1963-07-29

Mr. Speaker:: It might interest hon. members to know that following a decision taken by the commissioners of internal economy, our sessional employees who may wish to work during the next summer adjournment of the house will be kept on strength.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1963-64

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Deputy Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates "C" for the financial year ending March 31, 1964, was presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Even though this matter does not concern me personally, I presume that the house will give me its unanimous consent.
Over the week end my residence was deluged with visitors and phone calls concerning the case of Leopold Dion who was found guilty of the murder of four children.
Last week, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) promised me to appoint a lawyer and a psychiatrist to look into Dion's record.
I am not raising this matter now since it is sub judice, but I am referring rather to the evidence taken following those tragedies. Dion himself stated that he had corrupted 21 youngsters since his last parole. Will they be 21 future criminals?
Allow me to quote the opinion of Hon. Justice Lucien Cannon who had recommended life imprisonment, in Dion's case.
On June 2, 1940, he had stated, according to L'Action of July 2, 1963:
In such a case, parole should never be granted.
According to Le Soleil of July 26, 1963, Charles Edouard Cantin, assistant solicitor general of the province of Quebec, had applied for the repeal of Dion's ticket-of-leave, in order that he serve his life sentence. Even Le Devoir of this morning pointed out that Mr. Cantin had objected to Justice George Street, but he noted that the judge did not remember his former protests.
Mr. Roger Champoux wrote in La Presse of July 26, 1963:
But until the outcome, how many mysteries remain to be solved, how many concerns have to be quieted and how many questions asked will never receive a clear and definite answer.
Considering that the Profumo case has given rise to a royal inquiry in Great Britain even though there has been no loss of life, I respectfully submit that the national parole board should also be subject to a full royal inquiry.
I understand that the board is supposed to be independent but, in view of the circumstances, we need more than just a simple investigation.
Even though there are political differences between the hon. members for Quebec East, Portneuf and Saguenay and myself, I am sure that they will agree with me on that point because some of their constituents are directly affected by that tragedy.
Considering that sexual perverts are mentally sick, probably the Criminal Code should be amended so as to provide complete and adequate therapy for such people before they are eligible for parole.
As a doctor, I appreciate that psychopaths cannot be treated the same way as run-of-the-mill prisoners.
I therefore appeal to the feelings of the Minister of Justice because his children or his grandchildren could be the victims of such a tragedy just as well as ours.
Before I conclude, I should like to say that it might be appropriate to consider the resignation of Justice Street since he seems to

Question of Privilege
have made a decision without even having all the facts before him.
So I ask the Minister of Justice to order a royal inquiry regarding the national parole board.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the hon. member raising that matter in the house, even though I do not believe the case at issue warrants a question of privilege.
Be that as it may, as I was entering the house, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmo-rency (Mr. Marcoux) supplied me with a copy of the statement he intended to make in this chamber to ask that a royal inquiry be made into that matter.
As I have already said, the government and the Department of Justice feel that is a most serious matter. Furthermore, and having read as the hon. member did the statements published in the week-end newspapers about it, I inquired and prepared a few notes I should like to put on record.
As I just said, I read in the week-end newspapers certain statements attributed to the assistant attorney general of the province of Quebec concerning the case of Leopold Dion. The various press reports do not establish clearly whether Mr. Charles Edouard Cantin is of the opinion, first, that his department ought to be consulted each time a request for parole is being considered and that the opinion given by his department ought to bind the national parole board or, second, that his department should be permanently represented on the board and thus share the responsibility for the decisions taken.
Besides, Mr. Cantin criticized the watch that was kept on Leopold Dion and expressed the opinion that, generally speaking, supervision should be provided by his own department.
Last Friday I informed the house that a lawyer and a psychiatrist would be asked to review that file to determine if, in this case, too great a risk was taken, in view of all the circumstances.
The policy of the former remission service and that of the present national parole board is to obtain, as soon as possible after an inmate is admitted to a penitentiary, a report from the police officers who made the investigation and one from the judge who passed the sentence. This is done to establish the

