1963-10-01

Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government that recipients of war veterans allowances and corresponding civilian war allowances who are over age 70 shall not be deprived of the proposed increase of $10 a month in old age security pensions. We therefore intend that an item will appear in the supplementary estimates to be tabled later this week which will provide for this adjustment, so there will be no reduction in the amount of the cheque to be issued to war veterans allowance recipients.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be very well received by veterans across Canada, particularly those at the age of 70 and over who come under the war veterans allowance arrangements. These persons are deserving of this type of assistance, and this corresponds to and follows what we put in practice in instances where the old age pension was increased. We immediately made the increase available to those on war veterans allowances. We welcome this announcement, and we are pleased to see the minister has now got some grasp of his department.


Mr. Real Caouefie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to learn that the government intends to act immediately regarding the increase in the old age pensions as well as the veterans'. We are anxious to see the estimates introduced. The most anxious are certainly the veterans and the old people across Canada.
We congratulate the government on this action and we hope to see the measure before us as soon as possible.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic party welcome the announcement made by the minister, and I am sure it will be welcomed by people right across Canada.
28902-5-196
I hope that when the government is considering the effects of the proposed $10 a month increase for old age pensioners, it will also give some thought to legislation dealing with blind pensioners and disabled persons. The whole picture has to be rounded out, and I am sure the government has it under consideration. I certainly hope legislation will be brought down accordingly.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. Does the minister intend to bring forward resolutions and consequential amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act, so these unfortunate people may receive equal benefits to those covered by the Old Age Security Act, and from the same effective date?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my hon. friend, who held this portfolio just before I did, that the government can only bring forward one piece of legislation at a time. As he knows, we are now dealing with the largest mass of the people. When we have completed this matter the house will be informed of the next piece of legislation to be dealt with.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does this mean these people benefiting by these related acts will or will not receive this extra benefit dated from October 1, the same as those receiving benefits under the Old Age Security Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, this will of course be announced in due course.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask if he would bring the house up to date on the discussions he has had with Mr. Jodoin and other labour leaders. In particular would he comment on a statement made by a reliable member of the press gallery, Mr. Ed Murphy, to the effect that an informed government source said that the S.I.U. had threatened
3088	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to tie up Canadian ports if the government goes ahead with its proposed union control?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, discussions were held yesterdayevening between myself and the executive officers of the Canadian Labour Congress, at which time the ideas that had been explored in Boston over the week end were reviewed and canvassed. I was informed yesterday that the executive committee of the congress would be meeting this morning, and as yet I have received no report from the congress as to the results of its deliberations.
With respect to the second part of the question, as I stated in reply to a question on the week end, I have received no communication about nor have I any knowledge of this particular threat, namely that the implementation of the government's intention would produce this result. I as Minister of Labour have received no communication nor have I any reason to believe that the department or any member of the government has received any communication of that kind.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence based on an article in the Globe and Mail reporting his speech at Hamilton last evening. My question is, is it the intention of the minister to ask the special committee on defence to examine and report on the proposed changes in defence policy before he makes a decision?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I am not sure, from the question the hon. gentleman has posed, just exactly to what changes he is referring.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The newspaper reports the minister using these words:
We are well on the way toward decisions in respect to these things. Some decisions can be made very shortly.
I simply ask, will he refer these problems to the special committee on defence to get their findings before he makes the decisions about which he talks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the committee will wish to consider all these problems, and I will be most happy if


it does so. While I am on my feet perhaps I should take this opportunity to correct one error which appears in that report, and say I did not indicate that the white paper would be available in December. I said the review, I hoped, would be completed by the year end, but the white paper would probably not be available until some time next year, after the government has had a chance to consider it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister again, will the committee have an opportunity, before he makes his decision, to inquire into and give him advice with regard to proposed changes in policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not a member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot really control how fast it acts. If it acts with dispatch I have no doubt it will be able to consider some of these problems before the decision is made. If it is tardy in its deliberations it may not be able to do so.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the defence committee I should like to ask this. We have been told by the minister that we have nothing to say as to the decision. Will he now present his proposals to the next meeting of the defence committee, or is he acting as a prevaricator, saying one thing in committee and the opposite in the House of Commons? Will the minister tell us now, in view of his answer, whether he will give evidence before the committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will give evidence before the committee any time I am called to appear there.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question? Can the government tell us whether it has been requested by NATO to increase its military forces overseas and, if so, will the problem be put before the house?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I know of no such attempts. As a matter of fact, NATO has not the authority and is not in the habit of making demands on governments in the terms in which the question has been put.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the American government pay rent to Canada for the use of our territory at La Macaza and North Bay for the storage of American nuclear warheads? If so, what is the amount of such rent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly the answer is that the government of Canada does not pay rental for this land. It owns it outright.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Could the monetary unit that we are accepting in payment for the wheat we sell to Russia be used to pay off our debts with the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the $500 million we hope to receive will be put to a very good purpose indeed.



REMISSION OF UNION DUES TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). In view of the deficit of our balance of payments with the United States, is the Minister of Finance considering taking steps to prevent Canadian assets under the form of union fees from leaving Canada for the United States?
[Text1


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be most pleased to take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of he Minister of Finance.
28902-5-196J
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF PLAN TO HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week the hon. lady was reported as saying that she was opposed to the idea of a committee of this house having referred to it the Canada pensions plan. On Sunday the Prime Minister indicated that he was quite prepared to accept such a reference. Has the hon. lady now changed her mind in this regard?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the report to which my hon. friend refers.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask whether the minister can assure the house that discussions are continuing with the manufacturers of motor vehicles and parts to work out methods of increasing production and trade with respect to Canadian automotive products.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Indusiry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. Discussions have been taking place between members of the government and the motor vehicle manufacturers and automotive parts producers. The purpose of these discussions has been to explore possible means of improving the balance of trade in motor vehicles and parts.
The government has received a number of suggestions from these industries on measures to achieve this objective. A high priority is being given by the government to formulating a plan to improve the trade balance, a plan which will also provide opportunities for the vehicle and parts manufacturers to realize economies of larger scale production. We are not yet in a position to announce the details which are being considered, although I can say that we contemplate a measure which will encourage a substantial increase in the production and trade in Canadian automotive products. Such a plan would not be of a restrictive nature, but rather it will provide incentives to encourage trade expansion.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry arising out of his reply to the carefully rehearsed, spontaneous question put to him by the member for Essex West. Could the minister indicate to the house the extent to which United States authorities are involved in the plan to change the importing of automotive parts, particularly _ in view of the published threats of retaliation in some form by Secretary Hodges? Could he indicate the degree of involvement of United States authorities in his plans and whether subsequent meetings are going to be held to discuss the plans with them?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, at the recent ministerial conference in Washington with the United States authorities an outline was given to the United States representatives of Canada's intentions in regard to redressing our imbalance of payments without, however, disclosing any specific plan to do this. The measures that the government of Canada has in mind to accomplish this purpose would in no way invalidate or go against our agreements, either specifically with the United States or under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Consequently in the completion of these plans it would not be necessary to involve the United States administration at all. We would, however, welcome their co-operation and will seek to keep them informed of the steps we contemplate.



REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the hon. gentleman tell us if the government of Quebec has addressed a request for financial assistance to the federal government in order to help the victims of last June in Abitibi West?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, the answer is no.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. What commitments have

been made by the federal government through the national harbours board in respect of long term leases of water lots in Coal Harbour in Vancouver to Coal Harbour Investments Limited, who are planning a comprehensive scheme of development at the entrance to Burrard inlet?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: To check the files in order to see precisely what commitments or leases have been entered upon would require detailed research work, and I should think that a question of this type should be put on the order paper. I shall be glad to get the information if the question is put on the order paper.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon.
Minister of Public Works a question? In order to stop the rumors which are spreading, would the hon. minister state in the house whether the world fair will be definitely held in Montreal, on St. Helen's island and on the set date in 1967?
Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I think that the recent statements of the commissioner responsible for the world fair and of his assistant would answer the hon. member's question.
However, I may add, with regard to the world fair site, that there is no doubt at this time that the site will be handed over to the World Fair Corporation not only in time, but before the date provided.
With regard to the approaches, they will, but for a major impediment, also be completed in good time for the world fair.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Following his statement regarding roads, would the hon. minister tell us whether those approaches include the trans-Canada highway leading to the world fair site?


Mr. Deschateleis:: Mr. Speaker, when the three-way agreement was concluded about a month ago in Montreal, between the Minister of Public Works, the provincial government and the authorities of the city of Montreal, it was understood that the eastern section of the trans-Canada highway from Montreal would not be completed in time for 1967. The efforts of the three governments will bear on the western section which extends from Decarie boulevard to St. Helen's and Notre Dame islands, and which is recognized as the vital one for the fair.

We were, at the time, assured by the Quebec government engineers that this section, which is vital for the world fair, will also be completed in time for the fair.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Could the minister give us the real reason for the resignation of Messrs. Bien-venu, Carsley and Robillard?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Bienvenu and Mr. Carsley handed in their resignations, which were regretted at the time, they gave their reasons for doing so and it would not be proper for me to add anything to what they said.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, speaking of roads of access to the fair, could the minister tell the house if the federal government will contribute about 90 per cent of the construction cost?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, as regards work on the trans-Canada highway, the federal contribution is provided for in the Trans-Canada Highway Act and it will be the same in this case as in the other provinces.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is urgent and timely, I hope the Prime Minister will inform the house and the public as to which member of the cabinet answers for the world fair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the reason I answered the previous question with the words "Of course it was inaccurate" was because there was a minister already designated as minister responsible for the world fair. That has been made public and it is the Minister of Public Works.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister tell the house whether the new general commissioner has accepted the $75,000 yearly allowance which his predecessor refused?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and answer it tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER FOR ST. LAWRENCE-ST. GEORGE AS LIAISON OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question relating to the very well thought of hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether there is any substance in the reports that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has been appointed to or given the task of providing liaison among the federal government, the government of the city of Montreal and the Quebec government in matters relating to the world fair.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, this matter is a prerogative of the Prime Minister and I would refer my hon. friend's question to him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the report is of course without foundation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister anything new to report on the proposed railroad abandonment in the light of heavy grain movements on the prairies?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. There have been no rail line abandonments on the prairies, and I do not think there is anything new or different about the situation. I hope we can move the prairie wheat to the complete satisfaction of the hon. member.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister if he would care to comment on reports that further sales of wheat are being discouraged, or at least inhibited, because the transportation industry is unable to cope with any further movement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is good practice to comment on such statements, but it is perfectly obvious that the statement is untrue.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



INQUIRY INTO ADMINISTRATION OF PAROLE BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can he inform the house of any progress made by the committee which is at present considering the problems of the national parole board?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty understanding the last part of the question. I imagine the hon. member's question has to do with the Dion case?


Guy Marcoux: I am particularly interested in the Dion case, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the work of the committee investigating the national parole board, and I am asking the minister if he could inform the house of any progress made in that regard?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment, in early August, I appointed two persons for this investigation. I now have their report before me. I am examining it and I will report to the house in due time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that wheat is a popular topic of debate, does the minister intend to order the construction of feed grain bins for the benefit of eastern farmers, so as to reduce the cost of feed grain to the eastern feed mills.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this question before the house. I will bring it to the attention of the minister and an answer will be forthcoming.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him some notice. In view of the recent announcement that the C.N.R. will be selling its grain storage elevator at Saint John, and in the light

of the strain on existing facilities, will the minister reconsider this proposal and perhaps have the elevator operated by the national harbours board to the fullest extent?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that this is exclusively a matter for the minister but I will certainly look at the question posed by the hon. member to see that the movement of grain out of that harbour is not interfered with in any way.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to set up the public accounts committee at an early date so that the Auditor General's report and public accounts tabled in this house on January 31, 1963 may be examined and thus maintain the continuity of the committee's work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take that matter into consideration. I think the committee should be set up at an early date.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he inform the house of the result of negotiations undertaken by representatives of the Canadian government to reach an understanding with the American authorities in order that Canadian workers in the United States, particularly in Maine and New Hampshire, may become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, last week in an attempt to reach a decision on this matter with the state of Maine, a matter which I might add has been outstanding for the past 20 years, I visited Augusta and put the claims of the Canadian workers before the governor and also before the state employment commission. It would appear to me that there is a very just case for pressing to have an agreement concluded quickly between the state of Maine

and the unemployment insurance commission of Canada to provide for reciprocal treatment of workers moving from one area into the other. As all hon. members know, we have such an agreement with 47 other states.
I received no definite indication from the authorities in Maine though I pressed for a decision at an early date. Once a decision has been made the government and the unemployment insurance commission will then be in a position to assess what further steps ought to be taken.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This is an important question so far as the national parks and our tourist trade are concerned. Is it correct that the present government has abolished the elected Banff advisory council and intends to appoint an administrator to run Banff national park and other parks in Canada?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I always thought it was a somewhat dangerous practice for a private member to announce government policy. I noticed in a copy of the Albertan yesterday that the hon. member had announced that this was government policy. I want to tell him that the advisory committee has not been abolished, nor is there any intention on the part of the government to abolish it.


