villeneuve and Winnipeg North Centre in the various letters addressed to me were referred at this time to the proper committee for consideration and report so as to bring about a solution thereto.
As Speaker, I shall carry out the orders of the house and apply such interpretations to the rules of the house as the house itself may require of me.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to rise on a question of privilege. My point of privilege relates to an aspect of the matter covered by the statement you have just made to the house. I think I should say at this time that I believe the house will agree with me that we are all indebted to you for the very helpful statement you have made with respect to the situation which now confronts us in this House of Commons. I may say also that at the conclusion of my remarks I should like to indicate my agreement with the suggestion you have made; in fact, as a matter of privilege I will suggest a motion along the very lines of your statement.
First of all may I indicate why in my view I feel, on behalf of this group, the New Democratic party, that there is a question of privilege to be raised at this time. Following the election of June 18, 1962, when the Social Credit party and the New Democratic party both came to this house with certain numbers of members, the question of our seating and our priority arose in discussions between representatives of these parties and the then Speaker, Mr. Michener, and the subsequent Speaker, the present hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). It was my contention that on the basis of the precedents of former years, notably 1935 and 1940, seniority and certain other considerations entitled us in the New Democratic party to be recognized as the third party in the house. May I make it clear that we in this party accepted the judgment that was given by Mr. Speaker
Seating Arrangements in Chamber Michener and by Mr. Speaker Lambert that other considerations had to be set aside in light of one overriding consideration, namely the number of members in each group. Therefore, because following the election of June 18, 1962, the Social Credit party had 30 members and we had only 19, the Social Credit party was recognized as third party in the house and we were given the position of fourth party in the house.
A few months later came the election of April 8, 1963. As a result of that election again the Social Credit party had more members than we had: they had 24 on the night of the election, which was reduced to 23 a little later. In any case our number, as hon. members know, was 17. The issue was raised again but there was no extended argument about it, because we were all agreed that the decision had been made the year before, namely that so far as the seating of, and other matters affecting, small parties were concerned the number of members was the key factor. The Social Credit party had more members than the New Democratic party had; therefore the Social Credit party was given third place.
Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated in your statement, I wrote you about this matter on behalf of this party on September 18, pointing out to you that reports in the press seemed to make it quite clear that we, with our 17 members, had become the third largest party in the house. In my letter, which I note you are prepared to table-I should be glad if all this correspondence were tabled-I did not happen to name the Social Credit party, but I referred to recent events and said that in the light of these events we were obviously the third party in size in this house, and I indicated that I expected that when the house met on September 30 we would be seated in third position next to the official opposition.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that on the two previous occasions to which I have referred-the occasions following the election of 1962 and following the election of 1963- the decision was made before the house met. When the house met we sat in the seats allotted to us. Therefore it was my view when I wrote my letter of September 18 that this decision should have been made before today, and that on coming into the house today we should have been placed in seats which would recognize our position as the third largest party in the house.
There is involved, so far as our position is concerned, not only the question of where we sit; because after all it is a privilege to sit anywhere in this house, whether in the front row or the back row, up at that end or down at this end; there is a question of the

Seating Arrangements in Chamber order of speakers in debates, the question of the right to move amendments in certain cases, and so on. Therefore we feel it is a matter of concern not only to us but to all members of the house, a matter of concern to all who want the practices and privileges of the house to be respected, that our position, if we are the third party in size in the house, should be that of the third party as far as seating position and other matters are concerned.
As I say, it was my belief and contention that this decision should have been made before we took our places in the house today, and that we should have been given our seats next to the official opposition. However, I recognize readily that to have made such a move earlier than today would have involved other considerations. It would have involved the questions you have raised, Mr. Speaker, as to whether there has in fact been a division of the Social Credit party into two parties, whether they are two parts of the same party or two separate parties, and so on. From what we have read in the papers I find it strange they should be sitting together, cheek by jowl, without exchanging any blows; at least not yet.


Mr. Gregoire:: No worse than sitting beside you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I indulge in the use of at least one French word I know, and say "touche".
There is also the question of determining, if we are to be moved up, the order in which the other two parties are to sit. I realize it is unfair to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make this decision in advance. I think the situation is sufficiently unusual that your suggestion is an appropriate one, namely that this is a matter which should be decided by the house. For these reasons we are prepared to possess our souls in patience for a few days so far as seating is concerned. We are prepared to see this matter referred to a special committee of the house so that the committee may consider it and bring back its findings at the earliest possible date. We do think that if it is established before that date-and one has to get the evidence in order to find out-that there are now three so-called smaller parties and that their numbers are 17, 13 and 11, there should be no question but that the party with 17 should be the third party in the house and sit next to the official opposition. We think that if the committee could ascertain the facts and make a decision quickly in this respect it should do so, and that the change should be made. If it takes longer to decide as between the other two, perhaps the committee would take somewhat longer to determine that particular issue.
I think the house is indebted to Your Honour for having taken the trouble to prepare the statement you have given us today. It is a statement that is likely to be referred to a number of times in the course of the progress of this parliament. One does not know what lies ahead in terms of our parliamentary arrangements. The people of Canada have the right to elect the governments and parties they wish to elect. Nevertheless, here in this house it is our responsibility to see that the arrangements we make with regard to the seating of parties, the priority of speakers, the moving of amendments and so on are made in accordance with the best practices of parliamentary democracy.
Therefore it gives me pleasure to move a motion along the lines suggested in the latter part of Your Honour's statement. I move, seconded by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam:
That the matters raised and the statement made to the house this day by Mr. Speaker be referred to the committee on privileges and elections and that the said committee be instructed to report its findings thereon to the house with all convenient speed.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: First may I say that I think Your Honour has done the house a great deal of benefit by the research which has been shown in the production of this statement you have just made. I was particularly interested in the quotation you made from Burke, the title of his speech being "Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontent". It was very applicable and it was an example, once again, of history reliving itself, though in a manner not within the contemplation of Burke at the time he made the speech in question.
The responsibility which will rest on this committee will be a great one; to determine when is a party not a party; when does disagreement within a party cause such a cleavage as to proliferate the number of parties within a party.


An hon. Member:: It might happen to you.


John George Diefenbaker: I might say also, to my friends on the left, the question might arise as to whether the New Democratic party is a separate party or whether it is just a section of the Liberal party ready to vote with the government on occasions or to abstain altogether. These are all questions which will, I am sure, be of tremendous interest as this committee carries out the responsibility which will belong to it should the house pass the motion before us.
However, I must say that all of this, all these events, underline and emphasize the danger I pointed out when I spoke in the

house last July on the measure which provided for the payment of $4,000 per year to leaders of parties other than the official opposition. If such a payment were not available I doubt very much whether there would have been the division which has taken place. I therefore express my wonder that he who has received credit for having been the inventor of this plan should now, like so many inventors in the past, decline to share in the profits from that invention.
I pointed out then that the recognition of parties other than the official opposition in the manner I have already indicated was contrary to the basic principle of British parliamentary government, the contemplation of which has always been two parties; a party which governs, and a party in the opposition composed of the largest group. Again I wonder whether the chickens have not come home to roost somewhat earlier than expected. I expressed the fear that this measure might lead to a multiplicity and proliferation of parties in the days ahead. Certainly whatever the cause, the result is as I had anticipated.
If the committee is set up this party will be represented thereon and will make such decisions as in the wisdom of its membership are in keeping with the responsibilities that will rest on the committee. Certainly this committee, with all the potential problems that will be before it, will require all of the wisdom of a Solomon to carry out all the facets of the undertaking that will be theirs.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are happy to support the motion which has been moved and which has been based on the suggestion you made to the house in such impressive terms. We are also grateful to you for the research you have done on this important subject. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was good enough to comment on that research in impartial and objective terms. He has reminded the house, in terms which were not too flattering to some of his fellow members and which I think are regrettable, that some chickens are coming home to roost.
He has also reminded us of his prescience and his wisdom in the debate last July on the legislation to which he referred. But I should like to recall the circumstances of that particular debate to the right hon. gentleman, and remind him that in respect of this particular provision and all other provisions in that legislation he managed to find only five of his own party to support him in the house, and those five did not include a single member of his front bench or of his former colleagues in his government. I also recall that 28902-5-193
Seating Arrangements in Chamber although he had the opportunity he did not move a single amendment to any provision of that bill, including the provision to which he now takes such strong exception; and when I asked him during the debate if he intended to move that this legislation, to which he was then taking exception, be referred to a committee where it could be considered he disclaimed any such intention and did not take advantage of the suggestion I made. Therefore it is a little late for the right hon. gentleman to be so wise in respect of this particular measure.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, not only on behalf of the Social Credit party-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Robert Norman Thompson: -of Canada but also on behalf of myself I wish to thank you for the thoughtful statement you have just made to us. I think it outlines the situation very well, and I agree with your suggestion that it is logical that this situation should go before a committee. The problem is not an easy one for you to decide.
I recall well the discussions we had before the first session of the former parliament began regarding the party order within the house, and I concur in the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it was agreed at that time that on the basis of numbers the Social Credit party should take second precedence among the opposition parties. I believe that the proposition he has presented in his motion, provided it is in order, is reasonable.
However, the problem we have before us now is not really just the consideration of who or what a party is. It comes down to the fact that there are a number of people who as far as we know-their views have been expressed only in the press-have decided to break from the party which it is my privilege and responsibility to lead, and that in no way alters the status of the national Social Credit party. On this basis, Mr. Speaker, unless you have some direct word from the members concerned, it would seem to me that you would have to take the action you have taken. The situation comes down to this, that a number of members of our party have chosen to separate themselves from us, and thus they stand before us officially as a group of independents.
It is not for me to define what a party is or what should constitute a party, but there has been considerable discussion in this regard on other occasions. It has been brought out on a number of occasions, particularly with regard to the allotting of time for political broadcasting on the C.B.C., and it has generally been agreed that a party must be

Seating Arrangements in Chamber one that has contested an election and that has fielded candidates for at least half the number of seats in the nation and has been successful in winning some of those seats.
It is my opinion that you have recommended correctly, and we will concur in the motion that is before us so that this matter can go before a committee. You can be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will give you our wholehearted support whatever the decision may be. In fairness to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been speaking on behalf of the New Democratic party, on the basis of discussions we have had in the past I likewise agree that his statement is correct and that the party having the largest number of seats, provided it is a party, should be placed in the order of its numerical strength. On this basis I agree with the action you have taken and will support the motion that has been placed before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Where is your leader?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) will return to Ottawa around five o'clock this afternoon.
I listened closely to the remarks made earlier on this motion by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I wondered whether he realized that what is happening today to the former Social Credit leader might also happen to him before long. It was rather shabby of him to mention that the leader of the government had rightly termed the matter of the $4,000 which could have affected the decision. I must point out to him that when that question was put to the house last July, the hon. member for Villeneuve voted against it on second reading, just as he did himself; which goes to prove that opposites attract one another.
The reference made concerning the hon. member for Villeneuve reminded me of the saying by Pascal to the effect that everything is evil to the evil-minded.
Mr. Speaker, we think it is our duty if possible to support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but there is one thing which I noticed in your memorandum, upon which I would like to draw your attention:
Are we facing a new party and, if so, has it been officially recognized by the house? I think it is up to the house to decide that question.
As far as we are concerned, we believe that it is not up to a political or other party to decide whether a group of members who want to form a political party have the right to do so. That is a matter for the voters to decide, if they wish their elected members to form a political party.

The voters in our ridings have elected us under the Social Credit label and so we remained. That is a well-known and officially recognized fact. We are and remain in the Social Credit, that is seventeen members who have been elected under the label of the Social Credit rally. We are therefore a group recognized by the Canadian people, by the supporters of that political party. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, the party which is the most numerous enjoys certain privileges in the house. Therefore, I think that the Social Credit, that is the Social Credit rally should be recognized as a third opposition party in the house. As the New Democratic party numbers 17 members, we do not claim to take their place. I only want to mention one thing, Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, that is there are, none the less, in this house, 24 members who believe in Social Credit, and they are more numerous than those who follow socialist principles.
I hope that when the committee on privileges and elections makes its recommendations and a decision is taken, there will not be so many changes in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the motion. Does the house agree to pass the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

["1.\tIs treasury board aware of any employment by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery of the services of any business consultants during the years 1961 and 1962 and, if so (a) what was the name of the business consultant firm (b) when was the contract authorized, and by whom, and (c) what was the contract price?\n2.\tIf the employment was terminated (a) by whose authority (b) for what reason and (c) what was the final price paid?\nAnswer: (a) P. A. Management Consultants Ltd. (b) October 5, 1961, by treasury board, (c) $111,600 (estimated), plus travelling and subsistence when consultants are engaged on the department's business away from the office or plant to which they are assigned, based on a fee of $900 per week per consultant, plus travelling and subsistence.\n2. The treasury board has received no submission from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery concerning the termination of the contract."]
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, the following questions are to be answered today: 766, 833, 834, 863, 890, 922, 935, 947, 956, 965, 976, 977, 1024,	1028,	1035,	1046,	1049,	1083,	1084,	1085,1087,	1095,	1102,	1104,	1105,	1118,	1121,	1122,1123,	1130,	1135,	1139,	1140,	1142,	1143,	1144,1146,	1147,	1148,	1152.
If starred questions 1036, 1044, 1067, may be made orders for returns, the returns can be tabled immediately.
If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 705, 917, 962, 1057, 1058, 1081 and 1107, I would ask that the remaining questions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to making these questions orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to raise a question of privilege in relation to question No. 1024 which is answered today. I raise this question because of the fact that during the recess I ascertained that this question should have been answered before we left. Certain information must have been available to certain

senior officials of one of the departments. There was a public tender called for one of these auxiliary airfields I mentioned, and it is my opinion that contempt was shown in not presenting this answer at that time in view of the fact a public tender had already been let while parliament was still in session. This information could have been made available.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to call the starred questions, unless there is a reply.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister of Finance or the privy council office any precedents, exact or analogous, to the hiring of outside contractors for help in preparing the budget and, if so, what are they in terms of persons, dates and minutes passed and orders issued?


Mr. Benson:: Yes. Under authority of P.C. 10/7354 dated December 14, 1940, Walter Lockhart Gordon, C.A., Toronto, was appointed as special assistant to the deputy minister, Department of Finance, and was entitled to receive an allowance of $600 per month to cover living, travelling and other out of pocket expenses, and served in this capacity from December 9, 1940 to February 28, 1942.
Under authority of P.C. 4912 dated June 9, 1942, Professor Frank A. Knox, Kingston, Ontario, was appointed temporarily as assistant to the deputy minister of finance, to assist in the making of current estimates and forecasts of Canada's foreign exchange situation, and to be paid out of pocket living and travelling expenses.
Under authority of P.C. 33/11160 dated December 9, 1942, Professor V. W. Bladen, University of Toronto, Ontario, was appointed to assist the Department of Finance, on a part time basis, in making investigations and reports in regard to certain tax problems, and was paid an allowance of $20 per day for the time spent on this work, together with actual out of pocket expenses, effective November 25, 1942.
Under P.C. 29/262 dated January 23, 1948, authority was granted to pay the Bank of Nova Scotia out of pocket costs incurred as a result of making available to the Department of Finance for the periods from November 13 to 21 and from November 27 to December 19, 1947, the services of J. Douglas Gibson for work on measures made necessary by the foreign exchange situation at that time.
28902-5-193J
Questions


DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN U.S. AND CANADA
Mr. Howard: Are any matters currently under discussion or negotiation with the government of the United States of America or any agency or branch thereof, regarding the interest of both the U.S. and Canada or of interest only to Canada, and, if so, what specifically are these matters?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Discussions and negotiations on matters of common interest are being carried on continuously between the government of Canada and the government of the United States. It would be contrary to the public interest and to generally accepted practice to describe them while they are in progress or to specify all the subjects being discussed or negotiated. Both governments are, of course, conscious of the necessity for keeping the public well informed, and wherever discussions have matured to the point where a public announcement can be made this is done and, in particular, the house is appropriately informed.


PROTESTS AGAINST SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Nesbiii: How many letters or telegrams have been received by the Minister of Finance in criticism of the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax on (a) building materials (b) production machinery?
Answer: (a>
371 (b) 61; 54 communications were received mentioning both building materials and production machinery.


BUDGET ASSISTANCE BY OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
Mr. Gundlock: 1.	In what particular taxation field or fields were each of the following persons regarded as possessing special knowledge or experience (a) Mr. D. C. H. Stanley (b) Mr. M. P. O'Connell (c) Mr. G. R. Conway and (d) Mr. R. J. Anderson?
2.	On what portions of the budget were each of the said persons specifically consulted or did they give advice on to the government or minister?
Answer: 1. (a) Mr. D. C. H. Stanley has had many years of experience in the investment business and because of this experience he has been engaged by the royal commission on banking and finance to make a study for the commission.
(b)	Dr. M. P. O'Connell is a former professor at the University of Toronto, has had several years of experience in the bond business, and is a specialist in the field of municipal finance.
(c)	Mr. G. R. Conway is a chartered accountant who had been engaged in research on taxation at Harvard University. He has recently joined the staff of the royal commission on taxation.
(d) Mr. R. J. Anderson is a chartered accountant.

Questions
2.	Messrs. Stanley, O'Connell and Conway assisted the Minister of Finance in regard to various aspects of the budget speech and resolutions, as did officers of the Department of Finance, but no record was kept of the particular aspects on which individuals were consulted or gave advice.


C.B.C.-PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND UNION AGREEMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the years 1958. 1960, and 1962. how much money did the C.B.C. spend for dramatic and variety programs (a) purchased from the U.S.A.
(b)	purchased from Great Britain and (c) produced in Canada?
2.	Is the C.B.C. negotiating an agreement with (a) association of radio and television employees of Canada (b) national association of broadcast engineers and technicians, and (c) "federation des auteurs et des artistes du Canada"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The information requested is not readily available under the program coding used by all radio and television stations according to B.B.G. regulations. To provide explicit replies to the three parts of this question would require a large expenditure of man hours by the corporation, in isolating and collating the information. Generally speaking, it is estimated that of the corporation's annual total expenditures for fees to musicians, dramatic and other performers, writers, payments for copyrights, performing rights, etc., less than 10 per cent is paid to non-resident individuals and organizations.
2.	Yes, these proceedings will continue with the assistance of a conciliation officer appointed by the Minister of Labour, (b) Yes, these proceedings will continue before a conciliation board on October 22 and 23 next.
(c)	Negotiations have been completed with a two year agreement effective July 1, 1963.


HYDROFOIL VESSEL RESEARCH
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	How long has research on hydrofoil vessels been carried out by the government?
2.	What is the total cost to date of research on hydrofoil vessels including naval research costs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Since 1943.
2.	$2,745,702.


*USE OF THE WORDS &quot;AIR CANADA&quot; BY T.C.A.
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Are the words "Air Canada", as well as the words "Trans-Canada Air Lines", used at any time in T.C.A. offices or establishments in Ottawa, Chicoutimi or elsewhere?
2.	Has T.C.A. ever used both phrases in their advertisement, notices, etc., and if so, when, and where was such practice followed?
fMr. Gundlock.)
3.	Has the company made a study to ascertain whether the use of the words "Air Canada" would assist control officers in the identification and direction of company aircraft in order to promote the safety and welfare of passengers on the air line?
4.	Has an estimate been made of the expense which would be involved in the adding of the words "Air Canada" on each side of the fuselage of T.C.A. aircraft and, if so, what is the amount of such estimate?


Mr. Caniin:: 1. Yes. Both names appear on some company signs, advertising material, etc.
2.	Yes. The company has used both names in business when it was appropriate and practical.
3.	The company has given that matter much thought.
4.	No estimate has been made because it is impossible for reasons of security and control to use both names at the same time on the fuselage.


R.C.A.F. NON-PUBLIC MESSES
Mr. Enns: Has the R.C.A.F. regulations concerning nonpublic messes and, if so (a) who authorizes insurance on non-public messes at R.C.A.F. stations across Canada (b) what percentage and amount of such insurance was placed with Mr. N. D. McRae's agency at Montreal: and, of this amount, how much was recommended by R.C.A.F. station commanders (c) what insurance company does Mr. McRae represent as agent (d) what are the general terms of the coverage offered (e) what is the current rate of insurance and (f) do local insurance agents in communities adjacent to R.C.A.F. stations have an opportunity to tender on the specified insurance coverage?
Answer: (a) Yes, section 39 of the National Defence Act provides that all the non-public property of a unit shall vest in the commanding officer who shall administer such property in accordance with orders issued by the chief of the air staff, and Queen's regulations and orders stipulate that the commanding officer must obtain insurance on non-public funds and property and he alone is responsible for procurement.
(b)	88J; the R.C.A.F. station commander is responsible for selecting the insurance agency in every case.
(c)	McRae and Company, 214 St. James street west, Montreal. Policies are underwritten by Lloyds of London, Canada Security Assurance Company and Norwich Fire Insurance Society.
(d)	The general terms of the coverage are as follows:
Property and Merchandise
Covers: All risks of physical loss or damage from any external cause. While within any building on station premises or elsewhere, and during transportation. Including buildings and/or improvements and renovations to public buildings. Including property and/or merchandise for which M & I may be responsible, e.g. articles accepted in a check-room

Questions
when a tag or check is issued. Including loss or damage to vehicles resulting from the operation of station auto clubs.
Co-insurance Requirement: 90 per cent insurance to total values at risk on station.
Dishonesty: (Merchandise, Money or Securities).
Covers: Blanket Fidelity Bond: All employees, service or civilian covered. No requirement to advise of changes in personnel.
Applicable to each employee identified. Applicable to loss when employee cannot be identified. Applicable to position of mess and institute accountant officer.
Money and Securities: Dishonesty, disappearance or destruction caused by persons, known or unknown.
While on station premises. While away from station premises, during transportation, or elsewhere. Exclusions: Loss from any bank safety deposit box. Forgery of the cheques for deposit.
Legal Liability
Covers: Employers Liability: (Civilians paid directly by non-public funds). Legal liability for bodily injuries or death. Includes Voluntary Benefits: Lost time wages and hospital and medical expenses.
(e)	Insurance rates are based on the degree of risk involved. Because of factors such as unit location, number of personnel, scope of non-public operations, type of buildings and seasonal fluctuations in the size of inventories at some units, the rates in effect at any unit normally apply to that unit only.
(f)	Commanding officers are expected to obtain the insurance coverage at the lowest price available. The business is not normally awarded on the basis of tender call but the insurance programs of any agent will be considered on a competitive basis. McRae and Company have tailored insurance programs to meet the needs of these stations and have been able to offer favourable rates.