circumstances surrounding the offence and what the sentence is meant to achieve. A date of eligibility for parole is set up within six months following imprisonment, in accordance with the act and the rules. That date, according to an understanding that went into effect on January 1, 1963, is made known- and I would like the house to take note of that-to the department of the attorney general of the province of Quebec in case it should ever want to express its views about a parole that might be granted to an inmate. I am advised that since then no special communication has been received.
The department of the attorney general in a province, as Mr. Cantin said, must prosecute lawbreakers in order to protect society. I will add that it must also put at the disposal of the court, through specialized officials, information that enables the judge or the magistrate to pass the appropriate sentence. Finally it must give inmates living conditions that will facilitate their rehabilitation.
The national parole board takes into account the views, opinions and recommendations submitted by the police officers, the judge, the jailer. When it renders a decision, it has information on the offender's status before his imprisonment, it knows also the progress he has made in the penitentiary as well as his plans when he is released. It must also protect society and choose only cases that seem to warrant such a parole. If by means of preliminary consultations or a permanent representative, the department of the attorney general for the province of Quebec wishes to share the responsibility of the decisions of the board, I believe that it can be arranged easily and the board will welcome such an offer of co-operation. However, it remains to be seen if such a representative from the department of the attorney general will be able to never make a mistake. He will have, of course, to accept to be jointly responsible for the majority of decisions of the board.
I shall add only this, Mr. Speaker. Since I have already announced the appointment of a lawyer and a psychiatrist to study the case, I believe that before taking any other measures, I should wait at least for the result of that investigation.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister expect he will soon be in a position to announce the names of the lawyer and the psychiatrist chosen to inquire into the case of Leopold Dion?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped I could do it before today, but unfortunately, there were discussions concerning some psychiatrists and some lawyers. In any case, I hope we can arrive at a decision soon.


Rémi Paul: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Could he give us the assurance that the lawyer chosen will be an expert in criminal law?


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I am looking for at this time, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REPORT BY PRIME MINISTER ON MEETING IN OTTAWA