Mr. Woolliams:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister was at Banff national park did he not announce that an administrator would be appointed to look after the affairs of Banff? If so, what is the name of that administrator?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I announced that it was the intention of the government to appoint an administrator for the townsite of Banff. I announced at the same time that I would expect that administrator to work as closely as possible with the advisory council. I have no names in mind whatsoever for the position of administrator. We are seeking a person with civic experience and who also has some recognition of the long term objectives with regard to the parks.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Six months ago in the last political campaign all political parties-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would just state his question.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: When does the government propose to implement the promise made to pay family allowances to those over 16 years of age who are still at school?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Government policy will be announced in due course.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which arises out of press reports that the level of radioactive caesium 137 is approximately 100 times as high in the people who live in northern Alaska as compared with people living elsewhere in the United States. My question is, what steps is the federal government taking to check the levels of caesium 137 in residents of the Northwest Territories at the present time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If I am not mistaken such a question is already on the order paper for answer.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that government orders Nos. 15 and 19 on today's order paper both call for an increase of $10 in the old age pension, are we to assume that the total increase will be $20? Is there any answer, Mr. Speaker?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether

Inquiries of the Ministry he has received a communication or resolution from the Alaska highway paving conference held in Whitehorse recently? If he has, does he intend to take any action in respect to it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, a copy of that resolution has come to my office. The question of the probability of paving the highway would be a matter of government policy. So far as I know it has not yet been placed on the agenda.



ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the government finally transfer to the government of the province of Quebec jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs in New Quebec in accordance with the legitimate wishes of the province and those of his good friend, Mr. Rene Levesque?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me some notice of this question. The question has been raised in the house several times, and at present I can tell him there have been a number of discussions, but there have been no negotiations of any kind. I think it is now suggested that this matter might become a subject of more discussion at the dominion-provincial conference in November. Meanwhile if the minister of natural resources of the province of Quebec should wish to discuss it we would be glad to hear from him.
I would like to assure the hon. member that we are proceeding in respect of capital expenditure and maintenance with the fullest discharge of our responsibility as a federal government, as set out for us in the decision of the supreme court in 1939, in respect to these people.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house whether the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was talking on behalf of the government when he made a statement recently before the Arctic institute at McGill University?


Arthur Laing: In response to that, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I have an extremely high regard for my parliamentary secretary, and I think this regard is shared in other parts of the house.
The hon. member may recall that my parliamentary secretary, in discussing this matter before the Arctic institute in Montreal recently, made it one of the conditions of his statement that he was representing only his own opinion and not that of the department or the government. However, I think it related to a suggestion that education in the area should be combined with a proposed Bill 60, and this proposal of his, which was his own suggestion, has since been commented on rather widely.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has stated that this matter might become one for discussion at the dominion-provincial conference, is it his intention to somehow obtain the wishes of the Eskimo people, who are most concerned in this matter, before any decision is made?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, during a recent visit to the area, when complaints were registered with me I did make the commitment to the Eskimo people that in respect of any changes we would keep them aware of the situation and advise them of prospective changes.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are any prospective changes contemplated at this time?


Arthur Laing: As of now, no. I think I made that very clear in my statement. We are conducting these affairs clearly under the responsibility given to us by the decision of 1939.


Erik Nielsen: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Rather than advising the Eskimo people of any changes to be made, is it the minister's intention to consult the Eskimo people before any decision as to change is made?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that I think it would be the opinion of all hon. members of this house, of the legislature of Quebec and all other provinces, that the sole consideration is the benefit to the primitive people concerned. When I have said that I think I have taken care of the situation as between advising people or seeking their consent. I think there is a wide opinion that the sole purpose in the discharge of this responsibility is the benefit to the people themselves.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he was enunciating his future policy in dealing with the Eskimos, whom he rather casually described as primitives, when he said that in future they shall be advised rather than consulted in a democratic manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to all hon. members that we have discussed this subject at length in two successive days, and I would hope the urgency has gone out of it for at least two weeks.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has received a report or advice from the Jamieson, Stewart, Ouimet trio on broadcasting matters, and if they have recommended an amendment to the Broadcasting Act or a general commission of inquiry.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: I have received an interim report which I got last week. I have not a copy of it right here at the moment, but if hon. members would be interested I would be glad to make it available and even to lay it on the table if that is the wish of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour proceeds to private members' business I wonder if I might have the permission of the house to revert to motions in order that I may table a document which was asked for earlier by the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What document is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a letter signed by Mr. Jamieson, Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Stewart about their discussions on broadcasting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the serious unemployment situation existing in Inverness and Victoria 28902-5-197
Inquiries of the Ministry counties, in which the Cape Breton Highlands national park lies, can the minister advise if a winter works program is planned for this coming winter? If so, how soon would it commence?


Arthur Laing: If my memory serves me correctly I think there is a winter works program for allocation in that park. It will be announced very quickly.



BRANTFORD, ONT.  DESIGNATION AS DISTRESSED AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the answer he gave to a question I asked yesterday concerning the possibility of declaring the Guelph-Kitchener-Galt district a distressed area, and in view of the decision of a company to move from Guelph to Brantford, would he give an answer to this question within the next week?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yesterday I undertook to give consideration to the proposal made by the hon. member. I do not believe he would wish to press for a hasty or ill considered answer. I have given my undertaking to provide consideration and an answer, and this I will do.



CRITERIA USED FOR DESIGNATION OF DISTRESSED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Can he tell the house why in the establishment of the criteria for the designation of depressed areas it was decided that an area must have been depressed for eight years before being entitled to government assistance? Does the minister want to indicate that it takes eight years before one can die of hunger in any area?



REPORTED DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN PROPOSALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Labour, since he did not answer the first one. Can he tell us why his department waited such a long time and is still waiting to release information that would enable contractors to take advantage of the planned and announced forms of aid, such

Inquiries of the Ministry as the payment of 50 per cent of the salary to people 45 and over, as well as the $500 bonus to people having a house built in the winter months? Why did he wait so long before giving information in that regard?
[Text!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the winter house building program there has been no delay whatsoever. The details were announced some weeks ago, and if the hon. gentleman had been following the press he would have noticed the advertisements have for some time been placed therein giving the details of this program and giving individuals the source of further information on the program.
With respect to the older workers program, this is not to come into effect until November 1 and already sufficient detail has been made available and further information will be made available at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way so that interested employers may take advantage of this forward looking step.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Labour intend to send those releases and information to local unemployment insurance offices, since the officials themselves are worried because they have not reached them yet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the officers of the unemployment insurance commission are fully apprised of this program, because they have requested additional staff. In order to implement these programs, this request has been approved by the government.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a related question of the Minister of National Revenue and ask him whether the $500 bonus, if it is collected by individual people, will be treated as income and subject to income tax, or will it be exempt from income tax.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take that question as notice.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister putting out a pamphlet outlining the qualifications necessary in order to obtain the $500 grant on these houses?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that kind of question ought to go on the order paper.
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .1



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a paper called The Veterans Advocate published an open letter to the minister in the August edition. A report in the September edition states they received no acknowledgment from him. May I ask the minister now if he received The Veterans Advocate for August, and if he has replied to the very reasonable request made by the veteran author of that article?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not know to what the hon. gentleman refers, but I will check to see if there was a letter. I do not recall reading it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue who is also responsible for the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the rapid withdrawal of private mortgage lenders from the house building field and the announcement that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will make available $80 million for house construction, can he tell me how many housing units this would represent, and whether he feels this is sufficient for the needs of the house building industry across Canada?


John Richard Garland: Without going into a debate on the orders of the day, I believe that the action I announced on Monday, a week ago yesterday, for direct lending will be sufficient to make up for any withdrawal by the private lenders from the field. This is the purpose of the exercise. Action was taken, rather than sitting around waiting for something to happen, because we wanted to make sure our winter program for house building would continue with all possible speed.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would mind letting the house know how many units this $80 million represents.


John Richard Garland: I am sure that the hon. gentleman is quite capable of making his own calculations. The announcement I made, if he would confine his thinking to the announcement, stated that we expected about 10,000 new units would be created.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Kootenay West, who would undoubtedly have asked the question himself, I will put it to the Prime Minister.
Does he think that the result of yesterday's election in British Columbia will hasten the final agreement on the harnessing of the Columbia river?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that the speed of these negotiations will not depend on political considerations of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend.



PASSAMAQUODDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to provide the house with further details of the talks between Canada and the United States relating to the development of the Passamaquoddy tidal power?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, not at this moment, but if the hon. gentleman will put his question on the order paper I will be glad to look into it.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does his department intend to amend the Canada Shipping Act, with a view to limit coastal shipping strictly to ships built and registered in Canada?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, but it is not possible to reveal the contents of proposed legislation in advance. The government's decision on that matter will be announced in due course. 28902-5-1974



REPORTED REACTION OF DIRECTORS TO REAPPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he received any indication that several members of the board of directors of Canadian National might resign if Donald Gordon is reappointed and that several others might resign if he is not reappointed?



WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR SASKATOON ON RETURN TO HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and on behalf of all members of the house, I should like to welcome back into our midst our very valuable member from Saskatoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to thank the members of the house for their kindness during my recent illness, and I must say I am pleased indeed to be back here and to have been successful in avoiding the necessity of a byelection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to answer a question, but before doing so I would like to say that from this side of the house we warmly join in what was said by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.



INQUIRY AS TO TRANSLATION OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the minister inform the house whether any progress is being made at present on the translation of Beauchesne into French?
[Text!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have any information on this subject but I will be glad to make inquiries and find out. I should perhaps remind hon. members that Beauchesne's learned work is, after all, not an official publication.

Inquiries of the Ministry PARLIAMENT HILL



COLLECTION OF OVERPAYMENTS TO CHAR STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question which was put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Carleton, and to say that, thanks to the speedy intervention of Your Honour, I understand the hardship imposed on the charwomen is now going to be ameliorated.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Secretary of State. Could the minister tell us what progress has been made with regard to the royal commission on bilingualism within the federal civil service which he had promised to set up before the summer recess last August?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I may say I drew this matter to the attention of the civil service commission immediately after the discussion we had in the house, and I have asked them to let me have whatever they can by way of interim report on the matter, so that it can be presented to the house. I hope to have it at an early date.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Prime Minister. When the hon. gentleman announced the appointment of the new general commissioner for the 1967 world exhibition, he did not mention the indemnity to be paid to the incumbent. Could he tell the house whether the new commissioner and his assistant will receive indemnities of $75,000? Will such indemnities be paid to the commissioner and to his assistant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question.
[Mr. Pickersgill.)



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland). Have steps been taken within his department to avoid undue delays in making refunds of overpaid personal taxes?


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to indicate to which tax he is referring.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Income tax.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman, because it gives me an opportunity to reply to the question posed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere (Mr. Paul) when he asked me to inform the house of the reasons for an alleged delay in making refunds of overpaid income tax for 1962 to taxpayers in the Montreal district, and further whether the government would consider paying interest on such delayed refunds.
I find, on inquiry from my officials, that less than 6,000 taxpayers in the Montreal district have yet to receive their refunds. Since this represents less than 1 per cent of the number of refund claims filed this year with the Montreal office of the taxation division, I do not believe there has been any undue delay in processing them. I can assure the hon. member who asked the question yesterday that this small number of cases remaining will be cleared up before the end of the month.
With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, I am pleased to inform him that the law already provides for the payment of interest on overpaid income taxes, provided they amount to at least $1.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's concern a year ago that parliament get on with the appointing of a commission to deal with the redistribution of seats in the

House of Commons, can he say when it is the intention of the government to bring this measure before parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible to arrange an informal conference of members representing all parties in the house with a view to discussing the best and the most expeditious way of dealing with the problem. I would like to have that arranged at the earliest possible moment, and I will have some suggestions to put forward at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, is it intended that the next redistribution be done by an independent commission, or is there anything to the report that parliament might do it once more itself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I pray heaven, since all parties in the house are committed to having this done by an independent commission, that there will be no backsliding in any part of the house.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Although in the past there have been reasons to suspect roots of national socialism in the province of Quebec, does the minister still foresee any grounds to accuse the Lesage government of "nazi to be"? If not, would she be prepared to deny her previous statement?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity which is given me to deny that I have made such a statement at any time to anyone.



REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of his widely advertised objective of the creation of an Atlantic community, and in view of the equally widely advertised but diametrically opposed role for Canada as a world trader advocated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, would the Prime Minister arrange for an early debate on this question in order that the fundamental difference of opinion in the cabinet may be resolved or clarified?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no such difference of opinion, fundamental or otherwise. As to when debate in which these
Inquiries of the Ministry points of view, which are in accord with each other, can be brought before the house, the hon. gentleman and his friends may have an opportunity at the first supply motion.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES INQUIRY AS TO BILL TO CHANGE NAME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister present, as a member of the cabinet, the private bill she presented during the previous session as a private member regarding the change of name of Trans-Canada Air Lines for a bilingual expression meaning Air Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is normally the practice for a minister to do that, but I refer my hon. friend to the list of private members bills, where he will see one in identical language to the one I submitted, which has been submitted by an hon. member on this side of the house.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him what progress is being made in setting up an appeal board to hear the cases of persons who feel they have been unjustly labelled as security risks. The minister undertook to look into this matter about three months ago or more, and I wonder what progress has been made.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I did undertake to look into this matter and this I have done, together with my officers and officers of other departments. I am sorry to tell the house that up until now I have not been successful in finding a formula; neither have my officers been able to advise me upon a formula which would at the same time protect the public interest and provide a judicial or quasi judicial appeal. Meantime, if any hon. members have complaints to make they might make them to the responsible minister or to myself, and I shall continue my study to see if a satisfactory formula cannot be found to meet the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the minister this. Surely he does not think that matters of this importance regarding justice for the citizens of Canada should be dependant upon their

Old Age Security
being able to get some member of parliament to take up their case with the minister? Surely the minister can find some better means of serving this purpose than that.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear on an earlier occasion during a discussion of this matter that if any hon. member felt that he or any of his constituents was aggrieved I knew of no other method by which he could dispose of the matter than by taking it up with the responsible minister. Again I offer those circumstances pending the time when I hope it will be possible to find a formula which will meet the position.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked the Minister of Justice by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Have the minister and his advisers considered a formula similar to that in effect under the defence of Canada regulations, where a judicial tribunal investigated matters of security to the satisfaction, I believe, of the government at that time?


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure my hon. friend that that formula is one of the things we have considered, together with other aspects of the case, including a formula such as that which is prevalent in the United Kingdom at the present time.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 30, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. La-moureux 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to traverse the ground which was covered by the hon. member for Perth, but there are one or two observations I should like to make with regard to this resolution, which in itself represents a complete about face on the part of the government.
Indeed, it is difficult to understand the attitude taken by the government, particularly when in the month of July a plan was available. The Canada national pension plan was completed, and all that was required was its passage through parliament. Yet in the intervening months things have changed; alterations have taken place in the thinking of the government. That is not new. It is something

we have learned to expect since this government has been in office. The haste which marks the introduction of legislation is equalled only by the lack of repentance consequent upon revision or even withdrawal, in whole or in part, of such legislation. This is just another example. What a sorry mess it has been.
I think one of the most interesting phases in the spectacle had to do with the President of the Privy Council, who made a speech the other day which is reported in La Presse of September 28. He requested that France should send some planners to Canada in order to assist the Canadian government, and that Canada in return would send accounting and fiscal experts to France. That, I think, was the capsheaf so far as this government is concerned.
However, I want to make a few references to statements made by the minister of health. They have certainly had the planners here. They have had planners in every direction. They are planning today, and then planning tomorrow to get out of the plans which are today determined upon.
The minister of health and welfare said, as reported on page 3038 of Hansard:
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.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, some of the statements made at that time, and I think they should be recalled. The minister of health and welfare said, as reported on page 2343 of Hansard:
While this government is committed to this increased payment at the earliest possible date, it is committed not to pay it out of general revenue but from a flow of contributions under the new contributory pensions scheme.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure almost anyone would find it most difficult to follow the government in its changing attitude and its tortuous courses. I was interested to hear the minister deny today that she had ever made any statement which was adverse to the premier of Quebec. Yet it was reported in all the press on September 28. The storm broke only yesterday or today in Le Devoir and some of the other papers in the province of Quebec. What the hon. minister denies having

said was in quotations, and those quotations are as follows. I know she did not say it, but I think the record should be clear as to what she did not say:
Tremendous power could be wielded by a government with so much money.
That would be the government of Quebec if it adopted this plan of a fund out of which payments would be made.
By controlling investment capital it could control business. We could end up with a sort of national socialism like they have in nazi Germany and not much free enterprise.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: The article goes on:
Miss LaMarsh, who has established a reputation for brutal candor, said the Lesage portable pension scheme "could finish the private insurance business in Quebec if he has large levies".
Naturally a statement such as that has aroused interest, and there have been some editorials on it. It was not said, and what the minister tells us in that regard is, of course, accepted. But it just shows how far astray the press can go when it even ascribes quotation marks to statements purporting to have been made but which, the hon. lady indicates, were not made.
Then there is another interesting aspect of this question. We wonder why the change is now being proposed. Somebody suggested that a committee be set up by parliament to look into the Canada pension plan. If ever there was a botch brought before parliament it is the Canada pension plan in its present form. It has not been thought through. We have been told of the degree to which economists have worked on this. All I can say is that nobody has been able to find out who those economists were, because the civil service were surprised when they found the concoction which had been brought before parliament.
Somebody suggested a committee. We want to know the reason for the change. Why this sudden transition? The Prime Minister said in his fireside chat that he was willing to set up a committee. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said, as reported in the Globe and Mail on Friday, that a parliamentary committee on pensions would be made up of members lacking the competence to discuss such a matter.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: They lacked the competence to discuss the matter, she said. Now they have produced this alternative. I do not intend to say very much in this regard, but remember what the promise was; "old age pension increases without additional taxation". I know it is farcical. There was a pretense that somehow or other this thing
Old Age security
could be set up under a Canadian pension plan and before ever sufficient money came in to be disbursed, a disbursement of the funds could take place without costing anybody anything. Well, that is another example of promises, in the light of experience such as this, being found to be without foundation.
As far as the present resolution is concerned-and I do not intend to speak at length, as I said a moment ago-the changes of attitude on the part of the government, the upside down ways in which this administration is acting, certainly had their effect in the Ontario elections.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Tell us about Mr. Fulton.


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I am dealing with a problem which makes some of you feel awfully sick over there. I am glad the hon. member for Carleton is in the house, because he is the one who gave me the idea that the major reason for what happened in Ontario was the mess which the present government has made of various matters which have come before it. As reported in the press the hon. member for Carleton, when asked for comment, gave reasons why these things happened, and the article says:
He also felt a 'series of mistakes' by the federal Liberals (budget, construction industry, pensions) proved costly to the local provincial Liberal candidates.
That is the problem and, the hon. member doesn't know the half of it. Now look at the somersault they have turned on the pension question. Look at what has happened since the momentous events in the province of Ontario. The promise was-and I shall not go back on what I said on July 18-the promise was a minimum $10 increase. True enough, when one reads the entire advertisement one finds in the small print near the bottom that they were going to set up a plan for the purpose of bringing a national pension scheme into effect.
I am surprised that they did not consult with the provinces beforehand. I am more than surprised that Mr. Lesage's plan was not made known to the government before they brought in this legislation in July. I say this because there is a nice spirit of co-operation here-or was, until the other day.
Coming back to the resolution directly, we ask ourselves now, is the promise going to be carried out? Is the payment going to be made immediately following the election? That is what the old people across Canada believed. We endeavoured in the month of July to bring an amendment before the house. We brought it down and there was no ruling thereon. All of that is now a thing of the past. Today we have before us a plan whereby

Old Age Security
$10 is to be paid, a plan whereby the promise that there would be no additional taxation is being completely changed.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, the promise was that the payments would be made as a result of levies on industry, on labour, and in the manner indicated in accordance with the plan previously announced. Now every person in this country who earns wages is to be taxed. This comes as passing strange from a government which was going to bring about a reduction of taxation; no increases. The first thing it does when it is circumvented as a result of its failure to consult the provinces in advance is to bring in this legislation in the form of a resolution. Why, one could almost call it the second of the budgets brought down by this government. It provides for taxation, and it places the house in the position of either accepting the taxation or of being misinterpreted as being opposed to the $10 increase.
That is the reason the resolution is phrased in this form. We have had experience, since the present government took office, in dating things back to April 8, and I feel the committee would like the opportunity to ensure that the promises and undertakings made to the old people of this country by the present government will in fact be carried out. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith):
That the said resolution be amended by striking out the words "effective October 1, 1963" in line three thereof, and substituting therefor "and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence as of April 8, 1963".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before Your Honour puts the motion may I say I do not think there is any need for an extended debate but I do want to ask Your Honour to consider whether or not the amendment is in order or is simply a colourable device to ask the house to do something which no one who is not actually a minister of the crown has the constitutional right to do. We know that the right hon. gentleman who moved the amendment has not got used yet to being on the other side of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about your promises?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but I submit to Your Honour that this would impose an additional charge upon the exchequer or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all it should not be before the committee and if it means an additional charge, that cannot be done without a message from the crown.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I will answer that immediately. No additional charge will be imposed by the wording we have used namely, "this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence as of April 8, 1963". We do not direct them to do it. We suggest that they give consideration to it. That is all we are asking, and I say that the amendment comes within the rules.


Lucien Lamoureux: The amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is, of course, very close to the one moved on July 18 last on which your chairman has had the opportunity to prepare a ruling, although I have never had the occasion to submit it to the committee. At that time I gave serious thought to the problem and since then I have continued to give serious thought and consideration to this type of amendment.
I must say that my feeling is very much along the lines of the argument and thoughts expressed by the Secretary of State. If this amendment means something it must be a charge on the treasury and if it means nothing I am in agreement with the suggestion of the Secretary of State that we have nothing on which to rule. If it means something it is a charge on the treasury, and on that basis I have to rule, with great regret, that the amendment is out of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully appeal your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
The question is as follows: During discussion in committee of the whole on a resolution to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Leader of the Opposition moved the following amendment:
"That the said resolution be amended by striking out the words 'effective October 1, 1963' in line 3 thereof and substituting therefor 'and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence as of April 8, 1963'."
The chairman ruled that the amendment was out of order on the ground that if there is substance to the amendment as proposed it is a charge on the treasury and could not therefore be proposed at this time.
From this ruling, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) appealed. Is it the pleasure of the house that the chairman's ruling be confirmed?


Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, it was not
my intention to speak on the resolution as there will be another opportunity to discuss the subject matter when the bill is brought before the house. However, I think it is necessary to make a few comments at this time because it seems to be the order of the day in this house to try to confuse the issue before us by covering it over with something else. The matter we have just voted on concerned an amendment which was moved by the leader of the Conservative party to the effect that consideration should be given to making the payment of $10 to our pensioners and senior citizens retroactive to the day the government took office. We sustained your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that this was out of order, as this was the basis of the vote we have just taken.

Old Age Security
The real issue that has concerned many of us at this time is whether or not the payment of this $10 should be made retroactive or whether it should take effect as of October 1.


An hon. Member:: That is what you have just voted on.


Robert Norman Thompson: Personally, I think that the government should give consideration to whether this payment should be made retroactive to April 8.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Sit down.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I again make it very clear that we voted on the chairman's ruling and nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, would you please ask some of the members of the Conservative party at least to be quiet so that I may resume my speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: May we please have some order so that we can give the hon. member who has the floor the opportunity to be heard.