RADIO AND TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 935
Mr. Prillie:: 1.	How many hours of television programs for the national network originated in Toronto, Montreal (English only), Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Halifax during the years 1960, 1961, and 1962?
2.	How many hours of television programs originated in each of the same centres for use in the region in which the centre is located?
3.	What were the capital expenditures for television broadcasting facilities in the abovementioned centres during 1960, 1961 and 1962?
4.	What were the capital expenditures for radio broadcasting facilities in the abovementioned centres during 1960, 1961, and 1962?
5.	What capital expenditures are planned for television and radio broadcasting facilities in each of the above-mentioned centres for 1963 and 1964?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1960/61	Network 1961/62	1962/63Toronto	1,293	1,252	1,239Montreal (Eng.	only)	158	195	222Vancouver	94	126	120Winnipeg	139	169	122Halifax	97	110	1222.	Local/Regional	1960/61	1961/62	1962/63Toronto	397	514	500Montreal (Eng.	only)	377	500	550Vancouver	664	637	582Winnipeg	514	575	646Halifax	594	773	8203. Television	1960/61	1961/62	1962/63$	$	$Halifax	1,980,753	59,286	186,497Montreal	1,135,422	768,310	329,036Toronto	1,093,853	1,012,261	1,014,189Winnipeg	492,838	81,615	299,550Vancouver	293,141	160,779	144,1524. Radio	1960/61	1961/62	1962/63$	$	$Halifax	26,409	38,292	246,413Montreal	58,660	45,076	181,939Toronto	94,861	142,750	102,050Winnipeg	25,124	1,173	59,122Vancouver	24,388	20,757	61,3385.	It would not be proper for the corporation to disclose its estimates for capital expenditures prior to these estimates being considered by parliament.


R.C.A.F. STATION, SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I.    LEASE OF PROPERTY FOR SERVICE STATION
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has land been leased on Department of National Defence property R.C.A.F. station, Summerside, to an oil company for a service station and, if so, what is the name of the company?
2.	What is the annual rental or lease fee?
3.	What service, if any, is the R.C.A.F. required to provide by way of fire protection, snow removal, or any other benefits?
4.	Has the company the right to provide gasoline and oils to any but service personnel?
5.	Is the service station required to pay local taxes?
6.	Is it a general practice to have civilian service stations located at military bases in Canada?
Answer: 1. No land has been leased to any oil company, however, pursuant to an agreement between Canadian Petrofina Limited and the commanding officer of the R.C.A.F. station, in his capacity of administrator of non-public funds, Canadian Petrofina Limited

Questions
is building on station lands allocated by the commanding officer, a service station which, upon completion, will be owned and operated by the commanding officer in his aforementioned capacity.
2.	No charge is made to the commanding officer for land.
3.	The following services are provided by the R.C.A.F. station facilities:
(a)	Heat: $1.50 per M lbs. of steam which shall be metered by use of steam flow or condensate return meter. Should natural gas be the source of heat, this rate may be altered at the discretion of air force headquarters;
(b)	Power: To be metered and charged at cost plus 10 per cent;
(c)	Water: To be metered and charged at cost plus 10 per cent;
(d)	Sewer: Recover an amount equal to 75 per cent of the water bill;
(e)	Garbage removal: Flat rate of $5 per month;
(f)	Snow removal: No fixed charge has been computed as costs vary from season to season. A charge will be levied on the basis of cost plus 10 per cent.
4.	The company is not concerned with the direct operation of the retail outlet. The commanding officer, as the service station operator, may sell only to service personnel, members of their households and civilian employees of the Department of National Defence.
5.	The commanding officer is responsible for all rates, taxes, assessments and license fees which may be legally levied or assessed on the installations or improvements to the land or any business carried out thereon.
6.	It is not the general practice to have civilian service stations located on military bases, however, in locations not adequately serviced by existing gasoline outlets, various self-help projects similar to the Summerside arrangement are permitted.


RAILWAY TRACKS, CAMP BORDEN, ONT.
Mr. Madill: 1.	How many miles of government owned (Department of National Defence) railway tracks are there at Camp Borden?
2.	How many men are employed in the maintenance of these tracks?
3.	What is the annual labour cost of the maintenance of these tracks?
4.	Is it proposed to change the system of maintaining these tracks and, if so, how many employees will be displaced?
5.	Will such employees be offered alternative employment of equal rates of pay and, if not, at what rates of pay will these men be offered employment?
6.	If a new system of maintenance is contemplated, what is the estimated additional cost or saving of such a system?
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
Answer: 1. Five and one half miles.
2.	Four.
3.	$14,240.16.
4.	Yes, four.
5.	The track foreman whose present wage scale is $1.90 per hour, will be offered employment as a trades helper at $1.48 per hour. The three trackmen, whose present wage scale is $1.48 per hour, will be offered employment at $1.43 per hour.
6.	A maintenance contract is estimated to save $3,049.16 annually.


* WORLD FAIR
Mr. Fisher: What is the estimated total contribution of the federal government to the world's fair including its share of the cost of the proposed upstream ice dam, the ramps from the Jacques Cartier bridge to the proposed lie Notre Dame, the bridges from lie Notre Dame to St. Helen's island and the proposed bridge from St. Helen's island to point St. Charles?


Mr. Badanai:: The federal government is committed under the statute and the agreement between Quebec and the city of Montreal to provide a maximum of $20 million to the world's fair corporation. The corporation is responsible for providing services on the completed site. The federal government has also agreed to pay on the construction of an ice control structure the amount required in excess of $2J million to be provided by the city. The amount of the excess has not been determined pending the results of engineering studies.
The federal government is not responsible for providing access by the bridges mentioned in the question.
May I add that the federal government will, like many other countries and some provinces, have an exhibit at the world fair, for which it will assume the cost.


WINTER BERTH, HYDROGRAPHIC SHIP &quot;ACADIA&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 965
Mr. MacEwan:: In what port will the Canada hydrographic ship Acadia be berthed during the coming winter?


Mr. Benidickson:: Pictou, Nova Scotia.


E.M.O. LODGING FACILITY CARDS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has EMO designed and ordered a "Canada lodging facility card-dwellings" and a "lodging facility card, commercial and congregate" and, if so, what quantity has been ordered, received, and at what cost?
2.	Is such a card so framed that it enables EMO to determine the religion, language, colour of skin, and occupational class group of a citizen and, if so, what is the need and the future use for each of these categories of information?
3.	Whose duty or responsibility will it be to see that these forms are filled in?
4.	Where will the forms be kept?

5.	Whose responsibility, and how, will the forms be kept up to date?
6.	What is the total estimated administrative cost to the federal government in translating these forms into complete and useful files?
7.	Are duplicate files to be kept at any central location, well protected from destruction during a nuclear attack, in order that the information cannot be irretrievably lost?
8.	What communication systems will this file set-up he geared to in order to relay information and to backcheck on both lodgings and persons who may be destroyed in the nuclear attack?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. The emergency welfare services division of the Department of National Health and Welfare has designed and ordered a "Canada lodging facility carddwelling" and a "lodging facility card, commercial and congregate".
2i million (English and French total) "Canada lodging facility cards-dwellings" have been ordered, costing $11,400.
27,000 "lodging facility cards-commercial and congregate" have been ordered, costing $200.
This material is prepared as an aid to the provinces in carrying out responsibilities which rest with them. The extent to which it is used will depend on the views of the province. Provinces which wish to use the material are responsible for any arrangements with the municipality which are required.
2.	The "Canada lodging facility card- dwellings" provides for the recording of information about the language, health, religion, origin, and occupation of residents of the dwellings concerned.
The information about any one or more than one of these factors may be recorded if, in the opinion of the municipality concerned, the use of the data relating to these factors may help to ensure the success of the long term placement of evacuees in private dwellings in that community in the event of an emergency.
(a)
Location
Camp Hill hospital,	-1-
HALIFAX, N.S.	-1-
Lancaster hospital,		^	
LANCASTER, N.B.	-1-
Ste. Foy hospital,		^ -1-
QUEBEC 10, P.Q.	-1-
Queen Mary	-1-
Veterans hospital,	-1-
MONTREAL, P.Q.	-1- -1-
Questions
3.	The municipal service responsible for emergency lodging within the emergency welfare services is responsible for seeing that these cards are completed.
4.	The cards should be kept in the municipal offices.
5.	The municipal service responsible for emergency lodging within emergency welfare services is responsible for keeping the information on these cards up to date. There are many ways to do this, one being to combine their revision with the assessment review.
6.	It is impossible to determine what municipalities are spending on this work, as the job is ordinarily done by municipal employees as part of their normal workload with assistance from volunteer workers within the emergency lodging service.
7.	These cards are completed only for dwellings and buildings in reception communities, not for those in probable target areas. Therefore no duplicate cards are produced. These cards require the same care as is given to all municipal records.
8.	The use of these cards is confined to the selection of accommodation in reception communities for those evacuees who are without housing due to an emergency.


MEDICAL SPECIALISTS, VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Chalierlon: How many medical specialists 2 are employed in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and of these (a) where are they located (b) what is each of their specialties and (c) how much salary is each of them being paid?
Answer: There are 52 medical specialists 2 employed in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The required data for each such specialist is as follows:
(c)
(b)	Annual
Specialties	Salary
Biochemistry	$ 14,800
Anaesthesia	14,200
Surgery	16,900
Radiology	13,800
Pathology & bacteriology	14,800
Anaesthesia	14,200
Psychiatry	14,200
Pathology	14,200
Surgery	14,200
Psychiatry	16,900
Radiology	17,400
Radiology	15,800
Bacteriology	16,900
Pathology	14,800
Questions

(a) Location Ste. Anne's hospital,	
Ste. Anne de		1	
Bellevue, P.Q.	-1-
Sunnybrook hospital,	-1-
TORONTO, Ontario. Westminster hospital,	4 -1- -1-
LONDON, Ontario.		1	

Deer Lodge hospital,		1	
WINNIPEG, Manitoba.	- 1 -
Colonel Belcher		1	
hospital,		1	
CALGARY, Alberta.	- 1 -
University of Alberta hospital, EDMONTON, Alberta.	- 1 -
Shaughnessy hospital,		1	
VANCOUVER, B.C.		1	
-1- -1- -1-
(b)	(c) Annual
Specialties	Salary
Pathology	14,800
Internal medicine	14,800
Psychiatry	15,300
Radiology	16,900
Radiology	14,200
Bacteriology	14,800
Biochemistry & internal medicine	14,200
Anaesthesia	16,900
Anaesthesia	14,800
Internal medicine	14,200
Surgery	15,300
Physical medicine	14,800
Radiology	14,800
Radiology	14,200
Anaesthesia	15,300
Psychiatry	15,300
Psychiatry	14,800
Radiology	15,800
Pathology	14,800
Anaesthesia	15,800
Psychiatry	14,200
Pathology & bacteriology	15,300
Anaesthesia	15,300
Surgery	15,800
Internal medicine	15,800
Internal medicine	14,200
Radiology	14,800
Pathology	16,000
Bacteriology	15,300
Anaesthesia	15,800
Anaesthesia	14,800
Surgery	15,800
Internal medicine	14,200
Psychiatry	14,800
Physical medicine	14,800


AUXILIARY AIR FIELDS, NORTH BAY AND EARLTON, ONT.
Mr. Peters: 1.	What plans Is the government making for the immediate use or disposal of the former auxiliary fields to the air bases at North Bay and Earlton, Ontario?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to dispose of these auxiliary fields and, if not, does the government intend to maintain the cleared landing field and control the weeds of these fields?
3.	If it is the intention of the government to dispose of these fields, will they be disposed of by public tender?
Answer: 1. No plans are being made lor the use of the former auxiliary fields to the air bases at North Bay and Earlton.

2.	It is the intention of the government to dispose of these auxiliary fields and they are no longer maintained as aerodromes.
3.	Land provided by the province of Ontario for aerodrome purposes is being returned to the province. Land purchased for aerodrome purposes is being disposed of by public tender.


SILVER BOUGHT BY MINT
Mr. Peters: 1.	What was the total tonnage of silver concentrate exported to the United States last year?
2.	What was the cost of silver imported into Canada for coinage purposes by the Royal Canadian Mint?

3.	What was the price paid per ounce by the Canadian Mint for American silver?
4.	What was the price paid for silver produced in Canada and shipped to the Royal Canadian Mint?
5.	What assistance, if any, has been given by the federal government to aid in the production of silver in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The tonnage of silver concentrate exported to the United States in 1962 was 935 tons, which contained 2,803,300 troy ounces of silver. In addition, impure silver bullion containing 668,111 troy ounces of silver and weighing about 25 tons was exported to the United States.
The total amount of unrefined silver exported in 1962 to the United States in all concentrates, including those of lead, copper and zinc as well as of silver, was 6,751,273 troy ounces.
2.	$12,985,072.82.
3.	$1.164364 (average price).
4.	$1.154839.
5.	Silver mine producers, in common with other mine producers, are eligible for certain allowances in computing income tax. These include a 3 year tax exempt period for new mines, deferred write-off of preproduction expenses and an allowance for depletion of the ore body.
As was announced on February 1 in the House of Commons, the Royal Canadian Mint reached an agreement with Cobalt Refinery Limited to deliver from 2 to 6 million ounces of silver per year for five years, effective April 1, 1963, at competitive prices to be determined by negotiation every year the agreement is in force. This long term purchase contract provides encouragement for the production of silver in the Cobalt-Gowganda area of Ontario.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Lalulippe: What are the projects included in the public works estimate of $4,800.00 for the constituency of Compton-Frontenac, where, and by whom will these work projects be carried out, and what are the amounts in each case?


Hubert Badanai: Coolshire: Painting the inside of the post office. Tenders will be called in October.
Lac Megantic: Painting the inside of the post office. Contract awarded to Mr. Claude Beaudoin, $600.
Sawyerville: Paving, post office. Contract awarded to Sabie & Sons, paving contractors, $250.
Scotstown: Painting the outside of the post office. Contract awarded to Mr. Ronald Stoakes, Bury, $567.
Questions
Scotstown: Repairs to brickwork, post office. Contract awarded to Mr. J. D. Poirier, $1,467.88.


CONSTRUCTION OF GRAIN STORAGE ELEVATORS, BRIDGEWATER, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is it the intention of the government to construct grain storage elevators at Bridgewater, Lunenburg county, N.S.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


PENSION INCREASES UNDER ADJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons (retired civil servants or widows, children or orphans thereof) are receiving increases in their pensions under the provisions of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act?
2.	What is the average amount of the increases being received by (a) retired civil servants (b) widows (c) children and (d) orphans?
3.	How many of such increases are (a) less than
$6 per month (b) more than $6 but less than $10 per	month	(c)	more	than	$10	but	less	than	$20per	month	(d)	more	than	$20	but	less	than	$30per	month	(e)	more	than	$30	but	less	than	$40per	month	(f)	more	than	$40	but	less	than	$50per	month	and	(g) $50 a month or	more?4.	Of those now receiving such increases, in how many cases do the increases bring the total pension being received to (a) $50 per month or less (b) $50.01 to $100 per month (c) $100.01 to $150 per month (d) $150.01 to $200 per month (e) $200.01 to $250 per month and (f) more than $250 per month?
5. How many persons whose pensions (a) as retired employees, are $250 a month or less (b) as widows, are $125 a month or less (c) as children of employees, are $25 a month or less and (d) as orphans, are $50 a month or less; are receiving no increases in their pensions under the provisions of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act?
6.	Are there any persons whose pensions (a) as retired employees, are $250 per month or more (b) as widows, are $125 per month or more (c) as children, are $25 per month or more (d) as orphans, are $50 per month or more; who are receiving increases in their pensions under the provisions of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act and, if so, how many in each category?
7.	Is consideration being given to amending the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act to provide a higher scale of increases and other improvements?
Answer: 1. 10,534.
2.	(a) $18.14; (b) $10.30; (c) $.92; (d) $.57 per month.
3.	(a) 2,401; (b) 2,070; (c) 3,659; (d) 1,586;
(e)	568; (f) 168; (g) 82.
4.	(a) 3,624; (b) 3,930; (c) 2,120; (d) 558; (e) 302; (f) 0.
5.	(a) 17,621; (b) 6,078; (c) 2,156; (d) 334.
6.	(a) none; (b) none; (e) none; (d) none.
7.	The government, after carefully considering this question, has advised representatives of retired civil servants that it will not recommend amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act at this time.

Questions


* TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AIRCRAFT CF-OTX
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Of what type is the Department of Transport aircraft bearing markings CF-OTX?
2.	On what date, and from whom, was it purchased?
3.	What was its total cost?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1, 2, 3-The department does not own or operate an aircraft bearing markings CF-OTX. It is assumed that this question concerns the Lockheed Jet Star CF-DTX purchased from the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Marietta Division, and accepted for delivery on January 29, 1962. The total cost of that aircraft was $1,136,000.

^PERMITS FOR EXPORTS TO RED CHINA


Mr. Maiher: 1.	Within recent weeks has the government received appeals from the Gain Import Company of Vancouver concerning alleged U.S. blocking of Canadian auto part exports to mainland China?
2.	Have a number of export permits issued by the government not been used because of U.S. controlled companies in Canada declining to supply goods to which export permits have been granted by the government?
3.	If so, what action does the government contemplate in respect to freeing Canadian manufactured goods which have been approved by the government for export?


Mr. Pepin:: 1. Yes.
2.	Permits expire unless used within their period of issued validity, normally six months. It is assumed that an applicant for a permit has goods to export. The department does not inquire into the reasons why permits are not used.
3.	See No. 2.


*T.C.A.-USE OF TERM &quot;AIR CANADA&quot;
Mr. Marcoux: Does the Minister of Transport intend to take action against Trans-Canada Air Lines for the irregular use of the term "Air Canada" on its timetables, tickets and posters?
iTranslation1


Jean-Charles Cantin: The use of the term "Air Canada" by the "Trans-Canada Airlines" is not irregular.


WEIGHTS OF COMMODITIES FOR RETAIL SALE
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering legislation or regulations establishing reasonable weights or quantities or fractions or multiples thereof, in which that commodity shall be distributed for retail sale?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None beyond that now in effect.


COMMODITY PACKAGES FOR RETAIL SALE
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering legislation or regulations preventing the distribution of that commodity for retail sale in packages of sizes, shapes or dimensional proportions which may deceive retail purchasers as to the net quantity of the contents thereof (in terms of weight, measure or count)?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None beyond that now in effect.


DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF PACKAGES FOR RETAIL SALE
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering legislation or regulations establishing and defining standards of designations of size (other than statements of net quantity of contents) which may be used to characterize quantitatively the contents of packages containing that commodity?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None beyond that now in effect.


INGREDIENTS AND COMPOSITION OF CONTENTS OF RETAIL PACKAGES
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering legislation or regulations establishing and defining standards for the quantitative designation of the contents of packages containing any consumer commodity of a kind the net quantity of contents of which cannot meaningfully be designated in terms of weight, measure or count; and requiring (consistent with requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act, as amended) that sufficient information with respect to the ingredients and composition of any consumer commodity (other than information concerning proprietary trade secrets) be placed in a prominent position upon packages containing that commodity and upon labels affixed thereto?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None beyond that now in effect.


LANDING STRIPS, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Is the Department of Transport considering the establishment of emergency landing strips for any of the following communities in the Northwest Territories (a) Lac la Martre (b) Fort Rae (c) Fort Liard (d) South Nahanni (e) Fort Wrigley (f) Fort Norman (g) Fort Good Hope (h) Snowdrift (i) Arctic Red River (j) Fort McPherson (k) Coppermine (1) Spence Bay (m) Gjoa Haven (n) Arctic Bay (o) Pond Inlet (p) Pangnirtung (q) Cape Dorset (r) Chesterfield Inlet (s) Bathurst Inlet (t) Colville Lake, (u) Fort Franklin?
2.	To what extent does the Department of Transport co-ordinate its plans for emergency airport construction with such other programs as the winter works projects planned by the department of northern affairs in the N.W.T.?
3.	What new airports or extension to existing airports are planned for the 1963-64 fiscal year in the N.W.T.?
Answer: 1. No.
2. The department does not normally provide airports other than those required for

use by scheduled and regular air line passenger service, although it makes grants in aid for construction of airstrips necessary to serve remote areas where there is a local authority to undertake the construction and operation of the strip. Any airport construction undertaken by the department in the Northwest Territories is the subject of close co-ordination with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
3.	While no new airports are planned for construction by the department in the Northwest Territories for the fiscal year 1963-64, the following extensions to existing airports are planned to proceed this year: (a) Banks island-extend existing landing strip, (b) Cambridge bay-install approach lighting for two runway approaches, (c) Inuvik-install approach lighting for two runway approaches.


MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: How many medium security institutions have been established by the federal and provincial governments since 1956, as recommended by the Fauteux report, and how many inmates are there in these institutions?


Mr. Chevrier:: Two new medium security institutions have been built by the federal government since 1956 and two institutions that were operated as maximum security institutions are now operated under conditions of medium security. These institutions are kept as filled as is practical to their capacities of 1,850 inmates.
The federal government has no statistics of the security classifications of the provincial institutions.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    TOLLS THROUGH NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Leboe: 1.	Are fees charged at entrances to national parks through which the trans-Canada highway passes and, if so (a) are such fees intended to cover (i) the use of the highway (ii) the use of other park facilities (b) are travellers, who follow the trans-Canada highway and who do not stop in the national parks, compelled to pay the same fee as those who use the park facilities and (c) under what authority are commercial and other travellers charged fees for passage on the trans-Canada highway through national parks?
2.	Where no comparable alternative roads exist, is the government giving consideration to the waiving of fees for travellers not using park facilities?
Answer: 1. (a) A park automobile licence has been required on vehicles used in parks in western Canada since 1928. The fee is intended to offset in part the cost of park facilities, including highways, picnic areas, and semi-serviced campgrounds provided for the motoring public.
(b) All private cars used in these parks are required to carry a park licence.
Questions
(c)	National parks highway traffic regulations.
2. No, since highways in the parks are themselves the most expensive of park facilities.


FILMS FOR C.B.C.
Mr. Thompson: 1.	How many half hour, and how many one hour, programs did the C.B.C. itself produce on film last year?
2.	How many half hour, and how many one hour, programs did the C.B.C. contract out to the national film board?
3.	How many half hour, and how many one hour, programs did the C.B.C. contract out to private Canadian film producers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the
Canadian	Broadcasting	Corporation	thatthe fiscal	year ending	March 31,	1963answers are as follows:	Half hour	One hour	1.	137	15	2.	68	1	3.	196	16


* HOMES FOR OLD AGE SECURITY RECIPIENTS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Do any agreements exist between the federal and any provincial government with respect to shelter and/or care and board provided for old age security recipients by (a) provincial, municipal or county homes for the aged (b) private nursing homes and (c) private homes for the aged?
2.	Does the federal government maintain statistics on the number and location of old age security recipients in homes for the aged and, if so (a) how many are in governmental institutions and (b) what is the breakdown by provinces?
3.	Are there any joint federal-provincial arrangements with regard to the care in homes of old age security pensioners and, if so (a) what is the nature of such agreements and (b) how many provinces have entered into such agreements?
4.	By virtue of caring for old age security recipients, do any homes or welfare institutions receive, either directly or indirectly, financial aid from the federal government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act and agreements, the federal government reimburses the provinces and their municipalities for 50 per cent of the costs of maintaining needy persons, including old age security recipients, in homes for special care which include homes for the aged, charitable institutions and proprietary nursing homes. The payments are based on costs of operation or on rates which are set or agreed to by the provinces and their municipalities.
2.	Statistics on living arrangements of old age security recipients are not maintained.
3.	(a) Yes. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act, the federal government reimburses the provinces and their municipalities for 50 per cent of supplementary assistance payments to recipients of old age security

Questions
living in their own homes. In order to be shareable, the payments must be based on a test of need which takes into account the recipient's requirements for items such as food, shelter, clothing, household incidentals and personal care, as well as his financial resources.
3.	(b) All provinces have entered into agreements under the Unemployment Assistance Act.
4.	See answer 1.
s.s. "tritonica"


Mr. Orlikow: Has the government any information concerning the vessel Tritonica, recently involved in a collision on the St. Lawrence river and, if so (a) at the time of the collision, where was the vessel registered (b) was the vessel owned, directly or indirectly, by a Canadian steamship company (c) what was the nationality of the vessel's crew, and to what union, if any, did they belong (d) did the vessel operate between Havre St. Pierre and Sorel, Quebec, and (e) was the vessel ever picketed by the S.I.U.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; (a) Hamilton, Bermuda; (b) no; (c) the crew was of mixed nationality, consisting of British subjects, Chinese and Burmese; it would appear that the seamen did not belong to a trade union organizing in Canada; (d) yes; (e) no.