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to present a report on the federal-provincial conference which took place in Ottawa last Friday and Saturday. I shall do so only briefly because, as the house is aware, the government proposes to proceed tomorrow with the legislation concerning financial assistance to municipalities which was the main subject, as it turned out, discussed at this conference. The practical results of the conference will thus be determined by parliament itself.
What the conference achieved was all that it, in itself, could achieve. That is to say, it produced what we consider to be a very satisfactory understanding with the provincial governments about the proposals that the federal government will make to this parliament. The decisions then will be in the hands of parliament.
The understanding between federal and provincial representatives can best be summarized by reading the communique which was approved at the concluding session by all members of the conference. That communique reads:
The meeting of federal and provincial governments has concluded with full agreement on the proposal of the federal government to promote employment by financial assistance, with provincial approval and co-operation to municipal capital works.
Dominion-Provincial Conference Report
The federal government indicated to the provinces that it will propose, in the legislation to be discussed in parliament next week, features which will enable the measure to be applied in forms adapted to different conditions in the various provinces.
The federal government will propose that the range of municipal works covered in the program will be broadened so as to include in any province all those municipal works which the province and the federal government believe to be productive of increased employment.
In response to suggestions from a majority of the provinces, the federal government will also propose that, if a province so wishes, it will be able to make with the proposed municipal development and loan board an agreement whereby the province is responsible for granting and administering the loans to municipalities, subject to such safeguards as are necessary to enable the board to report to parliament that expenditures have been properly made according to the purposes of the legislation.
It was agreed by all the governments that this proposed legislation can operate satisfactorily, with the agreement and co-operation of the provinces, to promote employment in Canada.
The conference also discussed the Canada pension plan recently put forward by the federal government. The discussion was conducted in the spirit of the common interest of federal and provincial governments in ensuring satisfactory provision for old age security and other welfare measures in Canada. It was agreed that further discussions between federal and provincial representatives should take place at an early date.
There was also agreement at the conference that more regular federal-provincial meetings should be held, and that it is desirable to establish more adequate machinery for maintaining federal-provincial contact between such meetings.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the agreed communique. There is just one thing I would add to the communique at this point, and that is to express in the house my warm appreciation to the eight premiers and to the representatives of the two other provinces who attended the conference. The discussions were frank, fair and friendly, and in my view were exactly what such discussions should be.
In recent years we have all had reason to become increasingly conscious of the difficulties in federal-provincial relationships. That is the reflection, fundamentally, of changing conditions, of growth and development in our country. The difficulties are not to be regretted provided that we know how to respond to the inevitable challenge which they create. The recent conference has confirmed in the fullest possible way my own faith that the challenge will be met.
The success of any form of government depends fundamentally on those it puts into positions of responsibility. In the governments of the provinces of Canada there is the spirit of co-operation, the understanding and farsightedness which Canadians need in order to improve and advance our confederation. In expressing to the provinces, as I did, my appreciation of the spirit in which they took part in the conference, I should like to
2714	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference Report say above all that it will be the steady determination of this government to act in that spirit. I believe we can look forward to close and regular consultation which will be productive of the kind of co-operative federalism that will serve the aspirations of all Canadians.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the objective that the Prime Minister enunciated in his concluding words there will be general agreement. He has spoken of the fine spirit of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments as evidenced by the issue of the communique to which he made reference. That is all to the good, because a matter of three or four weeks ago one would have thought that as between the government of Canada and one or two of the provinces there was not close consultation and a hot line should have been established, similar to that which was brought into being as between Khrushchev and Kennedy. However, everything is fine now according to the Prime Minister.
We are naturally pleased that consultation took place with the provinces. When this question was first before the house Her Majesty's loyal opposition asked what consultation had taken place, and there was an obvious resentment on the part of ministers of the crown to the suggestion that it should take place. We feel that consultation should be a prelude to rather than a consequence of legislation brought before parliament. I should like to add as well that what has happened has been that in almost every particular the haphazard pieces of legislation or resolutions to bring about legislation have been set aside and the demands of the provinces have been met 100 per cent.
There has been some reference to the high quality of the diplomacy exhibited by the Prime Minister at this conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Applause is always welcome from where'er it comes. If to bargain diplomatically is to completely surrender everything for which the government of Canada stood, then this indeed was a victory for diplomacy, and provincial diplomacy at that. Having regard to the manner in which the plan of the government has been dissected, if not completely set aside, I should think "the government might very well withdraw the resolution that it has presented and introduce another one, instead of amending this resolution; because the amended resolution will bear little relationship to the original plan of the government.


We are glad to see that there has been agreement. If there had been previous consultation no doubt there would have been agreement; because the provinces, as I said a moment ago, succeeded 100 per cent in attaining their objective. What is going to happen is that the provinces will have available tremendous amounts of money from the federal government, not only for the purposes originally decided upon by the government for the projects which were referred to, but for a whole lot more projects. This was one of the suggestions we in the opposition had made, that this plan should not be restricted and further projects should be included.
Furthermore, I would add this. The plan is very much the plan we brought into effect under the winter works program. If imitation is the highest form of flattery, the high point was reached in the degree to which this plan is similar to the winter works program put in by the government of which I had the honour to be the leader. We consulted, and they agreed. We gave them control over the spending of the money, subject of course to the necessary safeguards of the federal interest. I think all of us realize that now, as a result of this conference having brought about this degree of unanimity, how much better it would have been in the interest of good feeling between federal and provincial governments if consultation had taken place in advance.
The subject of pensions was glided over by the Prime Minister with almost equal finesse to that displayed by the communique. It is very apparent that the provinces have grave doubts about the plan advanced by the federal government. That plan was introduced with a great fanfare of trumpets. It has been examined in the light of experience, and has certainly not been found to be worthy of the high commendation given to it when the resolution was introduced.
However, the provinces did not touch that. They were dealing with another large matter, the matter of securing funds to be loaned to the various municipalities. That being so, and having regard to some of the expressions of those present at the conference, I reiterate that the pension plan is going to take a long time, and full examination, to implement. I repeat what I have said on more than one occasion, that it will be months and months, if not years, before this pension plan in its entirety can be successfully launched, and the government should arrange at once for the payment of the $10 increase to the old age pensioners of Canada.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the results of the conference on