Robert Norman Thompson: The much talked about and publicized Canada pension plan has been running into trouble. Basically the trouble has been over the question of interference with provincial rights. This has caused dissension which runs very deep right across public opinion in Canada, and has resulted in the immediate measure which has been brought forward to meet the needs of our senior citizens and our pensioners of two wars. This is what we are dealing with today.
There is no question whether the intent of this resolution is or is not right. It is right simply because, with the cost of living increasing right across the board, no one can be expected to have a decent standard of living on $65 a month. Therefore, the raising of this amount by $10 a month is a correct and logical step, and I think in fairness to our senior citizens and pensioners concerned it is only right that we should expect the government to make it retroactive to the date when they took office.
The real problem concerned here is simple. It is, where will the money come from? The suggestion has been made that it should be raised from revenue which will be obtained from the increase in personal income taxes. We in the Social Credit party have suggested over and over again, and we emphasize it once more, that if we could use our own Bank of Canada to finance in particular the capital development of our public needs-I am thinking of what we have termed social capital-[DOT] and could bring in some of the measures we

have spoken about many times, we would be able to save enough money presently being spent because we do not make use of the Bank of Canada as we should. Then the consolidated revenue fund would have sufficient in it to take care of our pensions. If we look at the problem squarely for what it is, and in order to bring about a greater degree of equilibrium between the money which comes into the treasury and that which is paid out, hon. members will understand that we cannot continue to go along as we are. If we refuse to do that, the only alternative is to increase taxes and I do not think the tax levy can go very much higher without bringing real hardship upon the very people we are trying to help by means of this resolution.
There are other means which might be suggested whereby the revenue necessary to finance these proposals could be found. I have in mind a so-called secret report which was prepared for the former prime minister and released by the Minister of Finance on May 8-a report which was printed in a number of our newspapers. I am thinking in particular of the June 18 issue of the Western Producer published in Saskatoon, where reference is made to an immense untapped source of revenue, enough to finance this $10 increase and, indeed, a greater increase than that, not only from October 1 but from April 8. These untapped resources are to be found in undistributed shareholder dividends. One of the major loopholes in our taxation system at the present time is the way in which company profits are not distributed as dividends but are reinvested, thus increasing the equity held by shareholders in a company. In due course the shareholders reap a capital gain from the sale of their shares and make a tax-free profit. The estimated loss, to the federal treasury, according to the report contained in the June 18 issue of the Western Producer, is in the region of $150 million a year. If only the government would face up to the inadequacies and inequities of our taxation system, this would be found a much more lucrative and much fairer source of capital for use in financing such proposals as we have before us at the present time.
I mention these as examples of the type of legislation which the government could be bringing before the house-legislation which would not only assist in its desired objective of bringing about a balanced budget, but which would also lead to a more equitable tax load as far as our people are concerned.
I do not intend to continue at any great length. I do, however, express the view that in meeting the need expressed in this resolution-a resolution to which we give our wholehearted support-the government should be considering various ways and means of

meeting these and other expenditures other than by imposing a greater tax load on the individual taxpayer. Again, I urge the government to give careful consideration to making the $10 increase in these pensions retroactive to April 8.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only a few words on this resolution.
This last vote has made perfectly clear that the government refuses to give a retroactive effect to this raise to government pensioners. If we are to get that pension increase, it is because of the pressures exerted by our leader and by us who sit on this side of the house, because otherwise, government pensioners would not get that increase of $10 per month.
I hope that the government will reconsider its position and grant retroactivity to this pension raise to April 8, in order to be logical with itself and carry out the promises made during the last few weeks.
Mr. Chairman, we introduced an amendment which was turned down by the government, but in face of the pressures exerted by the official opposition and by the Canadian people, the government is forced to retreat, and has to comply with our demands and grant that pension raise, I strongly advise the minister, if she wants to be able to face the electorate again, to grant retroactivity to this increase as from April 8 last.
Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house, were amazed and astonished by the statements made recently by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) against the province of Quebec, against the people of that province. Clause 94(a) of the constitution stipulates that in our provinces-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the hon. member was present in the house when I rose this afternoon and denied having made the statement attributed to me. I denied having said anything of that kind to any person.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have high regard for the opinion of the minister, but her statement came as a great surprise to me as all the newspapers throughout this country have reported the statements that she has made to the Globe and Mail and that have been published in all Canada's French newspapers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. It is a well-known rule of this house, and surely, an experienced member like the
Old Age Security
hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm should know it, that when an hon. member makes a statement about any statement he or she may have made to somebody else we have an obligation as gentlemen to accept the hon. member's word.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the hon. member understands the situation and will take into consideration the suggestions which have just been made to him.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I merely ask the minister to tell the house which one of her statements I quoted, and I shall then withdraw the words I credited to her.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member must understand that this is not the question period. If he has a statement or a speech to make, he should make it. If he decides that he has nothing more to say, I shall recognize another member. But he cannot require another member to make a statement in reply to a suggestion he has made himself.
[Text!


Gordon Minto Churchill: With respect, Mr. Chairman, during the resolution stage it is altogether permissible to ask questions of ministers.


Lucien Lamoureux: The type of question to which I was referring is a question such as was asked by the hon. member. He said he is not in agreement, possibly, with what had been declared by the minister and he wanted the minister to reiterate what she had already said.
[Translation1


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have not quoted as yet any of the minister's words but I was just going to do so. Now, I will give the minister the extracts from the French newspapers and from all this country's newspapers. Should the minister believe-


Mr. Caron:: She has denied it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What has she denied?


Alexis Pierre Caron: She has categorically denied it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What is it she has denied? [Text!


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
3086	HOUSE OF
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



THE GOOD NEWS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this bill has come before the house and the events leading up to second reading of the bill are somewhat unusual, to say the least. The house will recall that the bill was passed by the Senate at the session before this one and this was repeated in the spring session of the twenty sixth parliament. The bill was actually read a second time in the house in July of this year but because the preamble was not carried the bill was almost killed in the house.
I have a motion I will present at the end of my remarks seeking to have the bill referred again to the standing committee. Does the Speaker wish me to make my motion at this time or may I make a few additional comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it would be in order for the hon. member to make his comments and then move his motion.


Siegfried John Enns: I think the reason that there remains an astounding and very unfortunate lack of understanding of the main purpose of the bill lies in the fact that not sufficient evidence was provided at the last hearing before the miscellaneous private bills committee, and the reason for this may be explained by the fact that there seemed to be no objection to the bill. Several questions were asked in a routine way and it seemed that the bill would be accepted. In fact, every item was discussed clause by clause and the bill was approved by the committee. I should add that certain amendments were accepted by the committee and these too were passed.
In view of this the sponsor did not feel that additional comments or explanations were necessary at the time, so that no further explanations were given prior to the question being put by the chairman. When the chairman did put the question the bill was defeated by a narrow margin.
I feel this was most unfortunate and arose because of the lack of understanding of the main aim of the bill which really is to promote the dissemination of spiritual values by means of radio broadcasting. The sponsors of the bill have in mind the various uses to which radio broadcasting is now put, for instance, to promote the use of soaps, detergents and deodorants, and they believe there is another purpose for which radio broadcasting can be used, the discussion and promotion of spiritual values in this and other countries.
[The Chairman.]

This is the essential purpose of the bill. The sponsors have asked for the incorporation of an association to be known as The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada. I should point out that the parent body of this association is American and has been operating for some 24 years from Lincoln, Nebraska. Their programs seem to be well received by the people across the line. The association is supported by voluntary donations from people who derive spiritual benefit and wish the work of the association and the program to continue. In the United States the association buys radio time at commercial rates. This allows them to buy time of the optimum value and thus they are not restricted to that which stations might donate for charitable purposes.
The association is actually purchasing radio time at commercial rates and the funds collected by the association are used essentially for this purpose. There are various other explanations and additional information I should like the miscellaneous private bills committee to have. For the purpose of bringing in further witnesses to speak to the bill I respectfully move:
That Bill S-15 entitled "An act to incorporate The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada" be recommitted to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills for reconsideration.
This motion is seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore).


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from my hon. friend opposite that additional witnesses are to be brought before the miscellaneous private bills committee when the bill to incorporate The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada is discussed there. When the bill was brought before that committee prior to the recess some of its features were discussed, giving rise to considerable doubts in the minds of members of the committee whether or not the government of Canada should involve itself in the passing of a bill of this kind. It was for these reasons that it was returned to the house with the report that the preamble was not proven.
I do not propose to oppose the bill at this time but I wish to indicate that I am not in favour of the principle of the bill as it was brought before the private bills committee in the period before the recess. When additional witnesses do come before that committee I hope they will be able to provide further explanations to satisfy the committee that the passing of a bill of this nature is a legitimate function of the parliament of Canada and not properly a function of a provincial legislature or some licensing body within a province.

Basically the reasons that I and other members of the private bills committee hesitated before to approve the bill were these: The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada purported to be an association-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, and the arguments he is advancing may be perfectly sound, but are we not simply considering a motion to recommit this bill to the standing committee, rather than considering the bill itself, which is not before us?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the hon. member is quite right. We are considering a motion to recommit this bill and the remarks of the hon. member should be limited to that point and not deal with the substance of the bill, which has already been discussed in the house.


Grant Deachman: With respect, I must be able to discuss the reasons for not approving of the bill in principle at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not my
opinion. I believe the hon. member should limit himself to considerations relating to the advisability of referring the bill to the committee.


Grant Deachman: I will stay with the question of referring the bill to the committee. Certainly a majority of those who listened to arguments in favour of The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada at the time the bill was brought before the committee prior to the recess did not approve of the bill as it was presented, on the basis of the facts given at that time. It was for this reason that the bill was returned to the house with the report that the preamble was not proven. It is for this reason I am glad to hear that additional witnesses will be brought before the committee. When my hon. friend is discussing the matter with the witnesses who will be brought before the committee I hope he will suggest to them that they indicate to us what the purposes of The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada are in regard to a single proprietorship, or whether or not the association is in fact a voluntary one, of some kind, as is usually the case with regard to charitable associations.
The Good News Broadcasting Association comes before the House of Commons for incorporation as an association, not as a proprietorship. However, when the bill was discussed in the private bills committee, this association gave every evidence of being a single proprietorship, and a profitable one indeed.
Private Bills
It is this aspect of the matter to which we objected at that time in the private bills committee and which we would like to see cleared up when the witnesses return to that committee. We should like to know that we are not looking at a single proprietorship, and a profitable one, but looking at a charitable association which has the right to go out and solicit charitable gifts from the public and to account to the public for the way in which it handles the donations made to it.
These were the principal objections made in the committee and these are the reasons the bill was returned to this house. These are the reasons the committee found the preamble of the bill not proven as a charitable association, and I do not propose to agree to the principle of this bill. I hope this matter will be cleared up when the bill is referred to the private bills committee again.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-5, for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski -Mr. Wahn-Mr. Lamoureaux in the chair.
On clause 1.
Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the sponsor of the bill several questions? This is a bill in which the hon. member for Timiskaming was very much interested when it was before the house on a previous occasion. I believe he drew the attention of the committee to the fact that there seemed to be some irregularities in procedure in connection with this bill. I wonder if those matters were looked into when the bill received consideration in the committee itself.


Mr. Wahn:: As has been pointed out, certain alleged regular irregularities were brought to the attention of the committee. They were discussed and the committee decided that it was proper for the bill to be reported back to the house. There were a number of other bills of like nature which would have been held up had we not allowed this particular bill to stand before the summer recess. The committee did consider the irregularities which have been mentioned and the committee was satisfied such irregularities did not exist.


Reid Scott: I am not going to hold up the bill in any way, but the main irregularity that worried some members was the fact that after the divorce proceeding had been commenced an objection was registered by the husband through a solicitor in Ottawa. At a later date, the objection was withdrawn by

Private Bills
the solicitor for the plaintiff without consultation with the solicitor who had originally entered the notice of objection. I understood that the particular solicitor has not yet been consulted on this matter. I am wondering if he appeared before the committee or if the committee interviewed him or ascertained his position on that matter?


Ian Grant Wahn: The committee did not interview him, Mr. Chairman, or communicate with him directly. It is possible that someone in the committees branch may have done so, but it is the right of any citizen to dispense with the services of his solicitor. My recollection is that it appeared from the record this particular solicitor was no longer representing the husband in the case, and for that reason we thought there was no necessity for the committee interviewing the solicitor in question personally.


Reid Scott: In view of what the sponsor has said, that he has investigated the situation and is satisfied that the bill is in order, I will not raise any further objection.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Ian Grant Wahn: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, August 1, consideration of a motion of Mr. Ryan for the second reading of Bill No. S-28, to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, once again we are dealing with a bill which the house finds to its liking since it has been put before us several times already and will come back to us again. I refer to the bill designed to incorporate the Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada, an American insurance company which is 87J per cent American-owned and only 12J per cent Canadian-owned. That means, as we have often said in this chamber, that such a company will return to the charge and that another company will establish itself in our country, when we have no need for it.
[Mr. Scott.1
And now, Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing that bill once again, there is one point I should like to clear up. The first time the measure was put forward here, we were against it. Now, during a televised press conference held recently, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) stated that a representative of the Allstate Insurance Company had come to meet the member for Lapointe and that, as soon as the meeting was over, the member for Lapointe no longer wished to oppose the bill and had said: we shall let the bill pass.
In my opinion, such a statement was but an insinuation to give the impression that the member for Lapointe had agreed to let the bill pass because he had been approached by a representative of the Allstate company.
As I mentioned a moment ago, that statement was made at a press conference which was televised from 8 o'clock to 8.30 not so long ago.
I think it is quite in order, in view of the fact that a similar accusation has been made against another member, that I should have the right to put the record straight, which will take me only a minute or two at the most.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that I met an official of the Allstate company, but that was because the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) expressly asked me to. Moreover, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) was present at the meeting with the representative from the Allstate company.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: If insinuations have been made about me, the member for Medicine Hat will be able-


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If the hon. member for Lapointe wants to rise on a question of privilege about a statement that was made by another member, I am of the opinion that he should do so before the committee on privileges and elections and should not take advantage of the fact that the bill is now being studied by the house to discuss the matter.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is no need to make it a question of privilege because I wanted at the same time to deal with the bill and explain what our position will be with regard to the measure under consideration. And, right now, I am of the opinion that the debate is quite in order.
Besides, I was through explaining that point and I was going to deal with another matter.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Am I to understand that the hon. member for Lapointe has now finished explaining the point he has just raised and that from now on he will limit his remarks to the principle of the bill now under study?