PROCEDURE RESPECTING GRANTING OF PARDONS
Mr. Orlikow: Has consideration been given to the Fauteux report's recommendations with respect to (a) the establishment of a procedure for the granting of pardons, with or without condition, on a more liberal scale (b) ensuring more frequent resort to the Criminal Code provisions authorizing the governor general in council to grant pardon rather than to grant them under the royal prerogative of mercy (c) devising some means by which unjustified inequalities in the length of sentences of imprisonment, especially in the case of cooffenders, can be remedied, and (d) the granting of a free pardon, whether or not one is sought in all cases where the innocence of a convicted person is established?


Lionel Chevrier: (a) The recommendation has been under consideration for some time.
(b)	Under consideration together with (a).
(c)	No.
(d)	There is no information that such a situation has ever arisen.


PRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC POWER BY THERMAL UNITS
Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-: Revelstoke):
1.	What information does the government have regarding the development of high temperature thermal units for the production of electrical power; units using coal, oil or natural gas as fuel?
2.	Has the government any information concerning the price per kilowatt hour of power produced by these latest units in the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.?
[Miss LaMarsh.j


William Moore Benidickson: 1. All thermal power units installed in electric utility plants in Canada since the last war are of the high pressure-high temperature type though many operate for peak power only. Summarized information, including statistical data, may be obtained from the current issue of the Canada Year Book. Detailed information on plants can be obtained from the provincial power commissions.
2. A large U.S. modern generating unit with favourable fuel costs on base load can produce electric power from 3 to 4 mills per kwh exclusive of fixed charges and administrative expenses.
Estimated, average total cost of electric power produced by a Soviet regional power station is 8 to 9 mills per kwh.


INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FROM INCREASED EXCISE TAX
Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-: Revelstoke):
1.	Has the government assessed the probable increase in the present estimated construction costs of the Columbia river treaty projects as a consequence of the imposition of an 11 per cent excise tax on building materials and production machinery and, if so, what is the amount of this increase?
2.	Has the government estimated the cumulative increase on loans for construction which may be amortized over 20, 30 or 40 years at an interest rate of 4 per cent and, if so, what is the cumulative increase for each period?
Answer: 1. No.
2. No.


R.C.M.P. PICTURES USED IN U.S. BEER ADVERTISING
Mr. Howard: Is the government aware that life sized (or larger) bill board style pictures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are being used in the state of Michigan to advertise Drewry's beers and ales, and if so, has any representation been made to the appropriate U.S. authorities about the propriety of such an advertising association?


Lionel Chevrier: The government has been aware for a number of years that Drewry's Limited U.S.A., have been using life sized pictorial representations of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for advertising purposes.
On May 10, 1948, a similar question was asked in the House of Commons and the minister of justice, in reply, stated that no permission was given to advertisements of this nature. The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has, on several occasions, brought to the attention of Drewry's Limited U.S.A., the fact that this form of advertising would not be permitted in Canada as it is contrary to the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

These efforts to have Drewry's Limited U.S.A., discontinue this type of advertising have been to no avail.


CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOONER &quot;BLUENOSE II&quot;
Mr. Crouse: Was the construction of Bluenose II, recently launched at Lunenburg, subsidized by the federal government and if so, (a) what is the total amount of subsidy to be paid to the owners (b) what is the estimated total cost of the ship, and (c) what percentage of total cost was used when computing the subsidy?
Answer: A construction subsidy toward the cost of Bluenose II was authorized by the federal government on January 10, 1963, but no claim for subsidy has yet been presented nor has payment of subsidy been made.
(a)	Under the regulations the subsidy is paid to the shipbuilder and not to the owners; the total amount of subsidy authorized is $103,880.
(b)	The estimated cost of the ship, as set out in the joint application for subsidy, is $259,700.
(c)	The authorization stipulates an approved cost for subsidy purposes of $259,700 and the regulations provide for the use of 100 per cent of that sum as the basis for computing the subsidy.


CANADIAN WORKERS IN NEW ENGLAND STATES
Mr. Dionne: 1.	Does the government have statistics concerning Canadian workers employed in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont each year from 1955 to 1963?
2.	Have agreements been entered into between Canadian and American authorities with respect to the payment of U.I.C. benefits to Canadian workers employed in the states of New York and Vermont and, if so, what is the nature of such agreements?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Information regarding the number of Canadian workers employed in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont for the years 1955 to 1963 is not available in so far as the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission are concerned.
2. Yes. These agreements provide that a person who has acquired a right to benefit in Canada, who moves to either the state of New York or Vermont and who becomes unemployed while residing there, may make a claim against Canada by visiting the local unemployement compensation office, of the state, nearest to his residence and completing an application for benefit. That office sends the application to Canada, where eligibility is determined.
The claimant reports to the state office each week and makes a declaration as to his being unemployed the previous week. This
Questions
declaration is forwarded by the state office to Canada, which then makes payment direct to the claimant.
Conversely, a person who has acquired a right to benefit in either New York or Vermont, who moves to Canada and who becomes unemployed while residing there may make a claim, against the state concerned, by visiting the nearest local office of the unemployment insurance commission in Canada and completing an application for benefit. The unemployment insurance commission office forwards the application to the state concerned, where eligibility is determined.
The claimant reports to the unemployment insurance commission office each week and makes a declaration as to his being unemployed the previous week. This declaration is sent by the unemployment insurance commission office to the state concerned, which then makes payment direct to the claimant.
In summary, Canada acts as agent in taking claims for New York or Vermont for persons residing in Canada who have acquired benefit rights in either of these two states. On the other hand, these two states act as Canada's agent in taking claims for persons residing in those states and who have acquired benefit rights in Canada.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, KAMOURASKA-L'lSLET COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: What was the cost of federal public works in the county of Kamouraska-L'Islet from 1955 to 1963
(a)	for the maintenance and repairs to wharves
(b)	for the construction and repairs to post offices?
Answer: (a) $146,118.52; (b) $20,119.97.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS, TIMISKAMING RIDING
Mr. Peters: Has the industrial development bank made any loans to entrepreneurs in the riding of Timiskaming during the years 1959 to 1963 and, if so (a) how many requested loans in each year (b) how many were completed for each year, giving name and amount in each case, and (c) how many of these loans are now in default, and what are the names of the companies involved in each case?
Answer: The information requested is not available. Loan approvals are classified by provinces on pages 16 and 17 of the last annual report of the industrial development bank and by types of businesses on pages 18 and 19 of that report.


RURAL MAIL CONTRACT, SIEGAS, N.B.
Mr. Bell: 1.	Has a rural mail contract been awarded, renewed, or extended to Mr. Abel Thibodeau, R.R.l, Siegas, N.B., and, if so, were public tenders called?
2.	Did the Postmaster General personally approve of this contract and, if so, under what authority?

Questions
3.	Was there any increase in the existing rate of $3,095.85?
4.	What was the date of approval?
5.	Were complaints received concerning the service of said mail carrier during any previous contracts?
6.	What is the present policy regarding tendering for mail carrier contracts above $1,000?
7.	Has there been any recent change in this system?


Mr. Denis:: 1. Present contract with Mr. Thibodeau for Siegas R.R.l expires 30th September 1963 and it was our intention to renew the contract under authority of the Post Office Act, Section 31 (1). However, the contractor has asked for an increase in rate but negotiations with the contractor have not yet been completed.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	See No. 1.
4.	See No. 1.
5.	No service complaints.
6.	Tenders must be called for a new contract, but an expiring contract may be renewed with the same contractor.
7.	No.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND MEETING
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Will Canada be sending a delegate to the meeting of the international monetary fund in September and, if so, who will be the delegate?
2.	Will matters relating to international trade and settlements be discussed at this meeting?
3.	Will Canada have any specific plan or policy to submit on this question?
4.	Does Canada have any official policy on international monetary arrangements (e.g., a preference for a flat money system rather than the use of gold for international settlements) ?
5.	Will the House of Commons have an opportunity to discuss any arrangements that will be made before they become binding on this country?
Answer: 1. The Minister of Finance, Hon. Walter L. Gordon, is the governor for Canada of the international monetary fund and will be attending.
2.	Yes.
3.	Any announcement of government policy will be made in due course.
4.	Canadian policies in these fields are represented in the management of government affairs including foreign exchange reserves and in the objects and operations of the international organization such as the international monetary fund of which Canada is a member.
5.	Yes.


USE OF AIRPORT RUNWAYS, BOUNDARY BAY, B.C.
Mr. Mather: Are runways at the disused Boundary Bay, B.C. airport being used from time to time for go-cart racing?

Answer: No, go-cart racing has never been permitted on the runways at the Vancouver wireless station, Boundary Bay, B.C. However, five dependant children, ages 12 to 15 years, living on the station have purchased or constructed go-carts and have been permitted the use of a disused section of the runways


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	From May 16 to August 1, 1963, what has been the net change in the balance of the unemployment insurance fund, not including government subsidies and reimbursements of them?
2.	From May 16 to August 1, 1963, in what amount was the unemployment insurance fund subsidized by government loans?
3.	As of August 1, in what amount has the government been reimbursed for the above loans?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Not available.
2.	$5 million.
3.	$33 million.


CONTRACT WITH BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is treasury board aware of any employment by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery of the services of any business consultants during the years 1961 and 1962 and, if so (a) what was the name of the business consultant firm (b) when was the contract authorized, and by whom, and (c) what was the contract price?
2.	If the employment was terminated (a) by whose authority (b) for what reason and (c) what was the final price paid?
Answer: (a) P. A. Management Consultants Ltd. (b) October 5, 1961, by treasury board, (c) $111,600 (estimated), plus travelling and subsistence when consultants are engaged on the department's business away from the office or plant to which they are assigned, based on a fee of $900 per week per consultant, plus travelling and subsistence.
2. The treasury board has received no submission from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery concerning the termination of the contract.



SUPPLY OF &quot;HANSARD&quot; TO NEWS DISTRIBUTING MEDIA

Mr. Smith: 1.	Are copies of Hansard supplied to all daily and weekly newspapers in Canada and, if so, upon what terms?
2.	Is Hansard supplied to radio and television stations maintaining their own news and/or editorial staffs upon the same basis as newspapers?


Mr. Drury:: In so far as the Department of Public Printing and Stationery is concerned-
1. Copies of Hansard are sent to those daily and weekly newspapers in Canada who supply a copy of their paper to the reading room of the House of Commons. The necessary

copies distributed by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery are supplied by the House of Commons.
2. Hansard is not supplied free to radio and television stations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lalulippe: 1. Have one or several applications from the town of East Angus in the constituency of Compton-Frontenae. been received for federal assistance in winter works projects and, if so, (a) for what projects, and what are the respective amounts granted in each case (b) has the federal government received claims from the provincial auditor for payment of the federal share?
2. Have one or several applications from the town of Cookshire in the constituency of Compton-Frontenae been received for federal assistance in winter works projects and, if so (a) for what projects, and what are the respective amounts granted in each case (b) has the federal government received claims from the provincial auditor for payment of the federal share?
3.	Have one or several applications from other municipalities in the constituency of Compton-Frontenae been received and, if so (a) what municipalities (b) what were the works projects in each (c) what sums were granted in each case (d) were claims made by the provincial auditor for each of these cases?
Return tabled.


EXPENDITURES ON CAMP SITES AND PICNIC GROUNDS
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	What is the total amount spent by the federal government on camp sites and picnic grounds under all programs in the fiscal years 1957-58 to 1962-63 and, of this, what amount was spent in each province?
2.	What is the estimated number of camp grounds and picnic sites, by provinces, that have resulted from (a) the trans-Canada program and (b) the winter works camp ground and picnic site program?
3.	Is there any estimate, by provinces, of camp ground spaces that their program provided and, if so, what is the number by provinces?
Return tabled.


TOURIST PROMOTION EXPENDITURES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the total dollar value of the tourist industry to the Canadian economy in 1962?
2.	What was the total grant made by the government of Canada to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 1962?
3.	What role does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation play in encouraging the tourist industry through (a) its television facilities (b) its radio facilities and (c) its overseas transmissions?
4.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have any plans to expand its tourist promotion activities?
Return tabled.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-THREATENED STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious consequences to the movement of grain through the St. Lawrence ports, what action is the government contemplating to abort the threatened walkout of longshoremen at Three Rivers, Quebec and Montreal on Friday? What is the general plan, and what is being done in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the strike vote was taken yesterday among the longshoremen following a recommendation from a committee within their organization which had previously decided to reject the unanimous report of the conciliation board that had dealt with this dispute. Within the law a legal strike cannot occur until Friday of this week. In the meantime the Department of Labour is keeping in touch with the situation, and every possible consideration is presently being given to what constructive role the department, or a representative named by the department, might take in resolving the difficulty before the expiry of the strike notice.


John George Diefenbaker: As a supplementary question, is this threatened strike in any way attributable to the close relationship which existed in the past between Hal Banks of the S.I.U. and the international longshoremen's association?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the outcome at the present time is the direct result of a long senes of steps taken since the beginning of this year to reach a work contract between the Shipping Federation of Canada and the longshoremen's union. That is, of course, a sequence of events with which I think we are all familiar. I do not comment, nor do I have any knowledge which would allow me to comment, on any association between this particular decision and Mr. Banks.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: As a supplementary question, in the event that no solution is possible between the two parties to this dispute, is the minister contemplating or planning putting in a mediator in order to bring about a settlement prior to a strike?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer to the Leader of the Opposition indicated that this is one of the possible lines of action that might be taken by the department.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I apologize for not giving him notice of my question.
Is the government contemplating action to protect Canadian seamen in danger of losing their jobs to American seamen, because of the dispute between the various seamen's unions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this particular aspect of the problem, namely that there is some threat to Canadian jobs from United States seamen. I have no information on that point. I would be glad to receive any, however.



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will he make a statement regarding the negotiations or discussions that he has had with the secretary of labour of the United States? Furthermore, on the basis of discussions either with Mr. Wirtz or with labour union leaders has any settlement been arrived at with respect to the situation on the great lakes? It is very important that we have this information to know whether the government intends to proceed at once to take action to ratify certain suggestions of the Norris commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity provided by the Leader of the Opposition to say a word or two about this very important matter. The intention of the government at the present time is to proceed with the legislation setting up the trusteeship and I think that the resolution preliminary to the bill itself will appear on the notice paper tomorrow.
When I announced the decision of the government with respect to the public trusteeship I stated that the interval would provide an opportunity to search for a possible alternative method for a private settlement undertaken by the labour centres in Canada and the United States. We have used this interval to hold discussions directed toward that objective. On the week end we held a meeting

in Boston with the secretary of labour of the United States and representatives of both the United States trade union movement and the Canadian trade union movement. From that meeting no solid foundation developed to lead us to believe that we can obviate the necessity of proceeding with this legislation.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think I should tell the house in all fairness that I have some faint hope that if we get a break in the next short time we may be in a different position in several days, but at the moment the decision is to proceed at the earliest possible opportunity, having given the necessary notice, with the trusteeship legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister and ask him to tell the house what he meant by those words, "if we get a break"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in these discussions there have been certain lines of possibility opened up on the week end, and if those lines lead to a fortunate consideration or decision there may be an alternative present itself. However, at the moment, I cannot give any assurance nor would I wish to mislead the house on that point. It was for this reason I wanted to indicate that possibility.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question? Would this possibility have the same desired effect as the recommendation of Mr. Justice Norris?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my statement on
August 1, I indicated that any substitute action would necessarily have to be effective action. When I use the word "effective" I mean that it would have the effect of restoring peace on the great lakes and on the waterfront, and provide for clean and democratic unionism.


Michael Starr: What I was referring to in particular was the recommendation of Mr. Norris concerning the disposal of Mr. Banks as head of the union. Will this alternative now being contemplated have the same desired effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be prudent for me to go beyond the statement of these two particular objectives.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement he made on television last night will the

measure to provide for a contributory pension plan be proceeded with in this session, or will he wait until he has final approval from the province of Ontario before making further progress with the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the procedure with regard to this matter will be determined by developments and decisions that will be taken by the provinces concerned, including the province of Ontario. I cannot make any further statement at this time on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister say whether the government will ask the house today to proceed with the other legislation raising old age pensions by $10 a month?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We shall get to that in a few minutes.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare visualizes, as a possible result of a large state controlled pension fund such as that envisaged by Mr. Lesage of Quebec, a degree of government control tantamount to that under national socialism in Germany, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether her statement in this regard represents the official government view?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government's view will be made known in due course, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very poor
answer.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the house whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare was speaking on behalf of the government when she stated, as reported by the Globe and Mail, that the Quebec government's pension plan is along nazi lines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no knowledge that the minister made any such statement; therefore the question cannot be the subject of a reply.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to put a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister intend to advise the Minister of Justice to dispatch a R.C.M.P. squad in the province of Quebec to check the rise of nazism?
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Text!
ILateril


Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare having to do with the Canada pension plan. I should like to know whether any effort is being made by herself, or by the government, or both, to try to bring Mr. Lesage into the plan in order that it may be truly a Canadian pension plan. I am sure the hon. lady would agree that the participation of Quebec in this plan is just as important as the participation of Ontario.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the hon. member knows that two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have been asked to nominate members to attend technical committees to discuss this question of pensions.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. During the past few weeks an apparent reversal of policy has been reported in the press regarding the extension of the K.C.A.F. base at Penhold into a jet aircraft training base. Because this is causing a good deal of concern and confusion throughout central Alberta I would ask the minister whether it is correct that his department does not intend to carry through with plans which are completed even to the extent of having received tenders for construction work and, if not, what are his reasons for reversing the decision of his department?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Royal Canadian Air Force had planned to use the R.C.A.F. station Penhold for jet training. In order to accomplish this there were certain things that had to be undertaken. These included the acquisition of additional land, the extension of the runways and the determination of whether there was sufficient available air space to make jet training feasible. Some additional land was in the process of being acquired and tenders were called for the extension of the runways, but in the course of the negotiations with the Department of Transport with respect to the use of available air space it became obvious that sufficient air space could not be made available to make jet training at Penhold feasible. It was this fact that determined beyond peradventure

Inquiries of the Ministry that the department had no course open to it other than abandoning jet training at R.C.A.F. Penhold.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the remarks of the Minister of National Defence I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. This being the case, how can he explain the position of the Department of Transport regarding the conflict with normal air lane traffic having left it to this very late date when preparations had been made, as has been stated, by the Department of National Defence, and when it was a foregone conclusion that the development would be proceeded with forthwith?


Jean-Charles Cantin: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and bring it to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Woolliams:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not at all sure that the last question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer was in order. It seems to me he was advancing an opinion rather than asking a question. If that is true, I do not think a supplementary question can be asked. If the hon. member has a direct question to put, he may put it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My
question is supplementary to the one that was in order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it not a fact that the minister reversed the position that he took about three weeks ago in reference to this matter because of a conflict with his colleague the Minister of Transport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the facts were before me the decision was obvious.


An hon. Member:: So you made the first decision without having the facts.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of the views expressed today with regard to the Penhold site, could the hon. gentleman tell us if Saskatoon is being considered as a possible location for the R.C.A.F. jet training base?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The R.C.A.F. is looking at a number of sites in western Canada for its jet training. A number of other stations where this training could take place are


presently available and no decision has yet been reached. As soon as a decision has been made we shall announce it.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Is one
of those other sites the R.C.A.F. station at Macdonald?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it is being considered, but I am sure it will not be overlooked.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Tisdale-Melfort.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Tisdale-Mel-fort):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the question I intended to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce pertaining to Churchill has already been asked by the hon. member for Churchill.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether it is the intention of the government to lay before parliament for approval the agreement recently signed by the Canadian and United States governments regarding the conditions under which nuclear warheads would be made available to Canadian forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. The answer is in the negative. The agreement to which my hon. friend refers is not a treaty or heads of state agreement, which would require ratification and the customary prior approval of the House of Commons. It is an executive agreement, an exchange of notes between governments. The customary and appropriate constitutional procedures have been followed in respect of this matter, which has already been discussed in the House of Commons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the changed circumstances brought about by the nuclear test ban agreement, does the Prime Minister not think this is a matter which ought to be submitted for the opinion of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the nuclear test ban agreement, which we all welcome, changed the situation in respect of this particular matter in a way which requires the government to alter the normal constitutional procedures with regard to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister be prepared to table that agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I announced at the time the agreement was signed, there were military-details in this exchange of notes which, in accordance with NATO practice and considerations of military security, could not be made public, as I am sure my right hon. friend will appreciate.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not possible to produce excerpts from the agreement other than the actual sections which come within military security? Surely the Canadian people have a right to know something of the subterranean operations that have gone on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the press statement was issued all the information which it was possible to give was given, and the procedure which was followed was that which I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman would have followed in similar circumstances if he had brought to a conclusion the draft agreement which he was considering at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I still ask the right hon. gentleman whether this cannot be done. There was a tremendous reversal of opinion on his part in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Will he not consider
tabling the sections of the agreement which do not contravene security? That is the simple question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman of course knows, because he has followed the procedure himself in the past, that in an exchange of notes of this kind dealing with military matters, to take out of an agreement two or three paragraphs and make them public would not only be a breach of security but would be a quite improper constitutional procedure.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Nobel prize answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Quite improper politically, possibly.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the federal government received official or unofficial protests from the Quebec government concerning the acquisition of nuclear arms by Canada, and
Inquiries of the Ministry their storage at La Macaza, in the province of Quebec? If so, what has been the reply of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge no such protests have been received.