Friday and Saturday have been observed with much interest not only by those of us in the Social Credit party but by all people across the country. In the statement the Prime Minister has made he has given official confirmation to the actions which were taken. Indeed, it was the stand taken not only by myself but also by a number of other speakers on behalf of our party, when this legislation was introduced, as we were strongly in favour of the action which the government has now taken. We stressed the need that the autonomy of the provinces must be respected, and that too often the federal government disregards the position and responsibility of the provincial governments.
It is essential that we give more serious thought to this aspect of consultative government. It would have saved the government a great deal of grief with regard to the budget if just a few more people had been taken into consultation, and certainly the problems which the government has faced with respect to the municipal development and loan fund would have been eased considerably if this consultative aspect had been implemented before the legislation was introduced.
There is an interesting point here that I think important to mention. It is that a great deal can be accomplished by men of good will, even though they may have various differences, by getting together and attempting to solve their mutual problems in a spirit of harmony. The Prime Minister, the premiers and representatives of the provinces should be complimented for the progress they have made in this regard.
There are several other points in the Prime Minister's statement that are significant. He mentioned the need for more frequent provincial-federal meetings. We feel this is most important. He also mentioned the need for adequate machinery to provide for such meetings, and I would remind him that one of the suggestions we have been making for the last year or two is that there ought to be a full department of government, a ministry of provincial-federal affairs, set up to care for the problems that arise when the responsibilities of the two levels of government overlap.
I trust that the government will now give serious thought to setting up some such permanent machinery that will be adequate to take care of this very important need, a need which is growing as governments become more powerful.
With regard to the question of municipal finance I would just like to mention that the municipal development and loan fund, that has been dealt with over the week end, is only a temporary measure. It is to relieve problems of unemployment in the months
Dominion-Provincial Conference Report ahead. Unless there is some permanent machinery set up to solve the problem of municipal finance we are going to have a repetition of this situation year after year. I hope that when we return next fall the government will see fit to introduce legislation to set up a municipal development bank that would provide a source of social or public capital to take care of the public needs on a continuing basis.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has touched on so many of the bases that are critical of the government in this matter that it does not behove me, as the representative of my party, to follow his lead, except to say that he missed working in any talk about the spirit of Hyannis Port being replaced by the spirit of Jean Lesage.
Our general feeling is that the Prime Minister's announcement is a good one. We are pleased that the unemployment measure is going to be introduced, although it is also quite apparent that in achieving this the Prime Minister and his colleagues undoubtedly gave something away. I do not know what it was they gave away, but we know they gave it away in the spirit of co-operative federalism. However, when the legislation comes before us we would like to know what it was they gave away.
So far as the pension part is concerned, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it was certainly slipped over in the remarks of the leader of the government. He gave us to understand, as have many other hon. members of the house, that the Canada pension plan was the cornerstone for the new Liberal government and its program and policies. Now we find that the cornerstone has not even been laid and that it is likely to be a very, very long time before it is to be set in position. That being the case, it seems to me we are justified in turning to the general promise that was made that there would be an across the board increase for old age pensioners of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 a month.
We will look forward to supporting the legislation this coming week or the week after, and we would be interested in knowing what changes will be made necessary in the parliamentary schedule by the fact that we can now proceed with this legislation as well as all the other pieces of legislation with which we must deal.
When the legislation is put before us we will look forward to finding out just what was the amelioration of the original proposal that led Premier Lesage and Premier Robarts in particular suddenly to become so cooperative.