Gilles Grégoire: That is right, Mr. Speaker, I had finished.
I challenged the malicious insinuations made against me, and I say that they are false and untrue, as well as spiteful.
And now, to come back to the bill now under study, I must tell the house that we are still against it. As I have already said here, our country does not need any more American life or automobile insurance companies when it already has so many good Canadian insurance companies which have served our people so well.
We have our own Canadian companies. To my mind, we do not need any more competition from American corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I have another suggestion to make. If we refuse new insurance companies in this country, it might help keep our capital at home, more particularly at a time when we have such need of it.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) complains of an outflow of Canadian capital to the United States and other countries. I think that is a significant factor.
It will be said that the insurance companies are going to reinvest their funds in our country. The Allstate may indeed reinvest some capital in a country like Canada. But if they put back their money in a secondary company like the General Motors, the profit they reap from such a company will be profit from a second industry, neither more nor less, which will create a second circulation of capital which will be transferred to other undertakings through another corporation in their own country.
We do not want to be misled by such promises of reinvestment in this country, because we know that ultimately, after a second reinvestment, profits are going to increase and return to the United States.
However, there is a facet of the matter which I would like to mention here. When we met the representative of the Allstate company, he asked us to let the bill be referred to the committee to explain this particular point: when an insurance company like Allstate has a Canadian charter, the Canadian employees of such a company may reap some additional benefits because, being employed by a Canadian company, they will be able to set up their own pension plan, their own retirement scheme, and obtain other advantages and benefits, instead of being just employees of one branch of an
Private Bills
American company. At this point we are told: Why treat our Canadian employees like second-class workers in this country, like second rate employees, and not like first class personnel entitled to all the benefits which a Canadian company extends to its employees. Now, the fact should be recognized; I think that there are 600 Allstate employees in Canada. It is unfortunate for them, but we are not looking upon people employed by the Allstate company as second-rate personnel. I think that argument may be bypassed by saying that though they are employed by the branch of an American company, those employees may set up their own social security plan by forming some union of Canadian employees, even if they work for an American branch.
I think the argument that they are considered second-class employees because we do not want to give a charter to an American company is hardly valid, for we consider that they can achieve the same social security benefits by creating their own services, like pension, retirement or health insurance funds, etc.
It is not the employees of the insurance companies that we consider second class in our country, but rather the capital because we want first-class capital in our country to be above all Canadian capital. If foreign interests want to invest in a particular field in our country and that enough Canadian capital has already been invested in such a field, the foreign capital must be second-class capital.
There is free competition in this country, but I believe that in a field where Canadians are able to develop themselves and to reach the top, there should be a difference between first-class capital or Canadian capital in a particular field, and second-class foreign capital when the Canadian capital is sufficient to satisfy the business in that particular field. However, if, in other fields, foreign capital want to invest where Canadian capital is not sufficient or does not meet demand, then we could slightly modify the point of view I have just explained. But I suggest that in the field of insurance-life, automobile, fire, accident insurance-we have at the present time enough companies and that we should protect our Canadian companies, their capital, their management and their staff against an invasion by foreign-based insurance companies.
I do not know of many Canadian insurance companies trying to compete on the foreign markets. They are not allowed to do business abroad. Now, we should do the same thing in our country and we should start by giving protection to our Canadian companies. Those are the companies which later on will have

Private Bills
enough capital to invest not in foreign industry but in our own Canadian companies. When we start keeping our capital, our savings in Canada to invest in our country we will be in a better position to develop our economy across the country in such a way that Canada will develop to the advantage of all, to the advantage of our private companies and to the advantage of our fellow citizens.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has mentioned, a meeting was held between some of the officers of the company and some hon. members of the house. I was one of the hon. members, and 1 want the house to know that I gave no commitment either to oppose or support the bill. I gave no commitment not to oppose the bill, but I did suggest it would be desirable for the house to refer it to the committee on banking and commerce where the members of that committee, as representatives of the house, would have an opportunity to cross examine the officers of the company. In that way we could determine in detail what are the objectives and the advantages to Canada, and particularly to the employees of the company, of having it incorporated by parliament.
We know the company is operating in Canada as a subsidiary of an American company. We were told there would be some decided advantages to the employees, through profit sharing and their pension plan, if the company were to be incorporated and operated as a separate Canadian identity. I have no opinion on whether these advantages are sufficient reason for us to pass the bill. But I do agree that we ought to have an opportunity to examine the officials of this company before the banking and commerce committee. We could then make up our minds whether we wish to pass this bill. In my opinion there will be plenty of opportunity, after that examination has taken place in the banking and commerce committee, for hon. members to either pass the bill or kill it.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: I rise once again on this bill because a lot of time has gone by since we discussed it last. I thought that the company had had time to think it over and might have provided us with additional information.
The first time I dealt with this bill was after the sudden illness of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). The hon. member for Lapointe had himself pointed out, the first time, the weakness of such a bill. And then I had to take his place. Therefore, I rose in my turn to oppose that bill.

At that time I advanced as an argument the fact that the investments came mostly from abroad and that no way was seen to force the company to invest here in Canada.
I must also admit that, during the summer recess, I received the visit of some gentlemen from that company. I met them here in Ottawa with some colleagues I could get in touch with and, in my office, with the door open and the stenographers present, we discussed the company's problem.
At that time, so that the bill could be passed by the house, the company was prepared to give the assurance that their funds would be invested in Canada. I asked them how they could give such a guarantee. The company was ready to write us a most official letter in order to prove to the house that they really intended to invest their funds in Canada and give Canadian manufactures an opportunity to benefit by them. So we would have been justified to examine the matter and see whether we could let the bill go through but today, since we have received none of the information we asked for and, since the company, having promised to write us a letter failed to do so, I find myself in the position where I must ask that the bill be held up in order to give the company an opportunity to think the situation over a little longer.


Jean Robert Beaulé: 
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, some people seem to think that the sponsor of the bill is only interested here in a change of name. And as mentioned by the hon. member who spoke before me, if it is just a matter of changing the cowl without changing the

monk, I wonder why so much importance is being given to this bill which comes again before the house.
No matter what arguments are put forward, it should be understood, as was pointed out a while ago, that we do not want to pretend to be blocking the entry of foreign capital into this country. We are against the methods used by the insurance companies.
In the case of the Allstate company, it is not the investment of foreign funds that is to be feared but rather the shrewdness shown by some people in channelling the vital resources of the nation. We are against those methods used by insurance companies in any field whatever. If we consider the insurance field, we realize that it absorbs the major part of the savings of the citizens in this country, since the sum total of such savings, of such funds, is about $10, $12 or even $15 billion.
It is not so much the inflow of foreign capital into our country which must form the basis of our opposition to the bill but rather the means used to come and get our money.
In this field, a great number of Canadian companies are capable of giving adequate service. Now, if one looks at the way that company operates, especially as far as sales at the counter are concerned, one often finds that its rates compete successfully with those of certain Canadian companies.
In order to reduce their operating costs, such a company resorts mainly to sales made at the counter. I know something about it because of the surprising number of complaints I have received about that from a few persons they have insured. When somebody puts in a justified claim following an accident, he cannot even get paid. Here is the advice given to him at the same sales counter: get yourself a lawyer and if we lose we shall pay, but if you lose you shall have to pay your lawyer.
If that is the way to deal with people after having succeeded in selling them insurance, I feel we are right in saying that Canadian companies are better suited to the needs of our fellow citizens both in the field of life insurance and in that of protection against fire and automobile accidents.
We hear very often in the house about our balance of payments. We often hear about the difficulties of meeting our obligations towards our friends and neighbours in the field of finance.
Once again, I say that the investing of foreign capital in fields that do not compete directly with our own interests is acceptable.
The present application is submitted in the form of a new incorporation. It is merely

requested to change the name of the company and to allow it to do business, which it already does.
I wonder why they insist. What is there hidden behind this application? I think that we should do our utmost to make the parties concerned aware that they should explain their views before the committee.
I think all hon. members should be interested to know the background of the question in order to be in a position to judge as adequately as possible whether, in the interest of the people, the government and the whole country, we should accept so easily an incorporation screen such as the one sought by Allstate at the present time.
Whatever the names of the directors, whatever the arguments that can be brought forward concerning the reinvestment of the funds in Canadian corporations, I think the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) raised a point that no one can find obscure. Less and less of the profits made by those corporations are reinvested in this country. Therefore, why is there so much insistance from some hon. members in this house?
As I said, and as it was repeated a while ago by my colleague from Quebec East (Mr. Beaule), some day accounts will have to be rendered to people who decided to go into the insurance business in our country. We seem to be getting more and more strength in that field while giving our people as adequate a service as possible.
Too many fields are held by foreigners. They managed to get into those fields behind that screen I mentioned a while ago. I think the bill should be referred to the committee and some members of the company should be brought back before the committee so that we can hear their arguments again. Then, we would be in a better position to know whether we should pass that bill. But as things stand, I think it would not be in the interest of our people to pass this bill to incorporate the Allstate company.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one or two words on this bill because when it first came up in the previous parliament I did move that it be not now read a second time. Since we have had our discussions in the house I suppose all hon. members have been interviewed by representatives of the company, who have pointed out to us their desire to try and meet our objections to the bill. The bill itself is not really that important but it does point up the whole problem of United States control of Canadian companies, and whether or not any practical and effective schemes can be devised to remove the more objectionable
Private Bills
features of such control. It is an extremely difficult problem and the more one looks at it the more difficult it becomes to devise any solution which will not prove to be as undesirable as the condition we are trying to remedy. However, the representatives of the company did come to Ottawa and we had the opportunity to present our views to them and, as I say, they indicated a very real desire to try and meet these objections. I am not sure that they will make the type of concessions that we feel should be required, but there are other areas in the world where this problem has been attacked and where devices have been worked out in company law to deal with situations of this type. In Germany, for example, the companies act has been amended so that major policy decisions can be made only if more than 75 per cent of the shareholders agree. Thus there may be some devices available which we could adopt in order to deal effectively with this problem.
Many of the objections which hon. members have raised are perfectly valid. It is true that this company, if incorporated, would be 87 per cent controlled from the United States. But we should also be fair and remember that the company is already operating, in fact, in every province in Canada under provincial licences and that it is at the moment 100 per cent owned in the United States. So, at least, this is a step in the right direction. I understand that the 25 per cent which is to be Canadian-owned is all that the Canadian company can afford to purchase at the present time, although they are prepared to write into their charter arrangements providing that a greater equity can be controlled by the Canadian company at a later date.
While I would not want to be construed as in any way endorsing the general principle of this bill-I still think there are serious objections to it-the problem which occurs to me is how we can effectively deal with situations of this kind. I think the bill should go to the committee because this would give us an opportunity to determine whether this whole problem of the foreign ownership and control of Canadian companies can be dealt with effectively. The representatives of the company come forward and we can discuss with them and with the law officers of the crown and with the members of the committee this whole problem and then, perhaps, we can come to some solution, some formula, which would be acceptable to the house.
As I have said, the passage of this bill is really not of first importance. The company will carry on in full force whether we pass it or not. Passage of this bill would, however, permit it to have a Canadian entity, and certain advantages or benefits would accrue.