BOBCAT PERSONNEL CARRIERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Cenire):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask him if the production of the armoured personnel carrier called the Bobcat has been discontinued?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National
Defence): No, it has not, Mr. Speaker. Production of the prototype model is still continuing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it the intention to continue production or has the minister given instructions to discontinue it after the present program has been completed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There have been no instructions, Mr. Speaker. There are 20 prototypes being produced. They have not yet been accepted as technically acceptable to the armed forces. If there is any further word on that, it will be announced.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the house leader in his capacity as Secretary of State. I refer to a press article of this morning from which it would appear that the char staff on parliament hill have been subject to the collection of what is alleged to be an overpayment during the summer, which has led to their receiving very, very small pay cheques. Has the matter been brought to the attention of the minister and is any action contemplated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that strictly this question comes within my constitutional purview, but since Your Honour cannot answer the question I can assure the house that it will be taken into immediate consideration and that any redress that can be made will be made as quickly as possible.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister a question concerning the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg. My question will not take him by surprise because he has received a telegram from E. A. Smith, the chairman of the special committee on this subject.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to announce his decision concerning this base, in order to honour the commitment he made during the election campaign and when he met with the Manitoba delegation on June 18.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will undoubtedly honour the commitments I have made on this matter, which have been misrepresented in so many quarters. The decision of the government in this matter will be made known as soon as it has been able to give consideration to all the factors involved, including the report in question, which is only one factor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. The Winnipeg Tribune of Thursday, September 26, quotes Mr. Molgat, the provincial leader in Manitoba, as saying concerning this overhaul and maintenance base-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -that he had no assurances "at present" that the base would be retained "except statements by Mr. Pearson in December". Do we take it from this that the Prime Minister gave certain assurances to Mr. Molgat in December that the base would be maintained in Winnipeg?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I gave no assurances to Mr. Molgat that I have not already given in public and about which my hon. friend knows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that plans are under way in Manitoba for another delegation to come to Ottawa on this matter, can the Prime Minister say whether the government's announcement will be made soon, so this delegation can ascertain whether or not it will have to make the trip?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope the announcement will be made at the earliest possible date.



INQUIRIES AS TO SALE TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, there is talk among farmers that

the price had to be greatly lowered, by 25 cents to 30 cents a bushel, in relation to the March future price at Chicago in order to close the wheat deal with the Russians. Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce give us some idea of the price sacrificed per bushel on this Russian wheat deal?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for making the first reference in this house to this magnificent transaction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should have been very reluctant to do so myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I assure my hon. friend that the reports he referred to are pure fiction. The Canadian wheat board entered into the contract with the Soviet authorities at the going market price at that time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question of the minister. What was the going market price at that time?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, the Canadian wheat board does not reveal its transactions. If the hon. gentleman would like to know what going market prices were at that time he has only to look at the list.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As I understand it, the minister informed the newspapers of this country that it was a $500 million deal. If he can tell the newspapers what the price was, then surely he can disclose that fact to this House of Commons.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In light of the very disturbing reports that none of the shipments of grain to Russia will be exported through the port of Churchill, can the minister tell the house how this unbelievable situation has arisen, and would he also take another look at the situation and see whether a good portion of this grain can go through this port by means of keeping it open a little longer this fall?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer this question. I received notice from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that he would ask the same question. Although the feasibility of using Churchill for shipments to the Soviet union was a matter of discussion between the Canadian wheat board and officials of the U.S.S.R., it was not found possible to use Churchill as a port of exit for the grain recently sold to that country. This important port has a

heavy program for this navigation season, and it is expected that Churchill will have a record high volume of wheat movement this year. I have before me the figures of recent movement, and for those who are familiar with the subject the estimated movement for this crop season will be 22,500,000 bushels, which I think everyone will recognize is a new record. The Soviet union required shipment prior to the opening of the 1964 Churchill navigation season, and the contracts were drawn up accordingly.
The government is very anxious to maximize the movement of wheat through Churchill. It is very conscious of the advantages of moving wheat in that direction, not only to the farmers but in order to reach as high a volume of exports as possible this season. The Canadian wheat board have advised that they are still prepared to enter into further commitments for shipment out of Churchill this fall. Account must be taken, however, of the buyers' wishes in this regard, and to date the fact is that no buyer has been prepared to charter vessels for Churchill that would involve movement beyond October 20. In this connection marine insurance is increased on October 15 and no insurance is available after October 20.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In light of reports that most, if not all, of the flour shipments in this Russian deal are going through the port of Halifax, would the minister be prepared to state the government's intentions in this regard in regard to all eastern ports, since flour is the most lucrative commodity for the communities involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: All I can say to the hon. member is that everything possible is being done to export every bushel of wheat and every barrel of flour that can be moved out of our ports this year. If there are any suggestions that any hon. members have for ways in which the total movement might be increased, we would be very happy to have them.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: A supplementary question. Was the wheat deal with Russia on the basis of Canadian funds or U.S. funds or sterling? If it was on the basis of Canadian funds, was the exchange rate of 92J cents to the U.S. dollar kept in mind and the Canadian wheat farmer protected? We are all happy about the Russian sale-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -but I would like to make sure the Canadian farmer has been protected.


Mitchell William Sharp: All I wish to assure my hon. friend of is this. The Canadian wheat board
Inquiries of the Ministry does everything possible to get the highest possible price and to safeguard the interests of the farmers for whom they act.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes, but was it made in Canadian or U.S. funds?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian wheat board fixes its price in Canadian dollars but is willing to accept U.S. funds or sterling as long as they can be converted to Canadian funds.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: But was the contract in terms of Canadian funds or U.S.; I mean the over-all contract?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian wheat board always sells its grain at the going market prices which are expressed in Canadian funds. It does not really matter to the Canadian wheat board how the transaction is carried on as long as the wheat board gets its price and gets its money.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The most recent publication of the Manitoba Co-Operator carries a statement by the president of the St. Lawrence seaway, Mr. R. J. Rankin, which indicates that it is probably intended to keep the St. Lawrence seaway open longer this year if possible. This statement and these plans have apparently been made since the Russian wheat deal was finalized. Could not the same situation apply as far as Churchill is concerned? Were the Russian negotiators made aware of all the desirable features of shipping out of Churchill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian wheat board did everything possible to ship as much wheat as possible through Churchill'. The fact that they were not able to persuade the Soviet union to take more out of Churchill was simply because they found that, everything considered, it was better to take the wheat out of other ports in this season. We are still hopeful that in 1964, if there can be a renewal or extension of this agreement, Churchill will be used.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a complementary question for the hon. minister. I wonder whether the minister would elaborate on the remarks which he is supposed to have made during his recent pilgrimage to western Canada, when he told the western grain growers that the Russian wheat deal was more or less a fluke, that they were not to expect a repeat and should be encouraged to grow less wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington South.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, I wonder whether the minister would care to give an answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if what the hon. member says I said is true, then I was misquoted.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, what did the minister say on that occasion?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can bring the questioning round to a more central part of Canada. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the great difficulty of attracting new industries to the Kitchener-Guelph-Galt area due to Brantford having been designated a distressed area, I am wondering whether the minister would consider removing Brantford from the list of designated or distressed areas in Canada.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: am sure the hon. member is aware that employment in the Brantford national employment service area is, and has been for a number of years, at a much lower level than in the Guelph area. In view of this disadvantage which the Brantford area has suffered over a number of years I am sure he would not wish it to be placed at a continuing disadvantage in favour of the Guelph area which, for one reason or another, has been more favoured than Brantford over the past years.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question.
Would the minister, recognizing the proximity of these two cities, which are only 35 miles away from each other, consider putting both of them, or all the cities in this area, on an equal basis?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to consider it. (Translation):



CRITERIA USED FOR DESIGNATION OF DISTRESSED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question.
Is it true that it was stated by the President of the Privy Council that the criteria used to determine the economically "depressed areas" were not final criteria, and were the discussions concerning those criteria held in cooperation with the provincial governments of the country?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having made any such statement.



REPORTED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? In view of the ever increasing number of people out of work in the province of Quebec, can the minister tell the house whether he has taken steps to reduce the number of unemployed in that province in the years to come?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the facts indicate the contrary to the assertions made by my hon. friend.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
[Translation1
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry? Is it true that the United States have recently cancelled a $31 million order for Cariboo planes? If this is the case, does the minister think that such an action might be interpreted as a retaliation against the Canadian government, in view of the latter's intention to expand our automotive industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to confirm such a cancellation, and I am confident that the United States will continue to place orders with the de Havilland Company.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I wonder if the hon. gentleman could inform the house when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be granted a licence to operate a television station in the city of St. John's.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government this morning authorized the Minister of Transport to issue such a licence.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY	Mr. Gregoire: May I ask the Prime Minister



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I apologize for not having given him notice but I am sure he is familiar with the subject matter. In view of the favourable industrial climate created by the government of the province of Nova Scotia, is the right hon. gentleman prepared to announce now that a heavy water plant will be established in that province?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Urgent consideration is being given to this very important question and a decision will be announced shortly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
[Translation1
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the term of office of Mr. Donald Gordon, the president of the Canadian National Railways, expires today, can the Prime Minister disclose the name of Mr. Gordon's successor?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The term of office of Mr. Donald Gordon as a director of Canadian National Railways expired today, that is true; but under the Canadian National Railways Act a director whose term of office has expired remains a director until a successor is appointed, and he himself is eligible for reappointment. An announcement on this matter will be made in a few days.


An hon. Member:: In the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the house.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that he will not appoint Mr. Gordon for another term of office until he has appeared before the committee on railways, air lines and shipping? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said an announcement would be made on this matter in a few days. That is all I can say about it at the moment.
if it is possible to wait until the president of the C.N.R. comes before the sessional committee on railroads?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad to take that suggestion into consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is it true that the government intends to replace Mr. Gordon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier)?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not intend to replace him by the hon. gentleman, I assure you.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it true, as reported, that old age pensioners living in housing projects financed by federal money have been given assurance that their rents will not be increased when they receive the anticipated advance in their pensions?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. In view of the interest in this subject perhaps I could best answer it by saying that there are 220 National Housing Act projects in Canada lived in by over 8,000 elderly persons. In these 220 projects, because of changes in local taxes and costs of administration, rents occasionally have to be increased. As the minister responsible for housing I instructed Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation early in September to inform all limited dividend companies operating elderly persons' projects that no rental changes are to be made without the written consent of the corporation.
In addition to such projects nearly 1,000 rental units have been built in Canada for elderly persons under special agreements between the federal and provincial governments. The same sort of units are available for other low income families and in most instances the rents are geared to income. Here again I have asked Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to recommend to our provincial partners in such schemes that there be no automatic increase in the rentals to elderly persons because of the raising of pensions. Should a rental adjustment prove necessary for any reason in such federal-provincial arrangements, I would request the

Inquiries of the Ministry joint concurrence of the federal-provincial partners before any change is made.
It is intended that the above steps will ensure that the higher pensions, when they become effective, will not be automatically dissipated in higher rentals in any accommodation built under the provisions of the National Housing Act.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the minister will ensure the return of the Stanfield government by arranging to participate in the Nova Scotia provincial election?


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question could be supplementary to that asked regarding the Canada pension bill. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to replace the Minister of National Health and Welfare after his statement of last night that the government needs the support of the Ontario government to bring forward a strong pension act.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Can the minister tell the house if the plentiful harvest in the western provinces will enable eastern farmers to buy their wheat at the same price as the Russians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the translation was faulty, but I do not know whether the hon. gentleman referred to wheat or corn. Did he mean corn in the generic sense or did he mean corn like maize?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question. I asked the minister if, in view of the fact that the wheat crop in western Canada this year is abundant, the eastern farmers would be able to buy their wheat at the same price as the Russians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, give any assurance about the price of wheat. This is completely within the control of the Canadian wheat board. I can tell my hon. (Mr. Garland.]
friend, however, that very special efforts are being made to assure that the needs of eastern farmers, as far as supply is concerned, will be adequately protected.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister would take it. Considering the valuable contribution that the branch railway lines are making in facilitating the delivery of grain as a result of the recent large sales, would the government give consideration to delaying any additional railway line abandonments until such time as a further study can be made in the light of this new development?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Transport.
I know how important it is.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO REASONS FOR INCREASED RATES [Translation]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
I should like the minister to give us the reason for the substantial increase in the rate of money orders and other instruments or services provided by his department, which causes much confusion.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the increases have become necessary for various reasons and particularly because of the deficits accumulated under the previous administration; second, in order to set up the normal additional mail delivery services which were put off by the previous administration.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could the hon. minister tell us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure hon. members will have taken note of the fact it is now nearly 4.20 p.m. This is the opening day of the resumed session. There is some very pressing and important legislation to come before the house. While it is not my desire to stop the question period, some hon. members have asked two or three questions and I am wondering whether we could not limit

questions to two or three more in the next few minutes and get on with the business before the house.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could the minister inform the house of the reasons for the delay in reimbursing the taxpayers from Montreal and the neighbouring areas the amount of taxes paid in excess during 1962 and, so as to make up for that delay, would the government consider paying interest on these amounts not yet reimbursed, as must do the taxpayer who is late in filing his return?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the hon. gentleman's question may I say I will be glad to take it as notice and bring forward the answer that I am sure he sincerely desires.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to either the house leader or the chief government whip? In view of the fact that the house today, by unanimous decision, has referred a matter to the committee on privileges and elections, will one of these gentlemen see to it that a meeting of that committee is called right away so that it might deal with the matter? I realize that normally one would address this question to the chairman of the committee, but it is my understanding that the committee has not met, is not organized, and does not have a chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that the chief whip and I will both look into the matter.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask a
supplementary question? In view of the situation which has arisen within the Social Credit party, can the house leader give some indication how he expects to resolve the problem of deciding upon the membership of the Social Credit party on that committee? Are they going to be followers of the leader of one of the splits, or followers of the other?
28902-5-194
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: This presents no problem whatever. The committee has already been set up by the house. Its membership is known, and until someone asks to have a change made in it, the committee will be as the house already has decided.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
[Translation\
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Could he tell the house what progress has been made with respect to the discussions regarding the possible transfer to the government of the province of Quebec of the federal government's jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In reply to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I would tell him that we have had some discussions with the province of Quebec and there have been some discussions by various people with the press and with others. I expect further communications from the officers of the province of Quebec, and we will be glad to meet with them. There has been no substantial change in the relations existing with the province of Quebec or in our responsibility towards the Eskimo people.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister plan an early meeting with the minister of national resources of the province of Quebec on that subject?


Arthur Laing: I rather expect I will be hearing from him very quickly, and I will be glad to see him.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I ask a question of the Prime Minister in connection with the Columbia river? What details are still to be settled? Are they major details or merely administrative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are only one or two details that remain to be settled. Whether or not one would call them major is a matter of opinion. They are important. I have no doubt this matter will be cleared up very shortly.

Old Age Security


David Vaughan Pugh: Are there any changes to be made of major importance in relation to the original treaty signed with the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a matter of opinion whether or not they are major. There have been changes agreed upon by the two governments, and I think they are important changes. They have been agreed upon by both governments and by the government of British Columbia as well.
There is one other, I think, outstanding matter between the government of British Columbia and the United States government and we hope that will be cleared up shortly, too.


David Vaughan Pugh: Is there any time limit set on this now? Has the Prime Minister any word of comfort for those in British Columbia that this matter will be settled shortly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be anxious to give a word of comfort to the people of British Columbia tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: If we have, as I hope, concluded the questions on orders of the day I wonder, in view of the fact that no business was indicated for the house at the time we adjourned, if I could say a word about the business for today. I had hoped, and I made approaches to the representatives of hon. gentlemen opposite, that there would be consent to taking as the first item today the resolution, notice of which has been given to the Clerk, concerning the amendment to the Old Age Security Act. This would require unanimous consent, and I was not able to get an indication that there would be unanimous consent forthcoming.
However, sir, if I may I should like to point out that it is the desire of the government to have this legislation, if the house is willing to deal with it, dealt with rapidly so that the increase contemplated in the legislation may be made in the present month without having to be made retrospectively. I believe the cheques actually go out about the twentieth of the month. I believe all hon. members appreciate the difficulty of getting the parliamentary time to deal with these things. If there were any disposition on the part of hon. members to permit the hon. lady to advance the resolution to the stage where it could be debated, that is permit the house to go into committee and debate the resolution only, we would be prepared to do that.

We of course, would not ask the house to deal with the bill today. If we could dispose of the resolution, which is in very simple language, it would expedite what I believe everyone in the house is agreed, is a desirable objective.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the government is desirous of paying old age pensioners this additional $10 a month. It was the opposition that pointed out, over and over again, that the undertaking to do this was given during the election campaign, but when we dealt with this matter on July 18 last it was made very clear to us that the $10 increase would not be given unless the legislation covering the Canada pension plan was brought into effect.
Since then there has been a change of heart. The burning of conscience has brought about an alteration in the thinking of the government. I would point out this fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are most desirous of assuring the old age pensioners of that which they were promised and which we insist should be implemented.
I would further point out that the resolution introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as recorded at page 2340 of Hansard for July 18, among other things said:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a comprehensive pension program to be known as the Canada pension plan-
Then a little later it said:
-for the payment of an additional pension of ten dollars a month to all persons to whom a pension may be paid under the Old Age Security Act.
And so on.
It will be recalled, sir, that in order to give the house an opportunity to recommend immediate payment to the government, and in compliance with the undertaking made by various hon. members now belonging to the government, I moved an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), as recorded at page 2363 of Hansard for the same date:
That the said resolution-
-the resolution to which I have already made reference-
-be amended by adding after the words "ten dollars a month" in line 9:
"and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence on this date."
The amendment was moved and the Deputy Speaker said he would have to take the question under advisement. The matter is still before the house and there has been no ruling

by the Deputy Speaker. Therefore there has been no opportunity for the house to give consideration to this amendment.
While we certainly welcome with open arms the conversion of the government to the needs of the old age pensioners, we ought to keep the proceedings of parliament regular. What about this amendment? It was not acceptable in July. The minister stated that under no circumstances could there be separation. That was before there was any question of any of the provinces refusing to participate in the plan.
Now we have a new situation, but the resolution of July is apparently forgotten about. Mr. Lesage has said he will not join in the proposition, and if newspaper reports are correct, according to one of the ministers of the government his action in that regard places him in a very unsatisfactory position, when a fund is built up, of being a follower of national socialism or nazism.
So far as Ontario is concerned, the ministers have met and they have discussed the matter. Surely then we ought to have a report on the proceedings to date. What is the present position? What has happened to the resolution that was rushed into with such a flash of arms and with such trumpet calls? The trumpet has a different sound now-an uncertain sound. Mr. Lesage has taken one blow on the trumpet and other provinces want an opportunity to do the same. What is the reason for this great change, this metamorphosis?


An hon. Member:: Another retreat.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to bring anything of a political nature into this, but the hon. gentleman has a point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we to take it from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be debating the question of an increase in the old age pensions that he has given consent to our discussing this matter today, and that we are going ahead? Otherwise under what heading or order is the Prime Minister speaking?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are confused today. Has he given his unanimous consent?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the number of times I have been so designated indicates there is a hope in various parts of the house that it won't be long now. The hon. member rose, apparently with the leave of the house, to ask as to the business of the house, and I understand there has been general agreement to cover certain matters today. I feel this is a matter on which we need an explanation from the government. Why is there this 28902-5-194i
Old Age Security
change? We want to assure that by the twentieth of the month the increased pensions will go out, provided the two houses agree; but we also want to know why there has been this great change of viewpoint. What has happened? We recommended consultation with the provinces, and now the government retreats.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the right hon. gentleman will participate in the giving of unanimous consent to proceed with the resolution, he will get the explanation. This will be the test of his sincerity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a prime minister who has taken the number of somersaults he has in the last few months, in reversal of policies, should not talk about sincerity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the time to debate why the government has changed its mind. The important thing is that the government has indicated it is prepared to go ahead and present the legislation giving old age pensioners a $10 per month increase. So far as we are concerned, instead of rehashing over old straw we are prepared to give consent to proceeding with that resolution immediately, and I think the Leader of the Opposition, by drawing red herrings across the trail, is certainly not doing the old age pensioners much good, despite all his protestations of friendship for them.
We also want information about the Canada pension plan. There are a great many things we want to know, but we will not get the information on orders of the day. The thing to do is let the government bring down its resolution and then, when we go into committee of the whole, we can question the minister and get a statement from the government.
I urge all hon. members to give unanimous consent to proceeding with the resolution now so that the old age pensioners can get the increase as early as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas), we feel that there is no need to deliberate very long before agreeing unanimously to study the proposed resolution to increase the old age pension. That is why, on behalf of the members of the Social Credit party, I give this unanimous approval. We agree to discuss that resolution immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready to give unanimous consent?

Old Age Security


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee 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 Old Age Security Act to increase the pension under the said act from $65 a month to $75 a month, effective October 1, 1963, and to increase the rate of old age security tax from the present rate of 3 per cent with a maximum of $90 to a rate of 4 per cent with a maximum of $120 on the taxable income of individuals, applicable to the 1964 and subsequent taxation years.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am privileged today on behalf of the government to introduce a measure calling for an increase in the old age security benefit from $65 to $75 a month, effective October 1, 1963. The last such increase in the fiat rate pension to our older citizens, from $55 to $65, was approved in this house 19 months ago.
You will have realized, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction of this resolution was made both necessary and urgent by recent developments respecting the Canada pension plan. It was originally the government's intention that the $10 increase in the old age security benefit be paid out of contributions to the Canada pension plan. When this house recessed two months ago, it was still our announced intention to present the necessary legislation at as early a date as possible.
Then, consequent upon the decision of the government of Quebec to forego the Canada pension plan in favour of a contributory plan of its own, it became evident to one and all that the part of the federal plan providing an increase in the flat rate pension had to be separated from the rest of the scheme. Contributions raised in provinces participating in the federal plan obviously cannot be used to provide benefits in a province from which no such contributions are forthcoming. That is the situation today and it is the aim of the subject amendment to provide the additional $10 benefit to all provinces, irrespective of the Canada pension plan.
I might mention here that section 94A of the British North America Act was designed to provide for concurrent jurisdiction in the field of old age pensions and that the future development of pension arrangements over and beyond the universal flat rate pension will depend upon mutually satisfactory arrangements being worked out. In the case of the province of Quebec there is a preference for a provincial contributory plan. The possibility of developing an earnings-related pension plan for the rest of Canada will

depend upon the attitude of the other provinces and, in particular, Ontario which already has legislation on the statute books dealing with a pension plan. The federal goverment has made clear the kind of Canadawide plan it believes would provide adequate old age income security for Canadians. The onus now rests with the other provinces as to whether we proceed with this plan.
The present pensionable age under the Old Age Security Act is 70 years. As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, it has been the government's hope, as expressed in earlier statements made in this house respecting the Canada pension plan, to make reduced benefits available to old age pensioners who desire them on a graduated scale, between ages 65 and 70. As already announced, under the Canada pension plan these reduced benefits would apply both to the flat rate pension and to benefits under the earnings-related plan.
The question of age adjusted benefits, both with respect to graduated and flat rate pensions, is a matter which will be the subject of discussions with the provinces and, in particular, with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario with respect to their plans for pension arrangements. The government will give this aspect further consideration following these discussions and if, as we hope, the outcome of these negotiations is successful, the matter will be considered at the time the Canada pension legislation is placed before this house.
In the meantime the present pension increase will result in a substantial rise in expenditure under the Old Age Security Act on behalf of some 960,000 pensioners. At the present figure of $65 a month, the over-all expenditure for the fiscal year 1963-64 would be $750 million; for the year 1964-65, with a normal increase in the number of pensioners, the figure would be $766 million.
At the proposed rate of $75 per month, effective October 1, 1963, the expenditure for the fiscal year 1963-64 would be $807 million; for 1964-65, it would be $882 million. Now, therefore, the difference for the year 1964-65 between expenditures at the present rate and at the proposed rate of $75 per month would be $116 million. This raises a question as to the source of the additional revenue for this increased expenditure. You will be hearing more about this a little later from my colleague, from the Department of Finance.
This present measure is, Mr. Chairman, a solid step in the right direction, but the government sincerely hopes that the Canada pension plan will be introduced before too long to provide adequately for the retirement of our older people. I am confident that this present amendment will be followed by further measures which will in fact provide that

added cushion of security and dignity so richly deserved by our senior citizens.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Perth will be discussing this matter in particular, but I would like to ask the hon. lady if she would read the resolution about which she has been speaking. We would like to know what the resolution is, because we have not seen it. Would the hon. lady let us have the resolution?