Senate and House of Commons Act (Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question resulting partly from the statement he made earlier this afternoon about co-operative federalism and also from the remarks he made over the weekend about the desirability to review the constitution. Could he tell the house whether he intends to introduce some specific measures in this respect?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this is not a question which could or should be dealt with on the orders of the day.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Can the minister explain why, in reply to a C.B.C. reporter, he stated that the majority of the provinces request an amendment to the act concerning municipal loans because:
they are afraidand rightly so,
-of the control of the federal government over municipalities.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am of the
opinion that this question is out of order at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very respectfully submit that the decision as to whether or not this question is in order lies with you rather than with the member for Outremont-St. Jean, from whom even we on this side of the house have no lesson to receive.
(Text):



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right. Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act
(a)	to increase the sessional allowances payable to members of the Senate and House of Commons;
(b)	to provide for the payment of an additional allowance to each leader of a party in the House

of Commons, other than the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons;
(c)	to provide for the payment of an additional allowance to the members occupying the recognized positions of chief government whip and chief opposition whip in the House of Commons;
(d)	to provide for the payment to members of the Senate and House of Commons of such actual transportation and travelling expenses and telecommunication expenses as the Senate and House of Commons may order;
(e)	to provide for the payment to each minister of the crown, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons of a motor vehicle allowance;
(f) to increase the allowances paid to the members of the Senate and the House of Commons for expenses incidental to the discharge of their duties;
and to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
(g)	to increase the amount of contributions to be paid by members into the consolidated revenue fund, to provide for the payment of an allowance to the widows of members of parliament where such members have made or elected to make additional contributions under the act and to make changes in the amount of the retirement allowances payable to members;
(h)	to provide for the payment of an annual allowance out of the consolidated revenue fund to persons who have held the office of prime minister for four years and to the widows of any such persons;
and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to increase the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada and the superior and county and district courts of the provinces; to provide salaries for eight additional judges of the superior court of Quebec, two additional judges of the supreme court of Nova Scotia including one chief justice, one additional judge of the queen's bench division of the supreme court of New Brunswick, one additional justice of appeal of the court of appeal for British Columbia, one additional judge of the supreme court of British Columbia, one additional judge of the court of queen's bench for Saskatchewan one additional justice of appeal of the supreme court of Alberta and one additional puisne judge of the supreme court of Newfoundland; and to make certain consequential amendments to the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['1. The tender of Mr. John Andrews of New Glasgow for $1,600 was the only one received in response to public advertising.\n2. Mr. John Andrews.']
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, the following questions are being answered today: 901, 952,

With regard to question No. 453, if it could be made an order for return the return would be tabled immediately. Would Your Honour be good enough to call starred questions Nos. 964, 970, 1,051, 1,055, and 1,056. I would ask that the other questions stand.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour calls the starred questions I wonder whether I might ask the Secretary of State a question under this order. He knows that many of us appreciate the answers to questions that are being placed on Hansard this year rather than being made orders for returns. But last Wednesday, under the practice now being followed, a question of mine, No. 934, was made an order for return and was tabled that day as sessional paper 92a. It is a bit lengthy, but it is not nearly as lengthy as some others appearing in Hansard. There is fairly general interest in the subject of my question, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State would be willing now to agree to question 934 of last Wednesday being included among those being answered on Hansard today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy indeed to comply with that request, if it is the wish of the house. I think the hon. gentleman's point is well taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Gauthier: What amount has the Department of Agriculture paid in Canada as of March 31, 1963, for irrigation and water conservation, and, of this amount, what has been paid in the province of Quebec for that purpose?
Questions


Mr. Hays:: Expenditures made by the
Department of Agriculture under provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act for irrigation and water conservation projects amounted to $176,487,000 during the period 1935 to March 31, 1963. Included are those expenditures made in connection with major projects undertaken by agreement with specific provinces. None of the amount was spent in the province of Quebec.