Private Bills
We could hold it up here indefinitely if we so desired, but I think there is a case to be made for letting it go to the committee since, as I said, this demonstrates the whole problem raised by United States or foreign control of Canadian enterprises. With the spirit which some of these people have shown, this may be a case where we could sit down intelligently and spend some time on this bill trying to see whether there are formulae, provisions in the relevant acts or amendments to other statutes which we could bring in to provide some effective method of dealing with what is a most important and troublesome question. So, like the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), without in any way endorsing the bill I think it does provide us with an opportunity to take constructive action and I urge the house to send it to the committee.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, having listened today to various speeches and statements about Bill S-28, which comes before us for the third time, we note that Canadians are more and more anxious to see their country controlled by Canadians, from the financial point of view.
The presence in this country of too many foreign companies, particularly American companies, rather disturbs us. Canadians are waking up and want to keep their funds for themselves in order to develop their own country.
A careful study of the present situation shows that Canada is rapidly becoming foreign controlled. That is why we feel that the bill should be considered again by the committee on banking and commerce, where the parties concerned would make themselves heard, through their representatives, and answer the questions put to them.
I am convinced that the bill will not be carried, but rather that it will be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) state that the directors of the company who have sponsored this bill and seek its adoption have pledged that the company's profits will be invested in Canada.
If they have made such a promise, how is it that they have not fulfilled it? They have had sufficient opportunity to inform those who are against this bill, or all hon. members, of the fact that they have made such an undertaking which, if I am not mistaken, was done before witnesses.
When one makes a promise before witnesses and one is responsible, it is only normal for one to live up to it.
[Mr. Scott.)
Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that each time this bill has come before us, it is Frenchspeaking Canadians who, for the most part, have opposed it. Perhaps we have adopted this attitude because we remember a certain historical event. As a matter of fact, let us recall this historical event of General de Salaberry who, with 300 Canadian soldiers, prevented Canada from becoming an American colony. It is probably the memory of this event which today enables us, forces us, I should say, to speak against this bill which, in short, would tend to legalize the intrusion of an American firm into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most curious things is that this company is already carrying on financial operations in this country, even though it does not seem to be legally incorporated. I am wondering what our legislation is worth when this company can be allowed to do business without being legally recognized.
Here is one of the strangest things that can be imagined, and, personally, I cannot admit that a firm may have such privileges.
Like several members who have preceded us, we want Canada to become a country able to run its business by herself. In fact, we have been depending on others long enough: I feel the day has come at last to become masters of our destiny, for after all, if we, the 18 million Canadians, are unable to control our economy, what is the use of believing that we are the parliamentarians elected to run the business of the nation?
If we are unable to do our duty, it seems to me that we should leave the responsibility to others. I feel we are able, all by ourselves, to take such responsibility, and that is why, like several of my friends, I personally object to the passing of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business having now expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted 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.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand how the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) can recommend the levy of a tax to pay for this increase in pension. In my opinion, the government is not being honest with the people since, during the last election, it never mentioned this tax, this additional burden on the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayers.
Furthermore, as I said previously, we on this side of the house were surprised to hear the dangerous-and I use the word intentionally-statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare during an interview she gave to a reporter of the Globe and Mail last September 27. Indeed, that interview was recorded on tape and then published in the newspapers. I will quote the statement.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is not true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thus, the minister will have the opportunity of making comments on each statement.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has said on her word in the house today that none of these statements was made by her. Has the hon. member the right to read them when the minister has said on her word in the house that she never made such statements?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, she did not say she did not make any of the statements in the report covering almost two pages in the Globe and Mail. She said there was a little part she did not think she said.


Alexis Pierre Caron: She never said a little part. [Translotion]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We know what kind of truth she utters, especially since she was a member of the truth squad.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I should point out to the hon. member that if the hon. lady has already denied the statement,
Old Age Security
then as a member of the house the hon. gentleman will have to accept that denial, and I would hope that the hon. member would carry on with his speech without pursuing this line of argument.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, section 94A of the Canadian constitution gives to the provinces complete powers in the field of social security. If a province like Quebec wishes to set up a retirement fund, it is up to her; she is the only one concerned and it has nothing to do with the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare.
If we want peace-and we really want national unity-let the minister first respect the Canadian constitution and the wishes of the province of Quebec. That province wants to set up a large fund and thus have money for her cultural, economic and educational needs.
And the newspaper La Presse of September 28 reports this:
The minister considers that the Quebec pension plan is steeped in nazism.
Following that interview which she gave to the Globe and Mail and I quote in English-

I will quote in English, Mr. Speaker.
By controlling investment capital it could control business. We could end up with a sort of national socialism, like they had in nazi Germany, and not much free enterprise.
I have quoted what was said by the minister. I think this is against national unity. [Translation]
Such a statement from the minister contributes to undermine our national unity.
I protest on behalf of my province and government members should denounce the minister who uses such words which are inconsistent with our national unity.
Mr. Chairman, the minister went even further. She said that this plan would not be referred to a committee of the house because the members were not qualified.
Well, I feel that statement is an insult to the members of this house, because how can we vote for a bill if we are not qualified enough to study it in committee?
Mr. Chairman, those statements are, in my opinion, the most injurious ever made by a minister of the crown in a long time.
The minister assumes rights and prerogatives she does not have. I think she is a drag on the government. In fact, she reminds me of Madame Nhu; she is the Madame Nhu of the House of Commons and she annoys everybody.

Old Age Security
Mr. Chairman, I have more confidence in the newspapermen of the Globe and Mail who have reported everything she said in an interview which was published in all Canadian papers, including those of French Canada. I have more confidence in the reports made by our excellent journalists than in the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Besides, everyone knows the way she used to report facts while she was a member of the truth squad.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian people have enough of this and the minister should resign for having talked that way, because such remarks are detrimental to national unity. Before concluding, I maintain that the minister should apologize to all members for having uttered such remarks. She should urge the cabinet to make this increase of the old age pensions retroactive to April 8 last.
She should also ask the government not to levy new taxes on the common people who need their money to live.
Mr. Chairman, since the Liberals rule the country, government is a complete fiasco. The government is unable to run Canada's business in time of peace and we demand that it resign as soon as possible. Let it yield its place to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), because he has always been able to increase pensions without increasing taxes.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up too much of the house's time, because I feel that we are all under an obligation to our elder citizens, and that is to grant them a pension increase as soon as possible.
However, I have a few words to say to my hon. friends opposite. Let me remind them of some of the promises they made early in 1963 during the election campaign. They said at that time that a Liberal administration would increase old age and veterans' pensions, family allowances, and all this, mind you, without raising taxes.
To that end, the Liberals were supposed to cut the wasteful expenditures of a Conservative government which had been spending public moneys lavishly and inconsiderately. And with the money thus saved, the Liberal government could increase all types of pensions and family allowances without raising taxes.
Now, we have before us a resolution which will be followed in a few days, I hope, by a bill entitled "Increase in old age and veterans' pensions in the country", and we are advised at the same time that this pension increase will be paid by means of a tax increase.
That is exactly the opposite of the promises made during the election campaign. Besides, that is how the two old line parties usually proceed. As a matter of fact, they are very

able when they sit in the opposition, but as soon as they come into office, they become so disabled that they should be covered by a measure to increase the allowances for disabled persons while they are members of parliament.


Mr. Choquette:: What about the veterans' pensions?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, has spoken about veterans' pensions. I feel that he should be granted such a pension; he would find it much more useful outside parliament than within its precinct.
Mr. Chairman, when it was decided to raise the emoluments of members of parliament, we did not link that rise to a tax increase. But when it is thought of raising the old age pensions, one hears talks of new taxation.
The increase in our parliamentary indemnity was made retroactive to April 8, whereas in the case of our senior citizens, the increase in their pensions will only apply as of today October 1.
Mr. Chairman, regardless of the amendment which was proposed in the house this afternoon, we move that the government might submit a bill providing for retroactivity to April 1 or 8 for all such pensioners.
The provisions of the resolution before us do not include the case of our people from 55 to 70 years of age. However, every single member is aware of the difficulties confronting some of his voters of 55, 58, 60 or 63 years of age, who are unable to work to earn a living and who receive no assistance from anyone. Then, why not take care of these people right now?
Everyone knows that on account of automation, men are being increasingly replaced by machines and we find ourselves confronted with a problem which is urgent and national in scope and which cannot be solved elsewhere but here, in this federal parliament.
It is the duty of every member, whatever his political allegiance or the party which he represents, to take a stand in favour of these people.
The proposed resolution now before us is one of a rather general nature, which does not contain very accurate specifications. In fact, here is what it says:
-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-
We are going to ask our young people of 18, 20 and 22 years of age who have jobs, to start right now paying for old age security.
The proposed resolution goes on:
-on the taxable income of individuals-

When all individuals have too much to pay at the present time.
-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,... applicable to the 1964 and subsequent taxation years.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we-I do not mean the Social Credit party but the Liberal government-are being stingy toward the people and generous to the members of this house, the senators and a few privileged groups.
Mr. Chairman, following the emergency conditions created by the war in 1939-and the Liberals surely know something about that since they held power at that time-we appealed to the Bank of Canada to get new credit, to finance the first stages of the war. That was the Liberal mint, my friends.
How strange you should find that mint only to finance a war effort and cannot manage to find it to let people live.
Mr. Chairman, there was no mention of the money press when it came to putting Canada into debt for $13 billion during the 1939-45 war, whereas today there is talk about it when we, of the Social Credit party, put our financing philosophy forward.
That reminds me of what the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) was already saying to the people on television, while showering bank notes all over himself: it will create inflation.
Did not the same member vote himself an increase of $8,000 not very long ago? No one said anything, then, no one worried about inflation. But an increase for the people and an increase of $10 in the old age pension, that is inflation. Is that what those members consider logical?


An hon. Member:: Nobody refused our increase.


David Réal Caouette: That is absolutely right. But the members of our party did not brag to the people as you did.
Mr. Chairman, if it was possible to use the Bank of Canada for war purposes, we feel that it would be easy for the government to use the Bank of Canada to increase social security in Canada without taxing the people, the small worker, the labourer, the farmer or the small shopkeeper. Those people are today finding life very difficult and you know yourselves how that is true in your own ridings.
We are faced with an acute and urgent problem simply because the government stubbornly refuses to go to the Bank of Canada, which is owned by the state and belongs to all Canadians. They are still trying to pick some pockets to fill others; that is the solution of the Liberal party.
Old Age Security
Mr. Chairman, we approve wholeheartedly the increase in old age pensions. However, we do not agree to the string that is attached to it: taxation. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said this afternoon, we are forced to vote for the tax increase when we vote to increase the old age pension. They offer us a "package", as they call it, and quite a nice package it is. First of all, they bring up an increase of old age pensions and right after that, an increase of taxes.
Mr. Chairman, we suggest that the government present its bill in a definite and clear-cut way, not one which will put a further burden on taxpayers, but a progressive bill which, for once, would favour the interests of the Canadian people in placing the Bank of Canada at its disposal. It must be added that the Minister of Finance acknowledged it himself: we can resort to the Bank of Canada. Why then not use its services instead of paying interests to private financing enterprises and force our people to pay two, three or four times the amount borrowed by the government.
Mr. Chairman, an amendment was moved this afternoon. Here is another one. I move, seconded by Mr. Gilles Gregoire, that the government resolution be amended by adding after the word "years" the following words: "and the house asks that the government give consideration to lowering the age requirement in respect of old age pensions to 65 years for everyone without a means test and to 60 years, subject to a means test.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you put the amendment moved by the hon. member, I wonder would you give some consideration as to whether or not it is in order. In some respects it is similar to the amendment moved by the right hon. gentleman earlier today, but it seems to me that it would be out of order on an additional ground in that it is not an amendment at all but an attempt to attach another and quite separate proposition to the one that is before the committee, because we have a concrete proposition before the committee about the old age security legislation as it now exists, namely that it would be expedient to make an amendment to that legislation.
This motion does not attempt to amend the motion already before the committee. It purports to attach a lot of other words to it, urging the government to consider something else entirely different, that is to say, reducing the eligible age for pensioners to 65 years without a means test, and to 60 years with a means test.
The main principle of the old age security legislation is that there is no means test at all