The Chairman:: Perhaps I should read the resolution for the benefit of the committee:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the pension under the said act from $65 a month to $75 a month, effective October 1, 1963, and to increase the rate of old age security tax from the present rate of 3 per cent with a maximum of $90 to a rate of 4 per cent with a maximum of $120 on the taxable income of individuals, applicable to the 1964 and subsequent taxation years.


Mr. Monieiih:: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I did not know this matter would be introduced so soon after the reconvening of the house, but I am certainly very pleased that it has. I still fail to understand why the amendment suggested by the Prime Minister on July 18 was not followed through.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I did not suggest any amendment on that date.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry; I think this is the first time I have made that mistake. I am following the example of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a copy of the resolution. It does not appear on the order paper to my knowledge, and I think we should have a copy of it before us. This is certainly indicative of the changing, retreating and jumping about from pillar to post of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am simply looking forward to the day when my previous comment holds forth. The amendment as proposed to the previous resolution on July 18 by the Leader of the Opposition says this:
That the said resolution, be amended by adding after the words "ten dollars a month" in line 9:
"and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence on this date."
If that advice had been taken, Mr. Chairman, the elderly citizens of our country would have had this $10 a month earlier than they are going to get it now, despite the fact that the minister presently says that she does not want any hold up, that she wants to get on with it. This is certainly a different type of approach, a very humble approach today, compared with her speech on July 18. At that time she went into much detail ridiculing the
Old Age Security
opposition for their efforts in social security, which over the years have certainly been much more beneficial to the senior citizens than those of the present government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to review one or two things the previous government did in its short term of office, a period of five and a half to six years. In that time the old age security and related benefits were increased by $19 a month. This was done in two stages. The government of that day had no sooner taken office than it proposed an increase of $9 a month, which was one of the most pleasant duties I had to perform as minister of national health and welfare. This proposal was acceded to by the house, unanimously I believe. The previous government did that following the almost abortive attempt in the previous spring to do something for the elderly citizens. At that time the then minister of finance proposed an increase of $6 a month. We knew what that meant. We knew how inadequate it was. We appreciated the fact that the elderly citizens should have had more than this. As a consequence, when we came into office we immediately proposed this $9 increase. This was in November 1957 and it became effective that month. Then in the spring of 1962, effective I believe on February 1, there was a further increase in old age security of $10 a month which the previous government felt was necessary at the time.
We are also very much in favour of this increase, as exemplified by the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition on July 18. I think that this proves that our party, the previous government, has had the welfare of the elder citizens uppermost in mind and has certainly done everything possible to relieve the hardship which these people suffer.
During my term of office, Mr. Chairman, I had many meetings with the elder citizen groups. I know the present minister has undoubtedly had similar meetings also. I came to believe, however, that the country as a whole does not appreciate the real plight of many of these people in the circumstances under which they live. I feel that the present suggestion is not only necessary but is delayed. This could have been achieved and could have been effective as of last August 1 at the latest, if the present government had only listened to the suggestion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition at that time.
Instead of that the present minister was imbued with political venom. In fact, she reminded me of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech debate; they were two of a kind. The Minister of Finance had to make some retreats following that, and it is obvious what has happened in this case. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare has had to make a retreat. Perhaps she has seen

Old Age Security
the light; I hope it is for that reason. I was not in the house at the moment but I understand she indicated that the change in this respect was because of the attitude of the province of Quebec. During recent efforts in the province of Ontario she did not indicate that this might be the reason for her change, quite so much as she was trying to indicate, I think, that the present government of Ontario might be wholly responsible for this change in attitude. I have seen flip-flaps and that sort of thing in the past, Mr. Chairman, but I do not know when I have seen two more striking examples than the Minister of Finance in his budget speech and the present Minister of National Health and Welfare when she introduced the original resolution on July 18.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order for the house to proceed with private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


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



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) regarding this matter, may I have the permission of the house to withdraw this motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could ask the house leader on the government side if he would oblige and stand the notice of motion standing in the name of my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), and also that in the name of my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt)?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that motions 13 and 14 stand at the request of the government?


John Watson MacNaught: And No. 15.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Numbers 13 to 15?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Numbers 13, 14 and 15.
Motions stand.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the interest of the western grain producers and their marketing agency should be under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for agricultural policies which have a direct effect upon the economic welfare of the western grain producer; and that it is a retrograde step to place the Canadian wheat board-which has, in addition to its original role, the administration of cash advances, acreage payments, the issuing of permit books, and the quota allocation-under the Minister of Trade and Commerce who has no responsibility for domestic policies of direct interest of the western grain producers.
He said: Before I say what I have to say with regard to this resolution I should like to express my regret that neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) nor the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) is present in the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The parliamentary secretary knows the problem very well.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to have told the Minister of Trade and Commerce that all westerners and all members of this party, in my opinion, are pleased with the large grain sale to Russia. However, this does not preclude us from asking questions about the deal. I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot take any credit for this sale. I am sorry his party cannot take any credit for it either.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, they have said on previous occasions that neither the minister nor the department has any responsibility for wheat sales. We do not believe that to be the case, but since it was the hon. members opposite who made that statement they cannot very well contradict what they have told the public on previous occasions-or can they? We would, I am sure, be pleased to have the minister tell this house and the Canadian public in general exactly how these wheat sales are made. There can be no doubt that the Canadian wheat board is under the sole control of the government and that it is the only marketing agency for wheat produced in western Canada. As westerners, we have been amazed at times at the interpretation which the people of eastern Canada have placed on the transactions of the Canadian wheat board. They do not seem to realize that it is the

sole marketing agency lor our grain. I was surprised to hear comments which indicated that even some members of this house thought that every time an initial payment was paid to western producers it came out of the Canadian treasury. Such an impression is entirely wrong. Under the marketing system through which western Canadian grain is sold, that payment represents the farmers' own money.
In trying to get some information with regard to the actions of the Canadian wheat board I have looked up a number of editorials which have appeared in eastern as well as western papers. I should like to read parts of these editorials-I do not intend to read them all-in order to illustrate my contention. I shall refer first of all to an editorial which appeared in the Calgary Herald on April 24, 1963, right after the general election. This editorial is headed: "New Wheat Board Management" and it says:
The federal department of agriculture over which Hon. Harry Hays of Calgary is to preside as minister will differ in two major respects from its Conservative counterpart.
The article goes on to discuss the changes briefly-I shall not read it all-and then it says:
The wisdom of these two Liberal changes will be determined by the future course of events. At the outset they appear to be good ones.
When the retired minister of agriculture, Alvin Hamilton, had the wheat board operations transferred to his jurisdiction in 1960, complaints were rife that the trade department had not been devoting sufficient effort to wheat sales abroad. It was alleged that time and effort which should have been going into wheat disposal were being devoted to consultations and arguments between the wheat board and the trade department on policy and procedure.
Certainly, after Mr. Hamilton took the wheat board under his wing there was a speedy revitalization of wheat sales. Credit agreements were negotiated abroad and, along with a fortuitously light Canadian crop in 1961 and a famine in China, sales zoomed and surpluses declined.
Actually, when we were selected the majority of Conservative members from the west had one major problem. As grain politicians we were careful; we did not make too many promises to the western people. But one promise I made was this: I undertook to do all I could to help the Canadian government solve the problem of surplus grain. At the time I made the promise I was not too much concerned about which party would form the government. As I hope to show in a few moments, I criticized our own party, which formed the government at that time, for its attitude with regard to the Canadian wheat board. As I have indicated, along with others I made the promise that we would try to solve this surplus grain problem. Today, in the light of political statements which have been made
Canadian Wheat Board by ministers and others, people are still confused as to who does actually make these sales. This confusion has existed for some time. I am not sure whether the former minister said he made the sales or not. I do know that the opposition definitely said he did not. But somebody did make these sales, and all I have to say today to whoever was responsible is that this sale of wheat to Russia has done Canada a lot of good.
The editorial from which I have been reading goes on to say:
But if previous sales efforts had been less than successful, the blame largely could be laid at the door of the trade department which was concerned with trying to push industrial and commercial sales to the neglect of agricultural products.
Under the new leadership of Hon. Mitchell Sharp however, the Department of Trade and Commerce is not likely to make the same mistake.
I question that statement, and I do so in the light of the previous record of the Canadian wheat board at a time when Canada was losing sales on the world market. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce was then the deputy minister responsible for the department, and unless he has changed his ways with respect to western agriculture and sales of western grain we shall revert to placing this board under the direction of the Department of Trade and Commerce which, I say, would be a retrograde step.
In order to show hon. members what the thinking of eastern people is with regard to western farmers I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail dated August 13, 1963. I presume this paper could be considered as being a supporter of the Conservative party, while the other paper to which I have referred, the Calgary Herald, could be considered a supporter of the Liberal party. I do not know for certain but I imagine from the comments made that this would be correct. The article in the Globe and Mail was written by Scott Young, who apparently had been out west. He was writing about western Conservatives and about the wheat situation out there. He referred to a feeling that the Dief-enbaker government had demonstrated an understanding of the west's problems, and said:
As long as he leads the Conservatives no other party is going to make five cents worth of progress out here.
I think that is correct. Referring to the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) regarding $2 a bushel for wheat, the article says:
The nonsensical quality of the promise was strongly demonstrated by the trade minister's rather petulant suggestion that westerners should grow less wheat.

Canadian Wheat Board
I do not think the minister denies that he went out west and told the farmers union, in Edmonton, I think it was: Do not grow more wheat, because we cannot sell what you are already producing. This Russian sale makes that statement sound somewhat ridiculous. I have contended all along as a representative from western Canada that whoever is responsible for selling wheat, whether it be the grain board or the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Trade and Commerce, is doing so as an agency of the government itself. Selling wheat is a government responsibility, and if it cannot sell it the western people must be told so.
Now I shall read from what is, I presume, a Liberal paper. This seems to reflect the attitude of a number of eastern people. Commenting in the Kingston Whig-Standard on Mr. Young's article, the writer says:
But, quite apart from politics, this business of wheat in the west is obviously something concerning which Mr. Young has let the farmers out there talk him into a daze. The western wheat farmer has no interest in what kind of a market he has for his wheat; all he cares about is selling it at as high a price as possible. It is, he thinks, his God given right and destiny to grow and sell wheat-this is the heart of the western mythology. ...They don't want to work any harder than that and they betray no hesitation in saying so.
That is absolutely ridiculous. If this is the opinion that the government or the Liberal party has of western wheat producers, it will be a long, long time before they will have sufficient members from the prairies to appoint a minister of agriculture from that region. They were quite fortunate last time.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I don't know that they were.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I also want to refer to another eastern paper which I think has an actual grasp of what the situation is in the west. This is the story that I am quite sure western Canada wants to put across to eastern Canada, because it is true, and if anybody wants to take the time to delve into the subject he will find it is so. I wish to refer to the Sudbury Daily Standard of June 20, 1963. The article is headed, "Farmers Fear New Policies Will Damage Export Markets", and it reads in part as follows:
Revelation that the Pearson government in Ottawa hired "outside" experts to assist in the preparation of the budget should not be surprising. Informed Canadians know that there is sometimes little relation between Liberal election propaganda and performance.
The most recent election campaign was no exception. This was the party of "experts" in the matter of economics; this was the party with the men of ideas "to get the economy rolling". But once in office the Liberals hired experts "outside" of government and the civil service.
Nor is this delusion on Liberal know-how confined to matters of finance. One section of the farm press that came out strongly in support of the 
Liberal party and urged a change in government is now having second thoughts, and nearly all published letters written by farmers disagree with the Liberal policies. It is now a matter of record that the farm vote in Canada was almost solidly in support of the Diefenbaker government.
It may be remembered that Liberal government dairy policies were made known only 36 hours before the May 1 deadline and decisions on policy changes made only some 50 hours after agriculture minister Harry Hays and agriculture minister-to-be Rene Tremblay took their oaths of office.
The farm press has been taking a long, hard look at these policies which indicate greater dairy surpluses, lower exports, higher prices to consumers and reduced income for dairy farmers. It is feared there will be serious export loss in British and European markets. The Liberals, who favour more trade with the United States, cannot look for markets for farm products in that country. It is already plagued with stockpiled surpluses.
It will also be remembered that in its first days of office the Liberal government returned the Canadian wheat board to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
This is significant? It could be. The Diefenbaker government put the board under the Department of Agriculture and export wheat sales soared. By midMay, under the Liberals, export wheat sales were already down by 30 million bushels from the same time last year. There seems to be little likelihood that the Liberal government will be able to match the Diefenbaker government's record in wheat exports.
That would have been correct had it not been for the one sale to Russia. I will prove later with figures that under the Liberal administration, whether they were the ones who sold wheat or whether the wheat board under their direction sold wheat, Canada was gradually losing all her foreign markets for wheat. The article goes on to say:
Canadian wheat farmers also have long memories They can recall a previous Liberal administration that lost Canadian wheat sales by trying to collect another five cents a bushel from prospective European customers. It was a Liberal administration that tried to unload Canadian wheat at $1.50 a bushel when the world market price was $3. a bushel.
I think that is sufficient information from the press to convey to the house that the issue is a very confusing one, and the government by its action of putting the wheat board back under the Department of Trade and Commerce has confused the issue more. When the wheat board was under the Department of Trade and Commerce at the time that the present minister was deputy minister the policies were also confused.
I have mentioned before that I was very critical of our party in this regard. I refer to page 7693 of Hansard tor August 6, 1960, at which time I said:
As the government has complete control of the marketing of wheat on the prairies, then it is the responsibility of the government to see that markets are obtained or tell the producers they are unable to do the job.

I also said at that time:
I have reason to believe that the present wheat board policy in determining its daily selling price for Canadian wheat offerings to domestic and foreign buyers is too rigid, and that as a result of this inflexibility we have lost foreign sales which should have been available to our western producers. I am aware that those who do not agree with my remarks will charge that I am trying to interfere with the orderly system of marketing western grain. I hasten to say that if such a system solves or will solve the problem of the western grain surplus, then I will support it wholeheartedly.
In talking about the western grain surplus I may say that there are other problems created because there is a surplus. There is the problem of cash advances on farm stored grain. There is the problem of quotas. There is the problem of the allocation of box cars. I am quite sure that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce has some knowledge of what these problems are, particularly with regard to cash advances on farm stored grain, because I understand that under the Liberal administration he was one of those who said it could not be done. It was one of the first things that was done under the Conservative administration when they took office in 1957. I continue:
On the other hand, if the present orderly system of marketing works to the disadvantage of the western grain producers whom I represent, then I suggest that some of the conditions in this system should be changed.
I am not advocating that the orderly system of marketing should be discarded. I believe I am offering evidence that proves that the way it is functioning at the present time can lead to only one result, the loss of further grain markets for our producers. It is essential that we avoid this downward pattern.
To show what the downward trend was we did a lot of research at that time. On that occasion I said, as found on page 7692 of Hansard for August 6, 1960:
I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the grain trade year book, which indicates that in some foreign markets Canada's grain sales were reduced by a considerable amount during the grain year 1958-59 from those of the previous grain year.
I went on to say:
I have also before me a table which shows that during the past year Russia exported 40 million bushels of wheat to western European countries, and many of these countries were former customers of Canada. It is to be noted that Canadian wheat sales to the Netherlands dropped from 21 million bushels in 1957-58 to 7 million bushels in 1958-59. That is an actual decline of 14 million bushels in one year in sales to one of our most valuable customers.
I should say that at that time under a Conservative administration the wheat board was also under the Department of Trade and Commerce and it was later that the decision was made to transfer it to the Department of Agriculture. I went on to say:
28902-5-195
Canadian Wheat Board
During that same period, 1958-59, Russia sold to the Netherlands almost 10 million bushels of wheat. ...It is also to be noted that Sweden purchased over 2 million bushels of wheat from Russia during 1958-59-
And so it goes on and on. If you wish to pursue the matter further you will see that in practically every country with which we had been dealing we were losing out as far as the export of Canadian grain was concerned, and Russia was gaining on us. What we seemed to lose the Russians apparently were taking over. This not only applied to all European countries but also to the United Kingdom. Our research also proved that we were losing out in the case of the United Kingdom. It also proved that world demand had increased from 660 million bushels, prior to the war, to 1,220 million bushels. In fact, the demand for wheat was growing constantly but Canadian exports to world markets were declining. Whose fault was that? Was that the fault of the government or was it the fault of the Canadian wheat board? I am not too sure that we have the answer. I will say this, that after similar speeches were made in this house when action was taken to transfer the Canadian wheat board from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture, something happened. Markets for Canadian grain became available. I am quite sure Canadian producers do not care who was responsible or who gets credit for that. The grain was sold.
As I mentioned before, we solved the problem of surplus grain and the problems related to surplus grain such as storage, quotas, box car allocations, cash advances and everything else. It is for this reason I say a retrograde step was taken in transferring the wheat board back to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I regret that I must interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Since the motion was introduced in English, I think it would be appropriate for me to give the first half of my speech in English. As we understand it, the present question is not a question of philosophy, of political, economic or administrative theory, it is a question of efficiency. The question is: Can the Department of Trade and Commerce sell wheat more effectively than the Department of Agriculture? The opposition, of course, takes the negative view.
In my opinion, the question is one of common sense, so I will proceed in a common sense manner. I should like to preface my remarks with three notes. The first is this: The question is not one related to the growing

Canadian Wheat Board of wheat but to the sale of it. We understand that the growing of wheat is the business of the farmers, and the Department of Agriculture can advise them on this matter. However, the question is about the sale of wheat, the trade in wheat, and of course we believe this matter should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am really rather rushed because I understand the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture wishes to say a few words. Perhaps I could answer later.
My second point is this: It is private enterprise and the wheat board that sells wheat for Canada. A moment ago the previous speaker was asking about the policy of the department and of the minister in respect of government intervention. On that subject the minister said this in a speech on September 23:
I am sure that you would wish the government to recognize the wheat board and its chief officer in this way. The Canadian wheat board is given responsibility by parliament for marketing western wheat, oats and barley and it is important that this responsibility should not be usurped by any minister of the crown.
This is quite clear.
The government does have a responsibility in the marketing of western grain and that is to support the wheat board and to create the conditions under which the board can sell wheat, oats and barley to best advantage.
Referring to the sale to communist China, the minister went on to say that the government's role was to improve the terms of access for Chinese goods, and to underwrite the extension of credit, both of which were essential to the successful outcome. This is the function of the government, and this is the function of the Department of Trade and Commerce, to help the wheat board in selling wheat. We Liberals do recognize the importance of the wheat board. We also recognize the importance of God in connection with these sales. There is no doubt about it-an act of God can be negative or positive-without an act of God these sales might not have taken place, no matter how good our sales department is. This attitude, I believe, is quite clear. I think you will find it very difficult to find any other than the one I am expressing now.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Why didn't you sell wheat before?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My third point is that the wheat board has always been under the Department of Trade and Commerce. The present arrangement is not new.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Not always.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The present situation is the regular one. The only exception was during the period 1960-1963 when the wheat board was placed under the supervision of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).


John (Jack) McIntosh: When was it formed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should like now to state my three main arguments in favour of the present arrangement. The first one is related to history, and it goes like this. In the past, Canada has sold as much wheat when the wheat board was under the Department of Trade and Commerce as it has when the wheat board was under the Department of Agriculture, with the exception of the sales to China, and in some years with the inclusion of the sales to China. As you know, the previous record sale of wheat was in 1952-1953 when 385 million bushels were sold. I might say that at that time the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was the deputy minister of that department.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What is your authority for those figures?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should like to add to what I just said, that at the present time, under trade and commerce, the wheat board is selling more than it was under agriculture at any time from 1960 to April 1963. There is then no question of efficiency. The wheat board does as well, if not better, under trade and commerce now as it did under agriculture at the time that department was headed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
My second point is that wheat cannot be treated as something entirely apart from general trade. You cannot isolate the trade in wheat from the general preoccupation of the government in respect of trade. Negotiations in relation to world trade are not divided into compartments. For example, in the GATT negotiations the preoccupation for agricultural products cannot be isolated. The over-all picture must be kept in mind by Canadian representatives.
[Translation1
The press communique released before the last meeting of GATT stated as follows:
The agenda is the following:
1.	Measures to expand trade of countries under development.
2.	Arrangements to lower or eliminate tariff barriers.
3.	Measures giving farm products and other primary materials a better access to the markets.
It can be seen that in GATT negotiations, the farm problem is not separated from other trade problems.

Canadian Wheat Board
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada experiences great difficulties in the field of trade and we must at all cost put all advantages on our side. The authorities representing us in such large international negotiations must be able to make arrangements on the widest possible basis. And surely, Canada cannot isolate the wheat trade from the general trade.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to call to the attention of the house the fact that the Department of Trade and Commerce has an excellent team of trade commissioners who are acting as scouts in every country of the world. Besides, the commercial equipment of the Department of Trade and Commerce is by far better than the one to be found in the Department of Agriculture. That is common sense.
My third point concerns the distribution of tasks between the government departments. Well, only a few weeks ago, the members of the opposition were accusing the government of having taken away from the Department of Trade and Commerce part of its authority to hand it over to the Department of Industry. And those same gentlemen who were then complaining that we were draining authority from the Department of Trade and Commerce now come here and ask that we take away from the Department of Trade and Commerce some of its authority over the Canadian wheat board. Is this consistent? They are again contradicting each other. This is not the first time and it is certainly not the last.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add this. My friends in the agriculture department say they already have lots of work, indeed enough to keep busy and the administration is even prepared to appoint a second minister of agriculture because of the volume of work in that department.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Both of them are on a trip.


Mr. Dupuis:: Homing pigeons exist you know.


Mr. Habel:: Where do you come from?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue my remarks.
Besides, the fact that the Department of Agriculture has quite enough work and civil servants there are extremely busy is confirmed by the former minister of agriculture. In fact, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), during his last days in office, was complaining that he had not had any time to adequately deal with agriculture in the east.
I am not making that statement, I am only repeating what the former minister of agriculture used to say:
28902-5-195i

The Minister of Agriculture has admitted that Canadian farm policy is prairie oriented. A rational farm policy would require disproportionately greater attention to the maritimes and the province of Quebec.
This is taken from the Macdonald Farm Journal.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What date was that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: May 1963. Yours was August, I think.
I have another clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of May 8, 1962:
Mr. Hamilton told the Progressive Conservative nomination meeting western farmers could expect the government to pay more attention to eastern Canadian farmers. Many farmers in low Income brackets were in the east and "in the next four years much of my time is going to be spent in those regions."
So, after three years in the department, the then minister admitted he had been too busy to be concerned adequately with eastern agriculture, and I quote this in order to prove that there is plenty of work in that department.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is your interpretation. [Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Moreover, other press clippings which I do not have time to read are quite clear on that point.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What date was that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to submit another point of plain common sense.
The hon. gentlemen opposite must not think that just because the Canadian wheat board has been transferred from the Department of Agriculture to that of trade and commerce- I beg your pardon, has returned to the Department of Trade and Commerce-that means all contacts will cease between the two concerning wheat. On the contrary, relations between them are growing closer and closer. In fact, just a few days ago, both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) publicly set forth the first components of a new policy, in short, of an adequate agricultural policy for eastern Canada as regards feed grains.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) for moving his motion today so that it would give hon. members an opportunity to discuss some of the pros and cons respecting sales of Canadian wheat during the last few years.