PENSIONS OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Knowles: 
COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE SPENDING
Mr. Smith: 1.	How many members are on the committee that will review defence spending under the chairmanship of Dr. R. J. Sutherland?
2.	Is the chairman of the chiefs of staffs committee a member of this committee?
3.	Are the chiefs of the staff of the (a) navy (b) army (c) air force members of this committee?
4.	In addition to Dr. Sutherland, how many civilians are members of this committee?
5.	Are all these persons civil servants?
6.	Are any members of the national research council members of this committee and, if so, how many?
7.	Are any members of the defence research board members of this committee and, if so, how many?
8.	Have any persons not normally employed by the government been hired or (contracted with) for the purpose of serving on this committee either as a member, secretary, or researcher?
9.	Is the scope of this committee limited to the review of defence spending and, if not, what are its terms of reference?
Answer: 1. There are six members of the *committee including representatives of the armed services, defence research board and the deputy minister's staff.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Two.
5.	All are public servants. Employees of the defence research board are not technically civil servants, but are employed under separate regulations similar to those governing employment by the national research council.
6.	No.
7.	No. However two employees of the defence research board are included in the membership.
8.	No.
9.	The instructions given to the ad hoc committee are as described in the statement of 27 June 1963 by the Minister of National Defence to the special committee on defence:
"To assist in the review of current procurement programs and in the consideration of future policy a special advisory group has been set up in the department under the chairmanship of Dr. R. J. Sutherland, chief of operational research in the defence research board. This group has undertaken a number of studies intended to demonstrate the reasons for and against a particular course of action and to list the available options. It does not make recommendations."
The task of the ad hoc committee is essentially analytical. Advice to the Minister of National Defence on questions of defence policy remains the responsibility of senior officers and officials and, in particular, of the chiefs of staff committee.
Questions


*C.P.R. PLAN FOR RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT
Mr. Canielon: 1.	Has the C.P.R. filed with the board of transport commissioners or the Department of Transport an overall plan for rail line abandonment and, if so, what are the details of such plan?
2.	If no plan has been filed, will the government undertake to obtain the details of such plan for the information of members of this house?


Mr. Canlin:: 1. No.
2.	This refers to a matter within the competence of the C.P.R. but we will be glad to take this matter up with them.


* ACTUARIAL BASIS, PORTABLE PENSION PLAN
Mr. Rynard: Has there been an actuarial calculation made in considering the proposed bill for portable pensions and, if so (a) has this actuarial basis been discussed with Canadian Life Underwriters or Canadian Life Insurance Companies and (b) are they in agreement that the proposed actuarial basis is financially sound?


Mr. Haidasz:: Yes, by qualified actuaries in the department of insurance.
(a)	No.
(b)	Question not applicable.


NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total subvention made available to industrial customers, under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, in Nova Scotia in the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962?
2.	Is consideration being given to providing subventions under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act on a k.w.h. basis rather than on the gross subvention basis?
Answer: 1. The following amounts were made available to the province of Nova Scotia under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act:	1958-59*, $1,239,999;	1959-60,
$898,591; 1960-61, $1,102,792; 1961-62, $1,004,302; 1962-63, $1,078,427.
*-includes period December 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958.
2.	The subvention being paid on Atlantic provinces coal consumed there in the generation of electricity is based on the formula to equate the cost of such fuel there to the cost of coal for thermal power production in Ontario.
(Translation):


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, MONTMAGNY-L'lSLET CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Berger: From 1957 to 1963, how much did the Department of Public Works spend for the maintenance and repair of the wharves in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet, and what wharves were affected?

Questions


Mr. Badanai:: 

Wharves at Montmagny, L'lslet, St. Jean Port Joli, Isle aux Grues, Lac Trois Saumons.
(Text):


DOCK REPAIRS, HAILEYBURY, ONT.
Mr. Peters: 1.	Is It the intention of the Department of Public Works to make repairs to the dock at Haileybury this year and, if so, have the tenders been called for this project?
2.	If it is not the intention of the department to make repairs this year, what is the disposition intended by the government of this dock?


Hubert Badanai: 1. No.
2.	The department has advised the town of Haileybury that should the municipality wish to take over these structures arrangements may be made through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation or if preferred, consideration would be given to their complete removal by the department. No answer to this proposal has yet been received.


CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKING FACILITIES, MOOSONEE
Mr. Peters: Has the Department of Public Works undertaken an engineering and architectural study for the construction of a new dock or facilities at the port of Moosonee and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost of this reconstruction and (b) how soon will work commence on the project?


Hubert Badanai: A proposal is being studied to replace the existing small wharf at Moosonee with a removable pontoon.
(a)	$50,000.
(b)	This project is being considered for inclusion in the 1964-65 main estimates.