Old Age Security
and therefore, apart from all other considerations, this would import something entirely new into the question. It seems to me it falls to the ground like the right hon. gentleman's amendment, which was ruled out of order and which ruling, on appeal, was sustained by the house, in that it seeks to impose a charge upon the exchequer, which can only be done with a message from the crown and can only be proposed by a member of the treasury benches.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State stressed two definite facts.
First of all, he stated that this would only be an addition to the resolution and it would not make any sense.
Now, the resolution deals with an increase from $65 to $75 in the monthly pension provided by the law, that is the over-all Old Age Security Act to which two amendments are proposed in the next resolution. There are two amendments, one providing for the increase in the amount of the pension and the other for the tax increase.
This is what we wish to add. If there is to be a tax increase, then let there also be an extension of the number of years during which elderly citizens will be entitled to this pension. The whole thing boils down to this: the tax increase will be balanced by an increase in pension. Consequently, since the amendment deals with both a tax increase and a boost in the amount of pension, our proposal comes under the same resolution and does not involve the expenditure of government funds. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this must be thoroughly understood. We are not necessarily asking the government to reduce the minimum requirements to the age of 65 merely to have a greater expenditure than foreseen. We are interested in one thing only; that in adopting this amendment, the house express the wish that the government consider the advisability of reducing the requirements concerning the age at which a person is entitled to a pension. This is nothing more than the expression of an opinion on the part of the house for the benefit of the government. Members of the opposition and private members on the government side as well can recommend to the cabinet the introduction of a resolution to reduce the requirements concerning the age limit. We are not necessarily asking the government to make a bigger expenditure of public funds. We are just suggesting that the government consider our recommendation and the latter should not be ashamed of getting proposals from members of the house since there is nothing wrong with that.
[Mr. Pickersgill.I
He is free, after hearing the suggestion and the distinct request made by the members of this house, to comply or not with that request.
I submit, therefore, in spite of the ruling that may have been made this afternoon, that the amendment would not have the effect of increasing the government's expenditures. It is only a wish asking more or less the government to take the matter into consideration. I believe that it is quite in order and consistent with the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, such an amendment can be introduced at this stage, that is at the resolution stage. According to parliamentary procedure, a measure must go through various stages before being passed. The bill is not introduced in the house at the first stage. Why? Because if a resolution is introduced at this stage, opposition and government members can suggest some improvements and then the cabinet is always allowed a certain period to include in the bill, if it wishes to do so, the changes that might have been suggested at the resolution stage. Otherwise, the British parliamentary procedure that we have been following by tradition for several centuries would not have been designed so as to allow several stages, the first of which gives the government a chance to change its mind without losing face by having to reprint the bill.
If the government wishes to decide on the age of 65 years, details will be mentioned in the bill. It is why the British tradition allows at the first stage discussion of such details in order that the government may rely on public opinion and on the members' opinion before writing the bill for submission to the house.
I submit that this stage, which was created by the British tradition-and the Secretary of State will admit it with me-was established in order to allow suggestions of this kind.
The Secretary of State should be happy to see that our institutions are still democratic, to such a degree as to allow the opposition, at a stage that was intended by the procedure and the rules, to allow suggestions to the government, while the government is not committed through specific, textual and full clauses.
I submit that the Secretary of State would be ill-inspired to oppose the hon. members' suggestions. It seems to me that he should withdraw his opposition to the amendment. The government could later state its views, and try and convince us as to whether an amendment is advisable or not.

When the debate on the legislation reaches the decision stage, it will be too late to present amendments.
I submit that the present amendment is in order and does not contravene the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: I realize that I have won over most of my Liberal friends. I maintain that, according to our rules and procedure, and following tradition-that magnificent British tradition of a democratic parliament -the amendment is in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I read to the committee citation 246, section 3, page 207 of Beauchesne, fourth edition.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State this afternoon mentioned that Beauchesne's manual of procedure was not an official one in this house. Therefore we object. As long as this manual is printed only in English, it will not be recognized as an official manual of procedure of this house which should be employed by the house.
We are a bilingual country and no manual of procedure should be recognized in this house unless it is printed in both languages. The Secretary of State recognized that fact himself this afternoon in saying that it was only unofficial. So we do not accept the Chair ruling according to Beauchesne's manual, as long as it is not translated into French.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It is the
opinion of the Chair that this amendment is out of order on at least two grounds, first because it extends the scope of the resolution before the committee, and second because, if the amendment means anything, it is a charge on the treasury. I declare the motion out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is laid down in the book of procedure, standing orders-the only one that is official in this house-that on an occasion such as this you should mention the section in the authority under which we are out of order. I would like you, Mr. Chairman, to cite the number of the section according to which we are out of order. I refer to the official one.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I read standing order 59, section 2:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
If, then, speeches must be relevant, I declare that the amendment must be relevant too.
Division


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair, and the deputy chairman of the committee made the following report:
The question is as follows: In committee of the whole, when a resolution to amend the Old Age Security Act was being considered, the hon. member for Villeneuve proposed an amendment as follows:
"That the said resolution be amended by adding after the words 'subsequent taxation years' the following words: 'and this chamber asks that the government consider the opportunity of lowering the age for old age pensioners to 65 years for all without a means test, and to 60 with such test' ".
The chairman ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that it was irrelevant to the proposal before the committee: that it extended the scope of the resolution and also that it introduced a financial charge on the treasury: whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the house was in committee of the whole and when a resolution to amend the Old Age Security Act was being considered, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) proposed an amendment as follows:
I propose, seconded by Mr. Gilles Gregoire, that the said resolution be amended by adding after the words "subsequent taxation years" the following words: and this chamber asks that the government consider the opportunity of lowering the age for old age pensioners to 65 years for all without a means test, and to 60 with such test.
The chairman ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that it was irrelevant to the proposal before the committee, that it extended the scope of the resolution, and also that it introduced a financial charge on the treasury. Whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace):: I was
paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to take part in this debate tonight, particularly after I was accused by one of the ministers of the crown of establishing Liberal policy. If that is true, of course, there is one happy aspect to it and that is that I can always withdraw it tomorrow morning.
Seriously, though, there is no difficulty in a Conservative rising in parliament to support an increase in pensions for our senior citizens from $65 to $75 per month, since it was the Progressive Conservatives who moved an amendment to the resolution presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning contributory pensions which was introduced by that lady on July 18 last. We moved an amendment on July 18. I was rather amazed to hear the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who spoke for almost his allotted time advocating a pension increase and who said, let us get on with the job. His main theme seemed to be that it did not matter whether the Liberals had changed their minds or had followed their policy of retreat or their policy of capitulation. The fact was that they had indicated they were going to increase this pension, as we are attempting to do at the moment, and that was good enough.
However, the senior citizens of this country have now been aware of the fact that the official opposition has a very important function to perform in parliament. It is because of the 96 Conservative members that we are witnessing the change of mind of the Liberal party tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The senior citizens of
Canada know tonight that it is because of the stand the 96 Conservatives took on July 18 last that they are getting an increase in pensions as promised to the Canadian people by the Liberals when they were seeking to obtain a mandate from the people.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: There have not been 96 Conservatives in the house since the last election.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, that may be true; but there is one thing of which I am sure, when the hon. member says there have not been any Conservatives in the house since the last election, and that is that there are certainly a lot of socialists around this House of Commons.

I cannot be so glib when it comes to agreeing with the words uttered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said that because the practical effect of this resolution will be an increase in pensions to senior citizens, all is well. I may say, with respect, that all is not well. I cast my mind back to the evening of July 18 when we had a procedural argument that lasted for almost an hour and a half concerning an amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that this pension increase should be paid forthwith, and that our senior citizens should not have to wait until the contributory pension plan was adopted before they got their increase. The Liberals were organized on that occasion by the Secretary of State to set forth those procedural arguments, so that in effect the motion before the house on July 18 never came before the house. The point I want to make is that if that motion had died there, then the effectiveness of the opposition would have died with it. It might have been considered a new form of closure, because on that occasion the decision was reserved and to this date we have never had a decision on the motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the bar, and who has therefore no real excuse for not knowing the rules of the house, surely realizes that on the debate on this matter he cannot open a subject that is up for debate on the order paper on another matter, and that what he is doing now is quite against the rules.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into an argument with my good friend across the way because I see he has been suffering from political phthisis for a long time, but I do wish to say that I cannot sit by and give silent approval to such political conniving.
The effect of what happened on July 18 was to silence the opposition, and if this is to be a precedent in the House of Commons, and it would seem to be an unprecedented one, then the very function, the very effectiveness and the very purpose of the official opposition would be destroyed.
I want to repeat my point, that there are those who still put an ounce of freedom above a pound of security, and I am sure there are those in Canada who are to be the recipients of this $10 increase, and who, knowing whatever party were in opposition was to be silenced, would give up that pound of security for a good ounce of freedom.
It has been the opposition's functioning properly and effectively that has brought about the desired result. Destroy that effectiveness and the purpose of the opposition will be stopped. There is no better authority 28902-5-198J
Old Age Security
for that than the minister herself who, in the Globe and Mail, is reported as saying:
In the first place, there is no assurance the Quebec premiums will be small. Mr. Lesage wants a big fund for investment and he can't get it fast enough with a 2 per cent levy.
Besides, I am not sure that a very large investment fund in the hands of a government is a good thing. It is taking too much money out of private hands. Tremendous power could be wielded by a government with so much money. By controlling investment capital it could control business.
We could end up with a sort of national socialism, like they had in nazi Germany, and not much free enterprise.
Why was the decision not made? What was her position on July 18 last? I want to refer once more to the position which the 96 Conservatives took in the House of Commons on that occasion, and contrast it with what her position was. This is what she said, quoting from page 2342-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman is now breaking an express rule of the house by quoting from another debate in the same session, which is absolutely contrary to the rules and makes orderly debate impossible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The only reason I was going to quote it was because I was afraid the minister would say I misquoted her. However I can set out very carefully her position on that occasion. She took the position that until the Liberal government had implemented its contributory pension plan, and until the contributions had started to roll in, not one dollar would go out in old age pensions to our senior citizens.
Then we have the position taken by another Liberal member on that occasion, as recorded at page 2363 of Hansard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: "Who is that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for
Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) sitting right behind the minister took the same position. He also said that what would happen would be that it would cost the Canadian people $100 million, and that was the reason the government was not going to increase the old age pension. That was the position which the Liberals took on July 18 last; but that was not the position which they took during the election. They committed themselves to the Canadian people to increase old age pensions by $10 a month and it was only after the minister herself was embarrassed, and the cabinet and the entire government was em-barassed-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. member would permit a question. May I ask him if he will produce one solitary document in which the Liberal party committed itself to

Old Age Security
paying $10 immediately alter the election, without any relationship to the Canada pension plan?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think some of my colleagues can. I can only say this was in the newspapers. It may have been another misquote, as people on the opposite side of the house are always being misquoted.
In brief, here is the government's position, that while the resolution was in suspension they argued, they submitted and they alleged that adoption of the Conservative resolution would wreck their ill-conceived and ill-planned contributory pension plan. I say it is ill-conceived and ill-planned because, if implemented, it would stretch out like an octopus into those financial institutions in which private interests invest their money. The illustrious minister said herself it would place $2 billion in the hands of the government and therefore give the government tremendous political power so that those institutions that encourage private investment would become eroded and be mere puppets and servants of a grandiose government.
In fact, here are her exact words as quoted in the Globe and Mail of September 27 last, and she has not yet said she was misquoted on that occasion. She gave a press conference, and this is what she said:
The danger of having that much money sitting around is that political pressures would develop to spend it on increasing flat rate pensions, and that would throw the whole system out of balance.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I have never had a press conference with the Globe and Mail at any time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The lady minister is becoming very sensitive, but it does seem to me that on page 7 of the Globe and Mail for September 7 there is a beautiful picture of the minister. I am sure she will not deny that is her picture. In fact there is a whole page there and it is headed "Judy LaMarsh talks on pensions." Are we to take it that she has been misquoted and that the Globe and Mail, which supported the Liberal party during the last election, would print a whole page in which she has been misquoted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Read the rest of it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I leave it to my good friends opposite to read it-those capable of reading. The minister says she is the mother of pensions, and that she is going to rock those pensions, like a baby, to sleep. However she may suffer some miscarriage. The Liberal pension plan was conceived in haste and delivered in confusion. What has been the position as far as the provinces are concerned? Let us look at that position. First of
[Miss LaMarsh.l
all, the minister said it is all right for Mr. Lesage to oppose the contributory pension plan because he said he would challenge its constitutionality in the courts. Therefore, because Mr. Lesage put it on a high intellectual level-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the hon. member who has the floor will admit that the Chair has exercised considerable indulgence and leniency in allowing him to deal with the contributory pension plan. This subject is, to my mind, obviously beyond the restricted terms of the resolution now before the committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the Chair's remarks but I am only answering the argument made by the minister herself on this particular resolution. The same arguments were made and replied to by other hon. members on both sides of the house. With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish my remarks on this subject because this is the whole point. At one time


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the hon. member will want to abide by the ruling the Chair is now making. If he will read the resolution that is before the committee I am sure he will know he is going beyond its terms by continuing the remarks he is making at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am only going to say this, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing with the question of old age pensions, and when we are considering pension plans there must be some kind of agreement with the provinces. My point is that Mr. Lesage placed it on a high intellectual level. But because the premier of Ontario said he wanted to study and examine the plan and compare it with the plan as far as the province of Ontario is concerned it is said that Ontario should accept the plan without a word. Therein lies the great difference. Let us see what she herself had to say about this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member kindly to comply with the ruling which has been made that he is out of order. The hon. member is clearly out of order. He must realize that I have, as I said, exercised as much indulgence and leniency as I can in allowing him to complete the short remarks he was making a moment ago. I would appreciate it very much if he would now find it possible to get back to the essential subject of the resolution,