Canadian Wheat Board
We know there has been an attempt, successful to some extent, to sell the idea to Canadian wheat farmers that they were immeasurably better off in terms of activity and efforts to sell their wheat when the Canadian wheat board was under the administration of the Department of Agriculture.
I do not believe any hon. member would deny that there was one single success of a size so large that it overshadowed many other sales during the period when the board came under the Department of Agriculture. But the next question which must be asked is whether those who wish the board transferred back to that department also want to give the department the responsibility for the great droughts in China and Canada in recent years? I do not think that is a valid argument, and I do not believe even those members of the Conservative party who support this motion would like to assume that responsibility.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Pepin) has mentioned that there are many other things which must be considered in addition to agricultural policy. For example all hon. members will agree that the last three very large wheat sales were directly tied to some credit arrangements and might not have been completed had it not been for the existence of these arrangements. I suggest that these credit arrangements can be handled just as successfully by the Department of Trade and Commerce and its minister as by the Minister of Agriculture. I am also sure it will be agreed that such a kind of agreement must be reached by the entire cabinet, and that there is no significant difference whether the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes recommendations to the cabinet.
There are other trading arrangements involved in the sale of wheat. These were referred to by the hon. member who spoke just before me, and I have a whole stack of editorials and statements which I have gathered throughout the years, and which indicate without doubt that the leading grain spokesmen-if one wants to call them that-have over the years tried to convince the government that there is a direct relationship between trading policies respecting other commodities and the promotion of sales with regard to wheat.
For example I have before me a letter which appeared on the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press and which was sent to the former prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, by Mr. W. J. Parker, president of Manitoba pool elevators, on behalf of the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba wheat pools and United Grain Growers Limited. I shall only read a few paragraphs from this letter to prove that what I have said is correct:

In concurrence with and on behalf of the United Grain Growers Limited, Alberta wheat pool, Saskatchewan wheat pool and Manitoba pool elevators, I desire to acquaint you with a matter which is causing grave concern among the combined membership of these producer organizations.
Doubtless you are aware that Japan has of recent years become our second largest market for wheat, and from time to time an important market for Canadian barley and oilseeds. It is the considered opinion of those in a position to judge that Japan will in the not too distant future become the largest market for Canadian wheat, provided Canada pursues a trade policy designed to encourage the purchase by Japan of cereals from us.
The letter concludes by saying:
I assure you, Mr. Prime Minister, that the farmers our organizations represent would appreciate assurance from you that the government is not attempting to reduce Japanese participation in the Canadian market in 1960 below the level obtaining in 1959 for any commodity, and that it remains the policy of your government year by year to increase each and every quota on Japanese imports, with a view to their eventual removal.
He mentioned earlier the problem of allowing customers for wheat to sell sufficient of their own products in Canada in order to earn Canadian dollars to pay for our wheat. This has been going on for so long that it is almost repetitious to mention it at this time. One reason advanced is that if we have the Department of Trade and Commerce directly involved in the selling of Canadian wheat we would also receive a more sympathetic response from them in advocating import quota increases, and so on, which would allow our customers to sell their goods in Canada to earn the dollars that are necessary. There are other matters, which were raised by the hon. member who spoke previously such as GATT and various other negotiations that are necessary. Surely, Mr. Speaker, no hon. member of this house will argue that all these integrated matters are primarily the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
There is one other point. I refer to the matter of financing. I dealt with this subject briefly a few minutes ago. I have some quotations of what has been said by the previous minister of agriculture, now the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), who stated that it was becoming increasingly difficult to get approval from his colleagues in the Conservative government for the credit necessary to finance some of these large scale sales. For example, in The Western Producer of November 15, 1962 there is this quotation:
Mr. Hamilton's speech reflected growing pressure against credit sales from eastern Canadians and those who do not understand the problems of the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Like the Social
Credit party.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If we agree that credit was essential to make the major sales the last few years, I think it is important that this question should also receive some sympathy in the cabinet. This was admitted by the previous minister of agriculture. In this way credit sales can be promoted.
The mover of the motion says, amongst other things, that it is a retrograde step to place the Canadian wheat board-which has, in addition to its original role, the administration of cash advances, acreage payments, the issuing of permit books, and the quota allocation-under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Taking each one of these items separately, I think we should consider whether there was any distinct advantage in transferring this board to the Department of Agriculture. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that some ministers of agriculture even before the hon. member for Qu'Appelle stated that the Canadian wheat board was not under the direct direction, if you want to call it that, of any department; that they in fact pursued the policy of selling wheat almost independently of the government.
Then there is the matter of the administration of cash advances. In 1957, prior to placing the wheat board under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, I know of no difficulty that the board had in administering cash advances.


John (Jack) McIntosh: They did not have any.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think they are having any now. I cannot see that this is a matter of any great significance.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You had better study it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With regard to acreage payments, I think they will be using the same staff, the same cheque-writing machinery and the same officers in regard to this particular function as have been used since the transfer of the board to the Department of Agriculture. There may be some kind of argument as to whether or not the present government and its cabinet is going to authorize acreage payments at all. But whether they are administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Agriculture presents no significant difference that I can see.
With regard to the issuing of permit books, this was done by the Canadian wheat board for about 18 years prior to its being taken over by the Department of Agriculture. I know of no significant problems experienced by them during those 18 years which would change for the better if this function were under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture.
Canadian Wheat Board


John (Jack) McIntosh: We will tell you more about that later on.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to the question of quota allocation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you for or
against credit sales?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Quota allocation is something that comes about after taking several factors into consideration. One is the matter of having sold a certain grade of wheat and the requirements of the Canadian wheat board to get it into export position. For example-and this has happened on a number of occasions -they have sold a large quantity of No. 5 or No. 4 wheat and if there was a shipping point that had frost, or there was some other reason, and there was a large quantity of this kind of wheat and a sale was made, there was an effort on the part of the Canadian wheat board to move as much of that wheat as quickly as possible into export positions so that it could be delivered. Perhaps this comes under the Department of Transport to some extent, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) has just as free access to the Department of Transport as has the Minister of Agriculture. I can therefore see no significant improvement in this regard.
By and large, Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) when they suggest that these administrative details are not of major concern. The major concern is to generate and enhance our over-all trading position in the international market so that we have more customers. We have to make some arrangements to take in some of the products of these other countries, and this is not easy. I know that even today there is some discontent in the textile industry. They are a little apprehensive that some of the sales made to China and Russia may have included an agreement, whether signed or not, which will mean there will be a flood of textiles into Canada to pay for some of this wheat. This is a matter of justifiable concern, but I am not convinced that the Minister of Agriculture could handle this problem any better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As a matter of fact I think all these integrated things could be better handled by a department that is totally concerned with trade and commerce.
The last thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) also has something to contribute to the over-all sale of Canadian wheat in the international market. We know, for example,

Canadian Wheat Board that a number of suggestions have been put forward to the effect that we should accept some so-called soft currencies for Canadian wheat. We have heard that the United States, in competing in the international market, have in fact accepted local currencies and have left those currencies in the countries to be used in the form of foreign aid. If we are going to try to compete with the United States on this basis, I suggest the Department of Finance will also have a very large say in the matter.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can see no great advantage in adopting this motion and I can in fact see some disadvantages, one of which would be perhaps losing a little of the position we might have within the cabinet in having both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce responsible for advancing the welfare of agriculture through increased wheat sales.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion I see my time is limited. I should like to say a few things in support of the motion. Basically the crux of the problem is whether or not western Canada and the wheat board, the jurisdiction of which lies solely in western Canada, is represented by a western or an eastern minister. History will bear me out that over the years the minister of agriculture has always been a western member, although that may not be the case in the future. Therefore, I think the first point is that he should have a closer contact with the area within which the jurisdiction of the wheat board lies-western Canada, and western Canada alone.
We have heard the record of the pros and cons of the two boards as they operated under the two departments in years gone by. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) knew very little about what he was saying, because he compared sales of wheat and said that under a former government the wheat board sold as much wheat as they did in the last few years under the very able direction of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). Now, what is the case? In previous years the wheat board sold about 2 per cent of Canada's wheat under a former minister of agriculture and the Department of Agriculture. Under the direction of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle we sold by direct agreement up to 35 per cent of Canada's wheat. There is the difference between the two types of administration so far as the wheat board is concerned.
We have heard some talk about the various ministers. We westerners, and we western farmers in particular, know the record of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) with regard to the wheat board. What

did he say about cash advances? He said they were not necessary and could not be administered, that they would ruin the wheat board. What did the Right Hon. C. D. Howe say about wheat sales when he was minister of trade and commerce? He said if they want to buy wheat let them come and get it. That was the attitude of the then government and the then deputy minister of trade and commerce.
What did the hon. member for Qu'Appelle do for the wheat board? He convinced the cabinet that Canadian wheat should be sold on credit. That is a principle that has been established and is continued today by the present government: they are selling wheat on credit. This was never done before. Western farm delegations came to Ottawa during past years and asked the government to sell their wheat, to give credit. We amended the Export Credits Insurance Act to make possible the first sale of wheat to China. This new principle has been accepted and the Export Credits Insurance Act was the vehicle, you might say, by which the Russian sale was made possible.
It is very important to western Canada that the wheat board have control to a great extent of the economy of the farmers generally. And what do the farmers want? I have here an editorial which I should like to read. It says:
According to the national farmers' union, the government is wrong on two points of agricultural policy.
They are referring to the present government.
It should not appoint a second minister of agriculture to deal with the farm problems of eastern Canada.
Apparently the government has realized that and done away with the idea.
The wheat board, which sells all wheat, should not have been transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
That is what the national farmers' union said about the action taken by the present government.
We have heard a lot of talk about the Russian and Chinese wheat agreements. Two basic principles were accepted and I hope will continue to be accepted, no matter which party forms the government. These principles were sales on credit and the acceptance of sterling. They are two important points which never before had been accepted by any minister of trade and commerce, and would not likely have been accepted today were it not for a hard-working and aggressive minister of agriculture who had the foresight to ask the cabinet to transfer the wheat board to his jurisdiction.

I must congratulate the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) for bringing forward this motion. He, along with other western members, convinced the government that wheat should be sold on credit if necessary; that if wheat were sold it would lift the burden off the backs of the western farmers generally. I am sure hon. members from western Canada will bear out that statement; it has lifted a tremendous burden from the backs of farmers generally in western Canada.
We have heard a lot of talk about the recept China wheat sale. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska referred to the part God had played. I am sure they are thankful for the part that somebody played because it came as a complete bombshell and surprise to them. I say that because the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, according to page 2562 of Hansard, during the question period for that day:
I say to the hon. member who has just interrupted, I do not think it helped greatly when the former minister suggested the farmers should grow all the wheat they could, and that he would sell it for them.
That is what he suggested to the farmers during the election. He did not suggest $2 a bushel for wheat as they suggested-a promise they knew could not be kept when they suggested it. The former minister said grow the wheat. He said we have now achieved credit sales and are accepting sterling. He was confident that through the continuation of his efforts and the efforts of the wheat board sales could be made and markets found. This house owes-certainly the western farmers owe-a great deal of appreciation for his hard work on their behalf. It is not like the present Minister of Trade and Commerce who travels out to western Canada even after a large wheat sale and tells the farmer not to grow any more wheat, to reduce their acreage because he cannot sell it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), like little Sir Echo, travels along with him and says: "Don't grow any more wheat; we can't sell it". What kind of attitude is this? The province of Saskatchewan is now considered the bread basket of the world. It is the only part of the world in which surplus wheat sales have been made possible through aggressive technological changes which the farmers have been ready to adopt in order to grow wheat and, in order to meet competition and the cost price squeeze they find themselves in today. Certainly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private
Old Age Security
members' business having expired, the house shall return to the business put aside at five o'clock.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the pension under the said act from $65 a month to $75 a month, effective October 1, 1963, and to increase the rate of old age security tax from the present rate of 3 per cent with a maximum of $90 to a rate of 4 per cent with a maximum of $120 on the taxable income of individuals, applicable to the 1964 and subsequent taxation years.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jay Waldo Monteith: When the committee rose at five o'clock I had been indicating that in my opinion and in the opinion of this party the resolution which is now before the house represents a complete flip-flop as opposed to the resolution which was presented originally on July 18. We all remember how the Liberal party claimed in successive months that it had all the answers. All I can say is: what answers? They have been searching around here and there. I have never seen such bungling. It has been a complete about-face and now hon. gentlemen opposite are running for cover.
The minister said on July 18:
Unfortunately, however, in recent years some of the increases in payments made under this legislation have been based not upon increase in productivity, not upon progress of the economy, but only upon pure political expediency. This can no longer be countenanced.
I have never seen such an example of political expediency as this particular move. Further, I would say that the whole matter has been ill prepared. We did not even have a copy of the resolution at the time this subject came up for discussion. Rightly or wrongly, it appeared to me that there was only one copy available and it seems that the rules, not to mention house etiquette, should provide for more.
I suggest we look at the resolution itself. It includes provision for raising the rate of old

Old Age Security
age security tax from 3 per cent, with a maximum of $90, to 4 per cent with a maximum of $120 on the taxable income of individuals. I wonder whether or not this includes an increase in corporation income taxes. There is no mention of an increase from 3 to 4 per cent in the sales tax. Is this included? We all know that the present formula is a three-three-three formula which sets out what money should go into the fund from each source. I believe this resolution is ambiguous. It contains the phrase "applicable to 1964 and subsequent years" but we do not know what is covered. I feel the whole thing has been very hurriedly constructed, as have many of the efforts of the present government in the past. I do not say the law officers of the crown were not consulted but, if they were, I suggest their advice was not accepted. I know that the resolution which was provided in 1957 and 1962 with regard to a similar increase under this and related acts contained nothing concerning the financing of those proposals; that was considered to be a matter for the Department of Finance.
I am sorry I was not in the house this afternoon when the minister spoke. I may have missed what was said at the time, but I do not recall, among what I did hear, any mention of the related acts dealing with old age assistance, blindness and disability allowances. When the former government presented resolutions on these matters embodying an increase of $9 in November, 1957 and $10 in February, 1962, we came to this house prepared. The resolutions were placed on the table of the house in the proper manner and action was taken in accordance with the correct legislative procedure. I think we have been asked once again to buy a pig in a poke to pull this government out of a hole. I should like to know when these related acts are likely to be amended. I suggest this government should get its feet on the ground and find out where it is going. Those planners over there certainly lack any sense of planning in this case, though they are noted as being planners. In that speech on July 18, the minister made what appeared to me and, I think, to the public as a whole, to be some terribly biased political and partisan statements.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who, me?


Jay Waldo Monteith: For one thing, she indicated that practically nothing had been done by the previous government while it was in power. I should like to recall just a few of the things which that government did in the space of some five and a half years. First, I would point out that we acted with promptness immediately after our election promises had been made. The second piece of legislation

dealt with in the fall session of 1957 had to do with the increase in old age security benefits. Effective November 1, 1957, we increased old age security payments by $9 and increases were made under related acts such as those dealing with old age assistance, blindness and other disability allowances. We reduced the residence requirement from 20 years to ten years. Allowable earnings were increased. Early in 1958, in this field of social welfare, we removed the threshold of 45 per cent of provincial population under which the government could give unemployment assistance. We increased the rate from 40 per cent to 50 per cent by which we participated at that time. In those days there were only four or five provinces in the scheme. Subsequent to our amendment, all the provinces in Canada came into the arrangement. Early in 1958 we doubled hospital construction grants, increased nurses' accommodation grants, chronic hospital bed grants and added internes' accommodation and major alterations and renovations. Early in 1958 we amended the clause whereby a majority of the provinces representing a majority of the population had to have legislation on their books before there could be any hospital insurance in force in Canada. We brought in an amendment and by July 1, 1958, five provinces in Canada had hospital insurance and the citizens of Canada in those provinces were receiving the benefits of it. Subsequently all 10 provinces and the two territories joined in the scheme.
In 1960 we made it possible for the people of Canada to enjoy benefits while out of the country by allowing absences from Canada which had not been hitherto enjoyed. In the fall of 1961 we brought in the fitness and amateur sport program. In the spring of 1962 we amended the national health and welfare act to set up a national council on welfare. We introduced national welfare grants starting at $500,000 with increases of $500,000 a year to a maximum of $2,500,000. In February of 1962 we increased old age security payments by another $10 and also all related acts and, of course, there was a consequent increase in allowable earnings.
To me, sir, this represents a tremendous expansion in social security services in Canada. I should like to refer to some figures. In 1956-57, the last year of the Liberal government prior to the present one, health and welfare grants totalled $881 million. In 196263 they were $1.9 billion or an increase of 115 per cent. Health and welfare payments to provinces increased from $75 million in 1956-57 to $527 million in 1962-63, or an increase of 603 per cent. Health and welfare payments to individuals increased in the same period from $815 million to $1.4 billion,

or an increase of 72 per cent. If you will look at the books of estimates for the years 1956-57 and 1963-64 you will see that the total increase in health and welfare estimates is from $881 million to $1,959 billion, or 122 per cent.
Over a period of time the minister has tried to indicate that the efforts of the former government left something to be desired. I beg to point out that no government in the history of Canada has ever increased its social security payments to the people of Canada, or its social security measures, by as great an amount over a similar period.
I had the honour of bringing in the increase in old age security in the autumn of 1957 and I should like to point out the actual timetable of the discussions in that session. We brought it in in the proper legislative manner. Four resolutions were put on the order paper, one having to do with old age security, another with old age assistance, another with blindness allowances and the last one with disabled persons allowances. On Thursday, October 24, we discussed the first resolution on old age security. We further discussed it on Friday, October 25 and again on Thursday, October 31. On Friday, November 1, the first resolution was completed after four days of discussion. On Friday, November 1, the old age assistance resolution was completed as were the blindness allowance resolution, and in part the disabled persons allowance resolution. On Monday, November 4, the disabled persons resolution was completed. On November 4 also, second and third readings were given to the old age security bill. The others were given second and third readings on the Tuesday following.
The Secretary of State mentioned today that there was a timetable with regard to this matter. We appreciate this. We do not wish to hold up any measures affecting the elder citizens of Canada. But I would point out the number of days it took at that time to discuss the resolutions and the bills and I would remind him of the fact that the payments still were made to the people of Canada as of the 1st of November.
In 1962 we were faced with a somewhat similar position. On Monday, February 5, the old age security resolution was agreed to and the old age assistance resolution was discussed. On Tuesday, February 6, the old age security bill received second reading. On Wednesday, February 7, the old age security bill received third reading and the old age assistance resolution was passed, as was the blindness allowances resolution. On Thursday, February 8, the disabled persons allowances resolution was discussed and again on Friday, February 9. On Friday, February 9, second and third readings were given to the old age
Old Age Security
assistance bill and the blindness allowances bill while the disabled persons allowances bill received second reading only. It was postponed until Monday, February 12, at the behest of a member of the opposition of that day, at which time it was then given third reading.
This only points up that the plea of the Secretary of State today for fast passage of this legislation in order to try to help them out of a predicament into which they themselves walked is, I think, beyond comprehension. I should like to emphasize as strongly as I can that the increase now proposed would have been in the hands of our senior citizens by last August at the latest if the government had listened to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on July 18. I should also like to emphasize that no ruling has yet been made on that amendment. I suggest that the government should accept it. Why not accept that amendment? If the government accepted it the same end would be achieved and our senior citizens would receive their just increase from that date. This party tried to get that increase through the house. The government has boobed again. It has bungled. It has procrastinated with the elder citizens. It is now playing politics with what should be rightfully theirs.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to have placed before us so soon after the reconvening of the session the resolution preceding the amending bill to increase the pensions of our senior citizens. There are many factors involved that require detailed study and analysis, but I do not think there is anyone who will disagree with the contention that this increase is past due. Our senior citizens have been waiting, I might say very patiently, for consideration of their needs. As I have indicated, we are very happy that we have this resolution before us at this time.
I feel there are a number of reasons why consideration must be given to the matter at this time. We are all aware of the fact that the cost of living is continuing to increase. This is placing our senior citizens, as well as others in the low income brackets, in a very difficult position. As they are endeavouring to face the increased cost of living and live on a decent standard, they are finding it almost impossible, if not impossible, on the present allowance of $65 per month.
I think there is another consideration, and it is this. Our senior citizens are observing a rising standard of living of a great many of their fellow Canadians. Although they recognize the assistance that has been given them in the past, yet they have a legitimate feeling that their income as well ought to be increased to take care of the situation and

Old Age Security
to help them enjoy some of the benefits that other citizens of Canada are enjoying now.
We have all had representations made to us concerning this particular matter. We have had letters from individual senior citizens or from senior citizens' organizations across the country pointing out the position in which these people find themselves now. Some of the provinces have recognized this need and are now providing supplementary benefits in order to assist our senior citizens in meeting the increased cost of living. In my own province of British Columbia, these people are receiving as much as $24 per month and this is of very real assistance in meeting the challenge before them today. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that not only our senior citizens but a great many people in other categories are facing similar problems. We hope that in the very near future the government will see fit to introduce legislation to assist these people who are facing serious economic conditions. I refer to the war veterans, the superannuated civil servants and different groups who are just barely getting by on pensions that were set some years ago.
It has been suggested that in the past this question has been made a political football, and unfortunately that has been so. Auction sale tactics have been used for political advantage in trying to gain the support of our senior citizens. I believe the time has come when we must take a sane and responsible attitude towards the necessity for making adequate provision for these people advanced in years. We are fully conscious of the fact that in a nation such as ours we are well able to provide adequately for those who, in building up this nation, have been unable to make provision for their declining years. I believe that today the responsibility is pressing, is urgent, and therefore we are very happy that this measure has been introduced at this time.
The method of financing, however, is open to question. We do not believe that an increase in taxation is necessary or desirable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How would you finance it?


Alexander Bell Patterson: We believe that the revenues coming into the federal treasury are sufficient if consideration were given to proper methods of financing and proper attention were given to monetary policies in relation to Canadian requirements. Therefore, while we would support without hesitation the proposal to increase this pension to $75, we would suggest that careful consideration be given to the matter of financing. If the government is convinced that additional taxation is required, then we would say that only sufficient additional revenue should be obtained or additional taxation levied to cover the actual cost

of administration in connection with this particular situation. Many times we find that instead of just sufficient revenue being collected to take care of additional expenditures, there is additional revenue required for something and this additional revenue is obtained under these various measures. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to take any more time discussing this matter at the resolution stage. We are looking forward to the introduction of the measure, and various members of the group will be taking part in the discussion and making constructive criticism in relation thereto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this party I wish to indicate our pleasure that this proposal is before the house, namely to increase to $75 per month the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act. I should like also to indicate our pleasure that at least a beginning is being made in connection with this legislation on this first day that the house has met since the recess. I want to make it clear that I do not need a crying towel to assist me in expressing my pleasure that this proposal is now before the committee. I do not see any point in belabouring the fact that the government has changed its mind or gone through a flip-flop or what have you. The plain fact of the matter is that starting last July 18 opposition members in this house, and I think we were supported by the members on the government side as well, began to urge the government not to delay this $10 increase. We urged in every way we could that it be brought in at the earliest possible date.
Now the government has done this, and that is good. They have had a change of heart or whatever you may call it, and we welcome the fact that there is to be no further delay in making this increase in the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act. I hope we need not have any more time spent in berating the government for having done precisely what the house as a whole wanted it to do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How much time does he want to spend in praising the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps if the hon. member gets an opportunity to speak in this debate he will explain that question, because the meaning of it escapes me completely.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that we do wish the government would reconsider the effective date of this increase. The minister has indicated, and the resolution indicates also, that the effective date is to be October 1. This means, of course, that the $10 increase, if this legislation goes through in time, will be in

the cheques received by our old age security pensioners at the end of October. It is still our belief that this increase ought to be made retroactive at least to April of this year. I make that suggestion having in mind the fact that certain other increases that were provided in this chamber a short time ago were made retroactive to April, and indeed some other increases for civil servants and so on, were made retroactive to last October. I think the least we can do for our old age pensioners is to make this $10 increase retroactive to April of this year. I hope that somewhere along the line, while this legislation is before us, the government will consider making this change in the proposal that has been presented.
We agree that if we are going to ask and receive an increase in old age pensions we have to face up to the matter of paying for it, but we are puzzled as to why the government has proposed an increase in personal income tax of a full percentage point and has not made any suggestion about increasing the corporation tax. We also wonder if consideration has not been given to raising the ceiling on the amount that is paid under the Income Tax Act so far as old age security is concerned. We feel the rate might well have been left at 3 per cent, that the $90 ceiling could have been raised, and a percentage point added to the corporation tax. A method of that sort would be a fairer way of raising the money, rather than imposing a straight percentage point across the board on income tax.
We should have more details about this matter. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare will give us these details as we go along; but even so, I do not want undue time to be taken up because my concern is that this piece of legislation be put through so that the pensions can be adjusted and so that our old people can get this increase as soon as possible.
The main change which I think should be made in the legislation now before us relates to the effective date, and we in this party believe it ought to be made retroactive to April of this year.
I would also point out that it is recognized by all of us that this is just one step that is being taken with respect to improving the position of our old age pensioners, and we recognize that this step is being taken because the government was persuaded to change its mind during the so-called summer recess. That is the reason it was not on the order paper. The hon. member for Perth knows that, and he does not have to make such fuss because it was not on the order paper. On the night of August 2 the government had no intention of proceeding with this increase.
Old Age Security
Motions for today's order paper had to be in that day; but the government changed its mind in the meantime and so it was not technically possible to have it on the order paper. Today, however, we gave unanimous consent to proceed with it, and having done so we should not complain about the resolution not being on the order paper.
The whole question of the eligible age for receiving old age pensions is one with which we must grapple and to which we must find an answer. We in this party feel that the pension, as of right, must be available at age 65. We would like to see the Old Age Security Act amended to provide that the pension payable under it be payable at age 65, but we are not going to hold up this measure for that purpose. In the meantime I would go so far as to say that we welcome the statement made by the minister to the effect that consideration will be given, when the Canada pension plan is brought before the house, enacting legislation making it possible for people to take their old age security pension at an earlier age on a reduced basis.
Instead of our talking about 70 being the normal age, it should be the other way around. The normal age for people getting a pension as of right should be 65, and if people want to continue working past that age they should have the right to do so. Also if they want to delay taking their pension they should be able to receive a greater amount at a later age.
One of the real gaps in our present set-up is this five year period between the ages of 65 and 70. Retirement generally seems to be around 65 years of age. This is normal in industry and many other kinds of employment; but here the pension is put off until 70. During that five year period our people are in the wilderness and do not have what Canadians generally feel should be theirs as of right. Therefore I hope the consideration of this matter, which was implied in what the minister said this afternoon, will be speeded up as quickly as possible.
This leads me to say that I hope there will be the least possible delay in bringing forward the Canada pension plan in whatever revised form it will now have to be presented to us. Since the $10 increase in the old age security pension will no longer be an item in that plan, it seems to me this would involve a change in the computations, either a change in the amounts to be charged or a change in the amount of the pension. It will certainly call for a revision of that actuarial document which the minister provided a few days ago; and if one province is to stay out of the national plan, this too will call for certain changes in it. But, whatever changes are necessary, we urge the minister and the

Old Age Security
government to bring this matter before the house as soon as possible. Delay in placing before the house a proper pension plan, such as a joint arrangement of a flat rate pension and a contributory pension, could cost many years in providing the people of Canada with a desirable piece of social legislation.
In regard to this matter I want to make a plea directly to the minister. I urge her to get the chip off her shoulder as to where the opposition stands to a proper pension plan. She seems to think the opposition to adequate pensions lies with the other parties across the floor from her. She does not seem to know we want an adequate pension plan as much as she does. In fact there is more opposition to it from the people who are sitting behind her. By mistake I almost said the people sitting beside her, and maybe it was not a mistake after all.
I also suggest that she get the chip off her shoulder with regard to the province of Ontario. I am one of the last people in the house to defend the Tory government of Ontario, but I would say to the minister that a little wooing of the Ontario government in this field might be a little more effective than the sledge hammer tactics she has employed thus far. Indeed a little wooing of Quebec would be in order too.
The minister should realize that if there is opposition to this kind of pension plan, which she and the rest of us want, it does not come from those of us who are elected on a platform in favour of it. The opposition lies with the insurance companies, and she should realize she can get support from all sides of the house. In fact I think she can get support from the governments of Ontario and Quebec if she drops the political chip off her shoulder and if she realizes that, in the name of the people of Canada, all of us in this house should be working for a proper pension plan for all our people.
There has been talk about the timetable in getting this legislation through. By all means let us do it as quickly as we can, but it is also important to get the other legislation through at this session. If the kind of delays, which the Kilgours and some others are seeking, were permitted we would not get the Canada pension plan through this session, and if our outside opponents win it will be another session before we can have it. In the meantime a time will come when we will need another increase in the flat rate, and this will put off the day when we can get an old age security plan with both the flat rate and the contributory pension.
When we talk about pensions we are not talking about just enough money for people unable to provide for themselves in their old

age. We are talking about a social philosophy and real security for our older people.
We in this house are here as members of political parties. When we left on August 2 we were members of four political parties. Now we are members of five political parties. I do not expect, and in fact I would not want, politics to be removed from the House of Commons. Politics is the life of this house. It is out of the cut and thrust of debate and out of the cut and thrust of conflicting ideas that we are able to make progress. But if ever there was an area in which we should try to work together, I suggest it is in this field of providing adequate security for our older people.
The hon. member for Perth indulged in a little recent history. If he wants history we could tell him what happened 35 or 37 years ago when Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, was here. We could speak of the early years of this century and recount the efforts made by trade unions to the governments of those days to get started on old age pensions. Having started, having the idea of pensions accepted, having the idea of universal pensions accepted, we now want adequate pensions provided, which can only be provided under the auspices of government and not private companies making their profit out of it. We have this principle accepted; let us work toward achieving this end.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare should make up her mind to seek our co-operation. She will get it from this side of the house. We congratulate her because she was not quite as political in her speech today as she usually is. I think she must have found it painful to make that moderate, objective statement. I see the minister nodding her head. This kind of pain is good for her, and if she will just stay with that kind of approach we will make good headway. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that we welcome this $10 increase and we are glad to be dealing with it on this first day of parliament following the recess. We hope this measure can be approved in very short order so that our people may receive this additional money in their cheques this month; and we hope the government will give consideration to making the date retroactive to last April.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, as has been said by each of the previous speakers, there is no question but that all hon. members of this house are in favour of the payment of an additional $10 a month to our senior citizens. I do not think anyone will take issue with that particular objective. But issue is taken, and rightfully so, with the methods used by the present government to bring about this increase.

Before entering into that particular phase of the matter I should like to say that in the hurried plan that has been put before us we are not told whether any consideration has been given to a differential payment. The method proposed, apparently, is following the same pattern that prevailed in the past, namely paying the same amount to everyone whether or not it is needed. I am not saying that is not the right way to do it, because I know it is extremely difficult to enter into a qualitative discussion or make a determination as to who should have more and who should not. It therefore becomes a question of raising enough money to pay everyone the $10 increase.
With regard to the question of the effective date of the commencement of this, it has already been said by one speaker, and I agree, that the date should be effective from April 8 last; the payment should be retroactive to that date. With regard to the period for raising the funds, I note that in the last paragraph of the statement which has been put into our hands there is a mention of a postponement in the collection of funds to meet this additional $10 payment, and it is to be applicable to 1964 and subsequent taxation years. In other words the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the present government intend to borrow money to meet this obligation, rather than raise it immediately out of taxes. They realize that if they wait until the 1964 income tax year, when we are filling out our income tax returns for that year it is quite possible we may have a different government, and they will leave on the door-step of that government the problem of raising this additional money in the form of taxes.


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: My hon. friends across the way smile, and I can quite understand why they do so. But why was this trick played at this time, when the government is asking us to approve and is placing before the House of Commons a measure proposing to postpone for a year the collection of funds to meet the additional payment. They are borrowing the money in order to make it appear they are doing something which they have been forced into, and they are simply choosing that plan which is most expedient to get out from under. These are clumsy, inept and bungling tactics on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who in her arrogance is looking for an opening to blame somebody else instead of coming out and saying, "We promised it during the last election campaign to win votes and now we are sorry and have to go through with it".
That is the situation placed before us this evening. I for one intend to vote for the
Old Age Security
resolution, as I think most hon. members will. But there are some things about it which I do not like. I have already stressed that the tactics which have been used and a lot of the circumstances leading up to this measure being introduced are certainly not commendable to or to the credit of the present government.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I was most pleased to hear the hon. member for Macleod arguing just now for retroactive taxation in order to finance the increase in the old age security pension. This would not be acceptable to those on this side.
In the resolution which is before the committee the government, I believe, has taken a responsible position in saying that the proposed $10 increase in old age security must be financed by additional revenue. With the indulgence of the committee I should like briefly to outline the history of the old age security tax and the results of the government proposal to increase the contribution from personal income to the old age security fund in order to finance this well deserved increase in benefits to our senior citizens.
When the Old Age Security Act was passed in November, 1951 to provide pensions of $40 per month commencing January 1, 1952, the act provided for old age security taxes consisting of, first, a tax of 2 per cent on sales of goods subject to the general sales tax. This applied to all sales on and after January 1, 1952. Second, a tax of 2 per cent on the taxable income of corporations became effective January 1, 1952. Finally, a tax of 2 per cent on the taxable income of individuals, with a maximum tax of $60, was imposed. This tax was at the rate of 1 per cent, with a maximum of $30 for the 1952 taxation year.
In the budget of April 9, 1959 the then minister of finance announced that the old 2-2-2 formula of old age security taxes would be increased to a 3-3-3 formula. First of all the tax on sales was increased to 3 per cent with effect from April 10, 1959. Second, the tax on taxable income of corporations was increased to 3 per cent effective January 1, 1959. Finally, the tax on taxable income of individuals was increased to 3 per cent, with a maximum of $90, to take effect on July 1 1959.	'
Although the taxes imposed to raise revenues for the old age security fund had been referred to as the 2-2-2 formula, and more recently as the 3-3-3 formula, the amount derived from each of the three taxes has been far from equal.
The sales tax has provided by far the largest proportion, with the tax on individuals next and the tax on corporations producing the smallest portion. This I can illustrate in a table which, with the permission of the

Old Age Security
committee, I should like to have inserted in Hansard. May I have this permission, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows.]
Revenue from O.A.S. taxes in dollars
Indi-	Corpo-	TotalYear	Sales	viduals	rations	(millions	of dollars)	1956-57	179.3	125	67.3	371.61958-59	173.6	146.4	55.3	375.31960-61	270.2	229.4	103.5	603.11961-62	284.9	259.0	100.1	664.01962-63	302.2	273.6	115.3	691.1
Proportion of O.A.S. tax revenue from each tax
Year	Sales	Indi- viduals	Corpo- rations%	%	%1956-57	48.3	33.6	18.11958-59	46.3	39.0	14.71960-61	44.8	39.0	17.21961-62	42.9	39	15.11962-63	43.7	39.6	16.7


Edgar John Benson: This table shows that going back to 1956-57, the old age security portion of the sales tax yielded $179.3 million, the tax on individuals yielded $125 million, and the corporation tax $67.3 million, for a total of $371.6 million. This increased each year until in 1962-63, which is our last completed fiscal year, the sales tax contributed towards the old age security fund $302.2 million, the tax on income of individuals $273.6 million, and finally the corporation income tax yielded $115.3 million, for a total of $691.1 million. If one looks at this on a percentage basis he would find that in 1956-57 the sales tax was yielding 48.3 per cent of the total contribution to the old age security fund, the individuals income tax 33.6 per cent, and the corporation income tax 18.1 per cent. Moving on to 1962-63 one would find that the sales tax yielded 43.7 per cent of the total contributions to the old age security fund, the individuals income tax 39.6 per cent and the corporation income tax 16.7 per cent.
The withdrawal of sales tax exemptions for building materials and production machinery announced in June 1963 will increase the old age security tax revenue from the sales tax by approximately $90 million a year commencing in April 1965. The rate of tax on corporations in Canada, including the old age security tax and provincial income taxes, now is 52 per cent in Ontario and
[Mr. Benson.l
Quebec, 51 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and 50 per cent in the remainder of Canada. The government considered it inadvisable to increase these rates at this time. One will find when the Canada pension plan is passed, as I am sure it ultimately will be by this house, that the employers will have to make additional contributions based on payrolls to the Canada pension plan, and this will largely affect corporations.
It was thus considered that an increase in social benefits to be financed on a pay as you go basis should most appropriately be paid for by contributions by individuals. The increase in tax for each individual is not large; in fact the increases per year for those with smaller incomes is quite small. This is shown in a table which, with the permission of the committee, I would like to insert in Hansard.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Effect of increase in the rate of old age security tax on personal income from 3 per cent (maximum $90) to 4 per cent (maximum $120).
Single taxpayer-no dependant
Standard	O.A.S. tax	O.A.S. tax	Increaseincome	(present	(new	inIncome	tax*	rate)	rate)	tax$	$	$	$$1,000	-	-	-	-$1,500	-	12	16	4$2,000	99	27	36	9$2,500	166	43	56	14$3,000	236	57	76	19$4,000	403	87	116	29$4,100	420	90	120	30Married taxpayer-no	dependant	Standard	O.A.S. tax	O.A.S. tax	Increaseincome	(present	(new	inIncome	tax*	rate)	rate)	tax$	$	$	$$2,000	-	-	-	-$2,500	44	12	16	4$3,000	99	27	36	9$3,500	166	42	56	14$4,000	236	57	76	19$5,000	403	87	116	29$5,100	420	90	120	30
Married taxpayer-2 dependants eligible for family allowances
Standard	O.A.S. tax	O.A.S. tax	Increaseincome	(present	(new	inIncome	tax*	rate)	rate)	tax$	$	$	$$2,500	-	-	$3,000	33	9	12	3$3,500	88	24	32	8$4,000	152	39	52	13$5,000	301	69	92	23$5,700	420	90	120	30
Before abatement for provincial tax.
Note: It is assumed that all taxpayers claim $100 standard deduction.


Edgar John Benson: This table shows that for a single taxpayer who has an income of $1,500 per annum and takes the standard exemption, including the $100 exemption for donations, medical expenses and union dues, the old age security tax would increase his tax by $4 per annum, and the maximum contribution of $30 per annum would not be reached until he had an income of $4,100 per annum. So that the new tax would involve a maximum contribution of $30 per annum for a single person when that person reached an income level of $4,100. For married persons with no dependants, it would mean that there would be no contribution at a level of income of $2,000 per annum or less. At the level of $2,500 per annum the contribution required from individuals who are married and have no children is $4 per annum and the maximum contribution of $30 is not made by a married person until he reaches an income of $5,100 per annum. Similarly, if a person is married and has two dependants one would find that at an income level of $3,000 per annum his required contribution to the fund under the additional 1 per cent tax would only amount to $3, and the maximum contribution of such married person with two children amounting to $30 would not be reached until he earned $5,700.
The position of the old age security fund in recent years and up to March 31 of this year, the end of the last fiscal year, is shown on page 97 of the appendix to Hansard of June 13, in the budget papers. This indicates that at the end of last year there was a temporary loan from the Minister of Finance outstanding of some $41 million to make good the deficiency in the fund as of that time. The Minister of Finance stated that on the basis of the outlook and tax structure before the budget, the old age security fund would incur a further deficit of $25 million during the current fiscal year as reported on page
Old Age Security
1008 of Hansard at the bottom left hand side of the page. The removal of the exemptions from the sales tax were expected to add $45 million to the income of the fund in the current fiscal year, but this portion of the increase in the sales tax, payable into the old age security fund, was later deferred until 1965. The current expectation is that the taxes presently in effect, payable into the old age security fund, will yield $729 million this year, and the pensions before the increase of $10 that is being proposed will cost $750 million, leaving a deficit for the current fiscal year of $21 million. The $10 a month increase in the pensions will add $57 million to the amounts payable out of the fund, increasing the total to $807 million, and the increase of one per cent proposed in the contribution based on personal incomes will add $13 million to the revenues of the fund during the current fiscal year. This will leave the total fund with a deficit of some $65 million for the current year; that is, 1963-64.
It is expected that the additional 1 per cent contribution based on personal incomes which is proposed will yield approximately $100 million in a full fiscal year at current income levels. It is not feasible to put this increased contribution into effect forthwith, but only from January 1. For this reason the amount actually collected and credited to our accounts in the current fiscal year is relatively small. Nevertheless, the additional revenue being secured for the fund is roughly comparable with the additional $116 million being added to expenditures by the increase in the pension rate.
When one considers the situation in the next fiscal year it is of course less easy to make forecasts at this stage because of the greater difficulty of anticipating the levels of income at that time. Moreover, there will still be some lag in collections even in that year, owing to the delay in receipt of final payments of the taxes payable on 1964 incomes. For that year, therefore, we expect that this additional 1 per cent contribution will yield some $93 million that will compare with the additional cost of the $10 increase of approximately $116 million. On the other hand, we would anticipate some growth in the yield from the present taxes which would have produced a modest surplus of revenue over the pension payments during 1964-65. This increase in revenue would include a small amount from the application of the sales tax on building materials and machinery commencing in January, 1965. As a result, I would expect that the $93 million additional revenue which I have forecast from this additional 1 per cent contribution will, roughly, bring the old age security account into balance for the next fiscal year, that is, the 1964-65 fiscal

Old Age Security
year; the old age security fund, based on the increase of $10 which is being paid currently and the contributions from now to the end of the 1964-65 fiscal year will be brought into balance for that year.
Looking beyond that, I would expect there would be sufficient revenue available to make good relatively soon the deficit incurred in the current fiscal year. Thus, if the old age security payments were continued at $75 a month commencing at age 70 I would forecast some annual surplus in the fund each year beyond 1965. However, when the Canada pension plan is approved by parliament and benefits under the Old Age Security Act are paid at earlier ages, as is anticipated under the plan, the calculations which I have indicated will have to be adjusted accordingly.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In view of the fact that this plan is not to come into effect until 1964 as far as taxation is concerned, this would mean that April 30, 1965 would be approximately the date of the first revenue received from many taxpayers. If these payments start on October 1, an interval of one year and seven months would elapse before substantial additional funds came in or, in other words, approximately $175 million would be paid out while little or no revenue was coming in. Does the minister agree with that statement?