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister, in introducing the resolution on September 30, dealt with the proposed Canada pension plan in the first

hall of her remarks. Why, then, are not other hon. members of this house given the same privilege as the minister to deal with a subject which she herself raised?
At that time, sir, the minister should have been called to order and restricted to the resolution which was placed on the order paper. On page 3038 of Hansard you will find her remarks concerning the proposed Canada pension plan, and subsequent speeches by other hon. members of this house should be permitted to deal with the subject that she herself raised.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reference to this matter, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, what a mockery, when it is all right for one province and not all right for another, which is in effect what the minister said. Why should it be fair for one and not fair for the other? I have in my hand a document from which I would like to quote. The minister challenged me and said that at no time did the Liberal party in literature which they put out, or in campaign speeches, which were printed in the newspapers, say they would immediately increase the pension for senior citizens. I want to read from "This is the man". This is a document put out by the official Liberal association authorized by the Liberal association and printed by D. W. Friesen & Sons, Limited.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This was in the last election campaign, 1963. And if you deny this program, then you must deny everything you said to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Get the truth squad out again, and the pigeons and the colouring books.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have the "Pigeons".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I now quote from this document, which reads:
That Canadians need a contributory pension program, over and above the present universal old age pension. They offer a program that will give pensioners an additional $10 immediately-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lamoniagne:: Go on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It continues:
-with ultimate benefits as high as $295 a month per couple.
I want to go further. This was promised to the Canadian people by the Prime Minister on the grounds that there would not be an increase in taxation. I submit that he made those speeches in the province of Quebec; he made those speeches in the province of Ontario, in the maritimes and in western Canada.
Old Age Security
They told this house and the Canadian people that the senior citizens of this country would get an increase of $10 a month immediately. It is only because the 96 Conservatives in opposition took the position which they did take on July 18 that today we find the government have reversed their position. For what reason? I say, the reason of straight political expediency. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when we are dealing with welfare benefits or an increase in pensions we cannot consider the subject without-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Could we have order in the chamber.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know, Mr. Chairman, that you have asked for order on several occasions and I would appreciate it if there were a little more order.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know, on a question of privilege, whether the hon. member could table the document he just read.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, my good friend knows the rule-


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no question of privilege here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -that a private member does not table documents. Whether he is looking for a job in the cabinet, I do not know. However, dealing with the commitment made by the Liberal party, I think there is a little restlessness lately in that party and we now read in the newspapers that certain backbenchers consider that the present minister should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to say this, with great respect, to the minister. I do not believe this plan was visioned by the minister; I believe it was visioned by the Prime Minister of this country. I believe the contributory pension plan, which I described earlier in my remarks as being one which would stretch out like an octopus in its present form to crush all kinds of investment, was really the Pearson plan, being part of the election campaign of 1962, and it happened to fall to the lot of the minister to implement this plan. So when the Liberal backbenchers are considering the resignation of the present minister they should put the bell on the right neck and find out whose plan it was.


An hon. Member:: Bell the cat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is interesting to note what has happened recently, because in the

Old Age Security
last election campaign the Liberal party seemed to have the financial institutions behind them. I would like now, in reference to the question of pensions-and I am sure this is relevant-to quote from the Financial Post. This article is headed "Nation's Business. The whole truth not being told". This is what the Financial Post has to say about this plan:
What's wrong with the truth about pensions? When did Canadians ever more urgently need plain speaking and honest comment about a proposed welfare plan?
Whatever the aspirations of all Canadians for a decent retirement income, it is clear that they are now getting considerably less than the whole truth about the real costs and the real implications of Ottawa's grandiose plan for pensions.
This is in the Financial Post of this week. The article continues:
For instance, Ottawa has devoted much oratory and rhetoric to extol the virtues of a "pay-as-you-go" plan based on contributions from employers and employees.
May I pause for a few moments. Not long ago, two elections or the last election ago, we all know that the Liberal party criticized the former Conservative government, that they did not pay as they go; that they had deficits. Here is what the Financial Post has to say about the present social welfare program under the contributory pension scheme, as far as the Liberals are concerned:
But why have our federal politicians failed to make it clear that those who do most of the paying will be a very different group from those who collect the biggest benefits?
Then dealing with the very situation the minister mentioned the Financial Post goes on in words with which I am in accord:
Ottawa also claims that the Canada pension plan can be financed with a levy on wages that starts at only 2 per cent (1 per cent from the employee, 1 per cent from the employer on the first $4,000 of the employee's income) and rises to only about 6 per cent in 2050.
This, says the Financial Post, is outright deception. They are not my words: they are the words of the Financial Post.
I could read more but I will end with this, and this puts them in their proper perspective as far as their change in attitude in respect of pensions is concerned.
The real truth about the Canadian pension plan is that it is a grotesquely bad piece of legislation. It was conceived in political expediency. It is being rushed into the world for reasons of political urgency.
May I ask the minister to explain what "political urgency" there is? Why was this change made? I suggest it was made because it was straight political expediency. The ministers of the present government had on their desks letters from people all across the country saying that the Conservative stand
[Mr. Woolliams.l
indicated by our leader on July 18 was a proper stand. In fact, if I may pause there, I think the senior citizens of this country can look with some pride to the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can shout me down but I hope that you will just be a little more liberal with the time. It was the Leader of the Opposition who led the fight on July 18 for the increase in pensions. If it had not been for his grand fight on that occasion, which ended up in a procedural argument, the citizens of this country would still be waiting for their pension plan. That is why the Financial Post said that it was conceived in political expediency; that it had been rushed into the world for reasons of political urgency. They go on to say:
No public hearings have been held to examine its objectives, its real costs, its adequacy, its workability or its acceptance. As it stands now, the plan is an escalator to inflationary costs and candy for the haves at the expense of the have-nots in our society.
Every Canadian, rich or poor, now has very good reason to demand that Ottawa declare a pension pause and face up to the miserable facts about its ill-begotten scheme.
When they realized that public opinion was against this type of contributory pension, which stretched out, I want to repeat, like an octopus into financial institutions in which private investors invest their money, and when they got the protests through letters on their desks from all across the country, the Liberal members on the treasury benches had to change their attitude. As a result, pressure was brought to bear on the minister of health, and it is through that pressure that the backbenchers blame the present minister of health. But this pressure was spearheaded by the present Prime Minister. In fact, I will go further. The contributory pension plan, as it seems to be now, is a plan for the socialization of the financial institutions of this country and the working men of this country.
Now I want to go back to where I started. On July 18 last the Leader of the Opposition moved his amendment. There was a procedural argument lasting about an hour, and decision on it was reserved. We have had no decision yet with reference to that question. Then the identical resolution was presented by the government. It is really in the exact terms which the opposition placed before the House of Commons on July 18. The position taken by the Liberal party on July 18, the position they have taken as far as the contributory pension plan is concerned, and the position they took as far as the procedure for bringing about a pension is concerned, will long haunt them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to indulge in the flights of fancy to which we have just been listening. I intend to deal with a few facts. First of all, I think it surprised many hon. members when they heard the last observation of the hon. member for Bow River. He said that the motion now before the house is identical-the word he used-with an amendment moved by his leader on July 18.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As far as pensions are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is so, I should like to know why his leader moved an amendment to this motion here today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I listened patiently to the hon. member but now I have the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to go on, sir, and say that when the hon. gentleman talks of political expediency, he of course comes from a school experienced in that field. When one recalls the recent history in old age pensions, when one recalls what was done just after the 1957 election and just before the 1958 election, and then when the old age pensioners were forgotten till just before another election, I think we know what political expediency is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and people on this side of the house is that we are not contemplating an election; we are doing something after an election. For four years the hon. member for Perth-


An hon. Member:: Call in the truth squad.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it seems that hon. gentlemen do not want to listen. For four years the hon. member for Perth dusted off the report of that professor from British Columbia, Professor Clark. He dusted it off once a year and put it back again till it was just time for an election, and then suddenly something was done. But not what Professor Clark had talked about. Not what the former prime minister had promised at the time he established the Clark commission. Something entirely different was done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I presume you are able to relate this speech to the resolution, but I doubt if anyone in the committee can do so. My
Old Age Security
point of order is this: what relevance have these remarks about something which happened four years ago to the resolution now before the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no difficulty, sir, in doing that. The hon. gentleman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request a ruling on my point or order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to the point of order. The hon. gentleman, who a few moments ago defended the hon. member for Bow River on a point of order, is now objecting to my replying to the things the hon. member for Bow River said, things he said he had a right to say. That is just another flip-flop.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to speak to that point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Briefly, what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has suggested is that although you ruled me out of order, Mr. Chairman, he can still speak on the subject on which you ruled me out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: You disregarded the ruling. You carried on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Although I suggested the hon. member for Bow River was out of order, my ruling did not seem to create too much of an impression and I do feel that the remarks which are now being made by the Secretary of State are just as relevant to the resolution as those which were made by the hon. member.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, you ruled twice, if not three times, to restrict the hon. member for Bow River in speaking on the subject he was dealing with. Now you suggest that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is speaking on a similar subject and, while you may not have been too successful in curtailing the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River you apparently intend to give the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a free hand. I object entirely to that procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I appreciate that much has been said in the course of this debate which was probably beyond the terms of the resolution we have before us. It is not always easy for hon. members to limit their remarks strictly to the terms of the resolution. On the other hand, I am sure hon. members appreciate that it is not easy for the Chair to limit debate at all times, and to impose a ruling on hon. members, if they insist on continuing the trend of thought on which they

Old Age Security
have started. I feel sincerely that when I interrupted the hon. member for Bow River he was out of order to some extent. I asked for his co-operation and he did co-operate to some extent. A point of order has been raised and I think we should give the Secretary of State a chance to relate his remarks to the resolution before us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, I am sure you did not mean any slight on an hon. member of this house when you suggested that I co-operated only slightly, or used words to that effect. I am sure you did not impute any motive, or infer that I did not endeavour to co-operate.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no question of motives at all, I can assure the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intended to quote, as the hon. gentleman purported to quote-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has challenged me. He said I purported to quote something and I challenge the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to say I misquoted the document from which I was reading. I ask him to withdraw those remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that the hon. gentleman sits on the front bench, but I see no reason why there should be one rule for him and another for the backbenchers.


Lucien Lamoureux: Hon. members should realize that the Chair is the servant of the house. If there is to be any order in the committee there should be some co-operation with the Chair, even if the Chair should be wrong or make rulings which are not entirely to the satisfaction of individual members. I think hon. members should try to co-operate with the Chair to that extent. There are only three minutes to go before ten o'clock-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Call it ten o'clock if you like.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Secretary of State has the floor. It is up to him to make his speech and he should be given an opportunity to complete what he has to say in the last few minutes we have this evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the chief whip opposite to send me the document from which the hon. gentleman quoted. Instead of doing so, the hon. gentleman left the house with the document. But I am not concerned about that. I have the floor, and 1 want to quote from the oflicial-


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege.
[The Chairman.]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Will all hon. members sit down, please. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has the floor on a question of privilege.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As is my duty as chief opposition whip I like to endeavour to the best of my ability to keep my members served with honest proof of the points they are putting forward. As soon as the leader of the house raised this point-I have found him amiable on most other occasions, though not on this one-I communicated with the person who supplied me with this document, but that person did not give me permission to transmit this document to the leader of the house.
I therefore left the chamber and made further' communications but privilege was still not extended to me. However, it is at this time, and I should like to relate what this document-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that there is obviously no question of privilege whatsoever. This is nothing but an attempt to prevent me from making quotations from these two documents I have in my hand and I hope I shall be permitted to make those quotations without further interruption. I listened without interruption while the hon. member opposite was making the quotation-


An hon. Member:: A point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The documents from which I wish to quote-


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I speak to that point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Eric Alfred Winkler: There is no attempt being made on my part to curtail the speech of the Secretary of State on behalf of the government, none whatsoever. He can quote from any documents he desires. However, I should like to read into the record from the two documents I have, documents which were printed as official literature by the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would both hon. members please resume their seats.


An hon. Member:: Whoop it up.


Lucien Lamoureux: A point has been made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce-


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have asked that I might have the privilege of reading these documents.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order. May I call it ten o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not expect we have unanimous consent to go beyond ten o'clock, so, it being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You succeeded very well.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the leader of the house would let us know the order of business for tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we shall continue with the debate on this resolution and I am sure the Canadian public will be edified to learn that, although there has been almost no participation from this side of the house, the opposition is taking three days to give the people the old age pension.
Business of the House


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should certainly like to point out-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is ten o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to point out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock I do now leave the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appeal to Your Honour to let him speak.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
28902-5-199
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 2, 1963