Edgar John Benson: I must tell the hon. member for Macleod that I disagree wholeheartedly with him. Individuals in Canada pay taxes quarterly, or by monthly payroll deductions, so one can quickly estimate revenue from personal income tax, and the first monthly payments for 1964 will be received in February 1964 while the first quarterly payments for the 1964 calendar year will be received on March 31. Thus we shall get the $13 million I have estimated in that period. Also, at the end of 1964, we shall have received approximately the whole of the amount payable during the 1964-65 calendar year, or at least the majority will have been received by December 31. I think that if the hon. member will read the figures I have outlined as they will appear in Hansard tomorrow his question will be answered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the parliamentary secretary consider that the resolution as it appears before us is correct inasmuch as it includes the method by which money will be raised for the purpose of the earlier part of the resolution? Should the second part of the resolution not be brought forward as an amendment to the Income Tax Act.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I might answer that question. On the last two occasions when

there was an increase in both the level of taxation and in payments out it was done, I understand, in one bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, at the outset, it should be pointed out that we have no intention of delaying the present debate and that we cannot but be in favour of this increase in the pension for the aged in Canada or at least for those who have reached the age of 70 and who will receive it starting this month.
However, since there already exists a rather direct relationship with another pension scheme to be introduced later, I feel a few comments are in order concerning the two plans which are to be put forward this year.
First, we wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) to try and obtain the details of the new provincial contributory and portable pension plan for which a bill will be introduced at the next session of the Quebec legislature and to make them available to this house before the debate begins on this contributory and portable pension plan.
If a provincial government introduces a bill along that line, while the federal government introduces one also, the members of this house and those of the province concerned should be allowed to choose between the two pension plans.
It should not be believed that the electors in a province have necessarily made their minds up on that matter, Mr. Chairman. On the contrary, I believe that the citizens of the province of Quebec, as well as we in this house, must wait until they know all about those two schemes in order to be in a position to pick out that which will seem the most appropriate.
Of course, at first sight, we prefer the contributory and portable provincial pension plan because we want to protect the provincial autonomy which we respect. The leader of the government said last night on television, during a special program, that the provinces needed revenue to meet their increased responsibilities and that the same was true also for the federal government. Well, the responsibilities of the federal government have increased because it has taken over fields of jurisdiction that belonged to the provincial governments. Consequently, it would be fair to limit the responsibility of the federal government by handing over to the provincial governments the responsibilities and sources of revenue which are theirs under the British North America Act.
We tried to obtain details about the provincial portable and contributory pension plan,

but all we could gather from people close to the Quebec government is that apparently the province wants to set up a contributory and portable pension fund with accumulated funds. It is said that, over a period of four years, the accumulated funds would total $500 million. At that time, the government of the province of Quebec could use that half a billion dollars to develop certain sectors of the provincial economy. Otherwise, the provincial government would have to raise taxes or borrow elsewhere, from the chartered banks or the finance companies, or issue savings bonds. If the province of Quebec considers the establishment of a consolidated fund through the portable and contributory pension plan, it is precisely because it intends to borrow from that fund. In other words, it is using the pension scheme as an excuse to increase taxes. It also means that its contributory pension plan will be more costly and that a worker who contributes to a cumulative contributory pension plan will pay more than if he were contributing to a pension scheme under which there is no accumulation of funds.
If contributions are three times higher per month or per year than under the federal plan, he will have used it as an excuse to raise a new tax on personal incomes in the province of Quebec.
If the provincial government needs revenues through new taxes, it should say it without beating about the bush, instead of hiding the fact behind a new contributory and portable pension plan like the one which is now suggested. However, we will be able to make a decision only when those two plans are known and bills are introduced by the various governments.
That is why we feel that before introducing her bill or when introducing the legislation relating to the system of contributory and portable pensions, the minister of national health and social welfare should at least give us the opportunity to consider the bills which will be introduced by the government of the province of Quebec and by other provincial governments who will wish to establish their own pension plans, so that we can choose between them.
And now, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think I have been very lenient towards the hon. member for Lapointe by permitting him to proceed with his remarks up to this point. I remind him, however, that the house is not considering at the moment the resolution introduced last July concerning the system of contributory pensions. It is simply a resolution preceding the introduction of a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, in addition to increasing the monthly pension from $65 to $75.
Old Age Security
I therefore suggest that the hon. member should restrict his remarks to the resolution now under discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I had just finished expressing my views on the subject, but if I departed from the matter under discussion-I am sorry I did-it is because you had allowed some previous speakers to express their opinion on the contributory pension plan. I felt bound in my turn to inform the house of one of the reasons why the other act should be looked into most carefully.
As for the particular plan which is being submitted to us, that is the increase of old age pensions from $65 to $75, we are undoubtedly in favour of it and we shall see to it that it is passed as soon as possible.
However, in our opinion, the present government takes advantage of the situation to increase taxes, especially the additional 1 per cent tax on personal income tax. I agree with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who stated earlier that it would be difficult to increase further the sales tax, because it has just been increased in a very important field of our economy, i.e. in a field which accounts for $8.5 billion, namely building materials. Therefore, it was impossible to increase that 11 per cent sales tax.
But why should the burden of a tax increase such as this one, always be borne by the small wage earner? This burden is laid on the low income groups and again they will have to bear it.
Figures were quoted a while ago and I have noted a few which I should like to bring to the attention of the house.
For instance, we were told that in 1961, for the sole purpose of the old age security plan, personal income tax reached $229 million while corporation income tax amounted only to $103 million, which is less than half what is collected from individuals, from the small wage earners of our country.
Mr. Chairman, it was suggested a while ago that other sources of taxation could have been found. In my opinion, it would have been better for the population as a whole to raise the tax on corporation income.
Mr. Chairman, we know that in the United States, President Kennedy has come to the conclusion that taxes must be reduced in order to get the economy moving again. And I must confess that I was quite surprised to find that the present government had decided to increase taxes, because it is in the habit of following the Americans step by step and of doing everything they do.
Well, in order to rebuild the American economy, President Kennedy has reduced

Old Age Security
taxes by $11 billion in a single year. He expects that the annual income of each wage-earner will thus be raised by $340.
Right there and then, President Kennedy, with all his teams of economists and experts, says: that will enable us to rebuild our economy, to reduce unemployment and to encourage national production.
And what is being done in Canada? Exactly the opposite. An additional tax of 1 per cent is being levied on personal income.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that the Minister of National Health and Welfare could find another source of revenue, and it was precisely suggested to her by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) who, at that time, was replacing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who was absent.
In fact, we asked the Acting Minister of Finance if he could have borrowed from the Bank of Canada the $400 million he needed for loans to the municipalities. We asked him first if it was possible to do so, since the Liberal government had done it previously. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said then that it could be done but that it was not possible to borrow as much as $400 million.
Therefore, since the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the present government has stated that it could be done, I am of the opinion that the opportunity to do so is given him today and the amount is smaller now; it is expected to reach approximately $57 million the first year.
Mr. Chairman, if the ministers could agree among themselves, the Minister of National Health and Welfare might convince the Minister of Finance to adopt that proposal. Then I am convinced that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would become the first minister in any government to have increased the old age pension rate without increasing at the same time the income tax rate. To attain that distinction, she would have only to convince her colleague the Minister of Finance, since the Minister of Trade and Commerce is already convinced, that when a small amount is involved it is possible to get the money from the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare seems to ask me where we should take the money without increasing taxes. Well, the Minister of Commerce himself made this suggestion, and as a reasonable amount is involved, that is an amount of $57 million, he suggests that we get it from the Bank of Canada. And as it is well known that the Canadian economy is in a state of stagnation, we would help to start it moving by so doing.
At the present time, we merely have money moving by taking it from wage earners to give

it to our citizens 70 years of age or over. But if we were getting the necessary money from the Bank of Canada, we would increase the purchasing power. We would not take money from the young people to give a little more to our old people. We would leave some to those who work and who have worked hard to earn their living and at the same time give a little more to our senior citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I will never be able to say how much we are against taxation, for taxation does not solve our problem; it only redistributes it as regards the citizens as a whole. On the other hand, we are in favour of the old age pensions' increase and that is the reason why we repeat our suggestion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for we believe that following the explanations given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, it would be possible for the ministers to agree to this suggestion for, after all, the amount involved here is a mere $57 million whereas the Liberal government of 1947 did not have any compunction to deal with $200 million.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell for a moment on another question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has already raised that point a moment ago. Should we lower the age limit for old age pensions? We will naturally be told that, in so doing, we shall need new funds, and will thus have to increase the income tax. The present-day government seems to know of no other answer. However, let us think about the help we could bring to a great number of our fellow citizens, and boldly proceed with the proposed resolution.
A plant of the aluminum company is located in my own electoral district. Once they reach 65, the workers are pensioned off, and receive a monthly pension of $80 to $125 at the most. They are not entitled to anything else. For years, they have worked in the plant and at 65, as they can find no other work, particularly at a moment when unemployment is high, they have to wait five more years before receiving an old age pension which amounts to $75.
That, in my opinion, constitutes a gap which we should strive to fill and we should take steps so that those people who, at age 65, are used to a certain standard of living, should not have to work until they can get an extra $75 a month. Or perhaps, we should see to it that all those who are laid off or who are forced to retire because of a compulsory retirement plan or of an industry which no longer wants their services, people who have been unable to save any money because their salary was barely sufficient to make both ends meet, that such individuals

automatically benefit from a scheme under which they would get an old age pension of $75 per month at the age of 65.
The problem would be solved if a worker who is compelled to retire at the age of 65 because his services are no longer required, automatically received a pension of $75 a month even if he owns a house. But as it happens he is told today: you still own a house, sir, you still have a small bank account or something else in your name, a two-family dwelling, or something else. But if an individual has been clever or thrifty enough to buy a house, I do not see why, in order to be able to benefit from an old pension at 65 years, he should have to sell this house and wait for his capital to be spent before obtaining his $75 when he is 65. There is another suggestion I am making to the Minister of National Revenue. That any worker pensioned off at 65, should automatically come under the old age pension plan and get his pension from then on, so that there would be no more five-year period in his life during which he would not have enough to live decently or not be allowed to work.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted to make on behalf of our group. I hope they will be favourably considered. They are not beyond the realm of possibilities. There is no exaggeration in these suggestions. The minister might have an estimate made of the additional cost to the pension fund so that those who are necessarily laid off benefit automatically from the old age plan without having to sell their house should they have one.
I believe that with all the tax increases that we have seen this year at the federal, provincial and municipal levels-the people are overburdened. And if that old age pension were to be financed through the Bank of Canada, I believe that the Canadian people would quickly forget about the vexations they have experienced and they would say; that minister managed to find the best way out of our economic problems in Canada.


Mr. Nugent:: I am looking at the mimeographed copy of the resolution which has been handed to us, and I am constrained to note that this increase in the old age pension was proposed a considerable time ago and that the Prime Minister made his announcement about two weeks ago that it was going to be brought forward. However, we have not got the item on the order paper. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we can understand the item not being on the order paper. At the time this resolution was moved, there was only about one copy of it in the house. Mimeographed copies were made available this evening.
Old Age Security
This causes us to wonder if suddenly, at the last moment, the government decided to introduce this measure in this form.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would you like to see the printed bill?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: At the moment we have before us also the previous resolution embodying the proposal for a $10 increase in pension and the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to make this $10 increase payable immediately. Certainly, the easiest method of implementing the government's desire would be to accept the amendment.
I was at a loss to understand the attaching of a monetary clause to this resolution by which taxes would be increased. Certainly the measure itself by which old age pensions are increased, compared to the contributory plan that the government previously considered, is broad enough in scope to allow us to debate both measures at one time. I suggest that the part of the measure by which taxes are increased would more properly be the subject of a separate budget resolution. I can understand why the government, in view of the trouble they have had with the budget and the number of changes they have had to make, would not be particularly anxious to introduce an individual budget item at this time. They hope, perhaps, that parliament and the country will treat them kindly in this respect because the old age pension item is attached to the item increasing taxes. Perhaps the two items are tied together because the government has finally become aware of just how much trouble they are running into in connection with their portable pension plan. They hope that this item, presented in this way, will draw attention away from that other pension plan and make the people of the country forget how much fire the government is drawing from various quarters in connection with that plan.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the specific resolution before us does not include the portable pension plan, but the method of financing is before us. We have to contrast this suggested method of financing with the method of financing suggested by this government just a couple of months ago in connection with the same item. I must say that the fact there were not even any copies of this resolution available until today makes me wonder if this measure was not brought before parliament in a great hurry. Certainly, it would not be the first time we have had reason to suspect this government of acting on impulse, not the first time we have seen them act hurriedly and without sufficient thought. Certainly the complete change from

Old Age Security
The previous plan suggested by the government is sufficient in itself to make us look with considerable suspicion on those wonders on the government benches who have made us wonder before.
If the change in content were not enough, certainly the change in the manner and method of presentation of the minister would be enough to make us wonder. Most of us who were present in the house when the hon. lady introduced the portable pension plan can recall the positive glee, the almost triumphant manner, in which she presented this plan. We can recall her saying with a beautiful smile, how glad she was to see pensions now being taken out of the realm of politics, while at the same time giving the most political speech ever given in the presentation of such a bill. Certainly this afternoon her speech was very short and her manner most subdued. In fact, the amount of information that she gave was minute. One gained the impression that the minister had learned from her previous dealings on the subject of pensions in this house, and the public and press reaction, that perhaps the less said by her-the better. It might be, too, that the result of her intervention in the Ontario provincial election, the reaction of her opponents as well as the reaction of the voters of this province, has taught her a lesson that perhaps will have a lasting effect not only on the hon. lady but on her conduct in this house.
I am in agreement with the increase in the old age pension, and I am sure most of us have realized the house must pass this needed piece of legislation. We all urge the government to honour the commitment it made to the voters during the last election to give this increase immediately. We recall how indignant we were when the government indicated it had no intention of carrying out that commitment and how it denied there was a commitment to put the increase into effect immediately.
I continue to be amazed at the manner in which the members of the government can use the English language. I am amazed at the lengths to which they will go to find a commitment on the subject of nuclear arms. Here we find the government committing itself to a policy it does not agree with, and stretching the English language as an excuse for doing so. On the other hand, and for a very worthy project on which they convinced every voter in the country they were committed to a $10 pension raise, they are unable to find a commitment, and have been unwilling to honour it until forced into doing so by the events and public pressure of the last few months.
I am sure most of us who know Canada's prosperity as a nation and the general standard

of living we enjoy, realize that this makes it mandatory on us to recognize our responsibility to our old people in a substantial form. This $10 increase is justified and it is incumbent on us to pay it. In saying that, I am not unmindful of our responsibility to raise the money and to consider how it will be raised. However I am a little surprised to find this subject tied in at the same time as the increase is being passed.
It is not usual in the House of Commons, whenever a bill is presented calling for an expenditure of funds, to tack on to it a clause in the resolution preceding it outlining in detail the method by which the money should be raised. In fact the customary procedure is to deal with the matter in two stages, to consider whether we ought to carry out certain plans and then at another time consider the question of raising money for that purpose in the debate on raising money generally. In this manner we are able to keep our spending and the raising of money in proportion and each item, taken together with all the rest, is capable of being assessed regarding its effect on the tax paying ability of the country.
Dealing with the present measure, we have to consider not only whether the old age pension should be increased but we have also to decide whether we should change the general formula which has existed for the last 10 or 12 years, of finding increased funds for pension purposes by an orderly increase on each of three classes of taxpayers. We have to consider whether it is wise for the house to vary that formula, and I submit that this question alone could be the subject of a very long and learned debate.
It is worthy of note that the minister made only passing reference to the subject of raising the money. It was only after three or four hon. members had spoken on the subject that the parliamentary secretary contributed to the debate and we heard any discussion on the question of raising the necessary funds. Considering that the subject of taxation is rather difficult at the best of times, and knowing you cannot raise taxes in one area without having a considerable influence on the wellbeing of the general economy of the country, I would think the government would have been anxious to approach this subject of additional taxation with some diffidence, and to have approached the subject of a change in the concept of taxation with some difference, and furthermore with some advance notice.
We were told a couple of weeks ago that the government planned to increase old age pensions, but I do not think we were told exactly how it was to be done. There was nothing on the order paper and nothing was

said specifically about it until today. I suggest that this is rather a quick method of asking the house to deal with so serious a subject. In fact I begin to wonder whether the minister has really learned to leave politics out of these questions.
It looks to me like another political trick to propose the increase and the financing of it in such a way that we, as legislators, would be rather careless in looking at it and examining it closely. Then, if we dare to examine or question the propriety and wisdom of raising the money in this manner, it could be said we were guilty of prolonging debate and keeping the old age pensioners from getting their money. However I believe that the people of the country will see through this political trick.
I suggest the minister has not learned that public pressure is not just brought about by insurance companies complaining about portable pension plans. Public pressure is the awareness of the ordinary men and women of Canada of what is going on. It is the realization by them that the Liberal government came into power because of what it promised to do, and this is a commitment the government had to carry out because of that public pressure. Even at this late date I would suggest the government would be well advised to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
I have a few questions in my mind despite the illuminating and interesting information supplied by the parliamentary secretary. There are the questions of other expenses that usually accompany a straight raise in old age pensions. Contributory pensions usually go up at the same time, and there are the same considerations to be given to contributory widows pensions and blind pensions. We will run into all these increases. The argument that holds good for one holds good for the others. They usually have gone up at the same time, so that added to the question of whether the government has acted properly in tying in this method of raising money with the increase in pensions, is the question of whether it has only attacked the problem piecemeal.
Surely public pressure on the Liberal government which forced them to agree to this $10 increase is not to be satisfied by this sort of action without regard to the kind of common sense it makes. The same public pressure will want to know about the other pensions; it will want to know why the government has not handled them all together, and it will want to know why the government does not put its taxation house in order all at once. Certainly the fact is that so little is left of the budget, and the ordinary citizen of Canada
Old Age Security
is so much in doubt as to where the finances of this country are, that a new budget for this year is more than past due.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that instead of putting these two things, the money spending and the money raising, in the same resolution, the government should merely put through the old age pension increase and the minister should tell us what she intends to do about the contributory pensions, pensions for the blind, etc. Then the government can put its mind to work on the question of bringing in a new budget. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance quoted some figures which indicate-if I sorted it out in my mind correctly, and without the tables to which he referred it was rather difficult to get them straight; but I made some notes -that the 1 per cent increase in the old age security tax payable by the individual would amount to about $90 million in a taxation year. When the minister made her statement to the house she said the difference in cost on this one item would amount to about $116 million for a year. So that for the one year the two items are nearly ad idem and it would seem, whether I use the term "taxation year", "fiscal year" or "calendar year", this will not be too inaccurate. I do not want to get confused, as did my hon. friend from Macleod, with regard to what we call the year. I take it that whatever year we are talking about, it is the same year, calendar or taxation.
However, I remember the minister's speech on the contributory plan and I note that we still have this on the order paper, and we have had no indication from the government that it intends to drop the contributory plan. We are going to have the complication of financing that, which may have a bearing on the amount of money realized from this increase in taxation and which is certainly going to have an influence on the ability of the taxpayer to pay it. I am wondering whether the minister, when she next deals with this topic, would mind straightening out the house in this regard, bearing in mind some of her remarks of July 18 as reported in Hansard, where she made reference to the variable amounts that might be required to be paid out under the contributory scheme.
All we know about the participation of the other provinces in the federal scheme is that apparently Quebec is not going to take part in it. I would think that in itself might be warning enough to the minister that some of the weighted criticism across the country with regard to the portable pension scheme is perhaps worth looking at very closely.
We are not sure, of course, that the rest of the provinces are going to agree, and perhaps of more moment to this debate is the fact

Old Age Security
that the provinces may very well ask the minister to reconsider part of that other scheme. That part may be the method of financing and the amount of contributions, etc. We certainly saw, for instance, in the winter works program that the government had to practically throw out its scheme and adopt the one the provinces wanted, in order for them to accept it. We do not have the acceptance of the provinces and I therefore suggest it is quite possible that the provinces may force the government to bury its contributory scheme to the extent that the fund raising aspects of it will throw a totally new and unexpected load on the government.
I suggest that even though, as the minister said originally with regard to the contributory scheme, we are not exactly fixed on the contributions from the individual, that part of the finances the provinces expect the federal government to pay will have to come from additional sources of tax revenue. It might very well be that the minister will be in the position of having to come back to the house and say, "I want to increase each of the categories from 3 per cent to 4 per cent"; that is, not just the tax on the individual, but the sales tax and the corporation tax, right across the board. In that case we would be presented with a whole new set of figures.
Might I suggest to the minister that she seriously consider withdrawing from this resolution the fund raising part of it. Also, I suggest that an entirely new budget be presented, or an amendment to the budget, so that we can get on with granting the increase in pension without this further complication, and so we can give the fund raising aspect of this matter the kind of attention it deserves.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, during the last federal election, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) was a member of the truth squad. Probably worried about her conversion, she remembered the words of Socrates, the philosopher: Know thyself. Then, she changed her mind but she nevertheless retained a certain personal knowledge which she has used today and which she acquired while she was following the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was Prime Minister at the time. The best evidence we have of that is the resolution which the minister introduced this afternoon. Indeed, the hon. lady had to agree that the Leader of the Opposition spoke the truth last July 18 when, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), he moved the following amendment:
That the said resolution be amended by adding after the words "ten dollars a month" in line 9:

"and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence on this day."
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has now decided to accept this proposed amendment. At that time, she and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) rose and stated emphatically that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional. And I think it is you, Mr. Chairman, who on that day said that you would take under advisement the matter of legality of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. In my opinion, the resolution introduced this afternoon by the minister relieves you from rendering a decision which we were anxious to know.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare accepts the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, except for the last words of the amendment: "to commence on this day", because the resolution before us indicates that this legislation on old age security will come into force on October 1, 1963.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to draw your attention to a particular point which came up in discussing this resolution. I did not look very deeply into the matter, but I wonder if the resolution does not come in conflict with some clauses or rules of the house, because I do not know whether we are allowed two resolutions on one bill. I shall not stress the point, I only mention the fact. But, I wonder if it is not creating more of that confusion often found among government members, and which is characteristic of them since they took over. If we look over the text of the resolution introduced this afternoon, and refer to number 15 on the order paper, we shall see that it also mentions an increase of $10 a month in the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act.
No doubt the leader of the house, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) did not have time to submit the question to the government's legal adviser because after the triduum which followed the closed retreat of last week end which the members of the Liberal party attended, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare-in order to regain political prestige was forced to submit this resolution in a hurry, without studying all its legal aspects. But there is no doubt that all members of the house will support this motion since we of the official opposition, were in favour of a $10 per month increase as early as July 18, we still are, even more than ever.
That legislation, as I said a moment ago, was prepared in great haste, did not have time to ripen or to be completed, and could

not give satisfaction to all those who need social aid in any guise or form from the federal government.
Besides, the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she saw at the last federal-provincial conference that her contributory pension scheme was turning out to be a failure-a failure that was much more humiliating since it was coming on the heels of the last federal election-then, the minister should have taken the opportunity offered her when she met with the provincial premiers to discuss the advisability of amending the act in order that the provinces and the federal government might offer pensions not only to those over 70 years of age, but also to those now coming under the handicapped and blind persons acts.
Now, I believe that the minister of health and welfare, as well as the government, would have shown the Canadian people that their plan was not submitted for the purpose of bolstering the Liberal party which is sinking fast since it is the first constructive piece of legislation introduced by this government.
Since April we have been faced only with incomplete legislation meant to put the taxpayer in a difficult position. I am thinking of those different taxes which have been levied by a certain minister of finance who turns out to be a pretty poor administrator. He may be a competent accountant, but as far as I am concerned, he does not know the first thing about administration. Besides, the measure brought forward is nothing but patchwork and intended to make the people forget the government's mismanagement at this time and, as the previous speaker just said, I think that the government should not introduce immediately this legislation to impose a 4 per cent tax to provide for the increase of that pension. We should rather be given the opportunity to think over and revise the whole social legislation. Then, the government might find out in that financing method a form of taxation which would not only help to meet the expenses of its social assistance plan, but also help all the various classes of society, the various classes of government pensioners.
I think the minister should give more thought to the old age problem even though the government will not get much political advantage from it. When the Prime Minister made his announcement during the last election campaign in Ontario, several old persons in my riding were delighted over the statement, but everyone without any exception told me that the Prime Minister was afraid of being defeated in the house and that it is the Leader of the Opposition who imposes his views and makes the government realize
Business of the House
that to keep that election pledge is in their own interest.
Last year, when we introduced legislation to raise from $55 to $65 the payments to all government pensioners, there was no mention of new taxes to be imposed. It is to be hoped that the famous planning program will be carried out without new taxes having to be imposed on Canadian taxpayers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was
wondering whether we could pass the resolution now and if other members who wished to speak would be willing to speak on the bill instead of the resolution. It would save almost a day of parliamentary time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a speech which I intended to make tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member object at all to making it on the bill instead of on the resolution?


Edward Nasserden: I want to speak on both. Mr. Pickersgill: Well, I just inquired, sir.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the house leader if he would give us a forecast of the business for the rest of the week, which I hope will be done in orderly fashion without these special requests to go on after the hour, and things of that nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think most hon. members will feel that the country will expect us, even if we once in a while have to sit a little late, to do the country's business.
The first item we shall take tomorrow is the continuation of this debate, and if it is completed, as I hope it will be, we shall then take the two bills respecting Northwest Territories. I may say there is some urgency about these because of the need to hold an election in the territories this autumn. If they are completed there is a resolution standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Labour with respect to vocational training which would be taken next.
If we conclude the debate on the old age pension resolution we would want to take the bill on Wednesday, and on Thursday, I should like to suggest, the Minister of Finance will be asking for interim supply. It was our thought that we would ask for two months

Business of the House
supply so as not to interrupt our business again. We would hope in that time to be able to get through all the estimates.
The resolution respecting the measure to which the Minister of Labour referred earlier today will appear on the notice paper of today and will, of course, appear on the order paper on Wednesday. We would expect to advance it one stage on that day. As the minister has indicated, its progress beyond that stage will depend to some extent on developments which may or may not take place outside the house. It is therefore necessary to have some reservations about business in the latter part of the week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the leader of the house a question? If, as we hope, the debate on the old age pension resolution is ended early tomorrow, might it not be possible to have the bill printed and proceeded with later tomorrow in place of some of the other legislation to which the hon. gentleman has referred?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be exceedingly agreeable to the government, but unanimous consent would be required.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 1, 1963