NORTH COBALT, ONT. POST OFFICE
Mr. Peters: Is it the intention of the government to build a post office at North Cobalt, Ontario, this year and. if so, when is it expected the tenders for this project can be let?


Mr. Denis:: No.
4-H CLUBS


Mr. Hamilton: 1.	On what date was the name "4-H clubs" adopted in Canada?
2.	What was the estimated number of members of 4-H clubs in Canada, by years, and provinces, since that time?
3.	What has been the dollar amount of grants by the federal government in each of the fiscal years since 4-H clubs as such were started?
4.	What is the amount in estimates for the fiscal year 1963-64 for this purpose?


Harry William Hays: 1. The name "4-H club" was adopted in Canada on May 20, 1952.
2. The estimated number of members of 4-H clubs in Canada since 1952, by years and provinces is as follows:

Year	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.	Total1952	5,887	5,885	7,337	9,413	7,812	2,818	7,693	1,941	49,9661953	
1,693	6,974	6,347	8,164	11,196	8,198	2,866	7,566	1,686	666	55,3561954	
1,930	7,498	8,928	8,581	10,493	8,269	3,364	7,411	1,957	532	58,9631955	
1,966	7,793	10,747	8,430	11,156	8,951	3,006	7,803	2,091	419	62,3621956	
1,917	6,855	10,550	8,623	12,973	7,932	3,000	6,966	1,983	369	61,1681957	
1,973	6,604	10,800	8,566	13,465	7,942	2,506	6,552	2,191	960	61,5591958	
2,222	6,279	10,620	8,213	13,535	8,625	3,031	6,746	1,918	773	61,9621959	
2,310	6,931	10,745	8,790	17,658	8,578	2,828	6,150	1,910	786	66,6861960	
2,769	6,846	10,182	8,495	19,279	8,960	3,001	5,938	2,178	660	68,3081961	
2,950	7,285	10,539	8,762	20,210	9,103	2,418	5,954	2,203	1,399	70,8231962	
3,240	6,837	9,580	8,958	20,844	8,306	2,552	5,999	2,075	1,082	69,473
Questions

Questions
3. The dollar amount of grants paid by the federal government in each of the fiscal years
since 1952	are as follows: Grants to 4-H clubs organized in co-operation	
	with the	Grants to
	Canadian	Canadian
Fiscal	council on	council onYear	4-H clubs	4-H clubs1952-53	$ 28,155*(a)	$ 10,000*(b)1953-54	22,490*(a)	10,0001954-55	40,125	10,0001955-56	56,300	10,0001956-57	72,160	10,0001957-58	83,824	10,0001958-59	74,985	10,0001959-60	125,064	11,4491960-61	100,000	11,4501961-62	119,986	12,4501962-63	119,998	12,500$843,087	$117,849
Note: *(a) Payments made to the provinces for assistance in connection with boys and girls club work.
*(b) Grants were made to the Canadian council on boys and girls club work.
4. Amount of estimates for the fiscal year
1963-64:
Grants to 4-H clubs organized in co-operation with the Canadian Fiscal	council on
Year	4-H clubs
1963-64	$120,000
Grant to Canadian council on 4-H clubs


$ 18,400 TOURIST EXPENDITURES AND RECEIPTS
Mr. Hamilton: 1. What are the estimated amounts of money spent by visitors to Canada in the calendar years 1953 to 1962 inclusive?
2. What are the estimated amounts of money spent by Canadians abroad in the calendar years 1953 to 1962 inclusive?
3.	What amount has been spent by the Canadian tourist bureau in the fiscal years 1953-54 to 196263 for (a) advertising in commercial media (b) literature and mailing service (c) maintaining offices abroad (d) total expenditures?
Answer: 1. and 2.
1953	
$302	million	$365	million1954	
305	"	389	"1955	
328	"	449	"1956	
337	"	498	"1957	
363	"	525	"1958	
349	"	542	"1959	
391	''	598	"1960	
420	"	6271961	
482	"	6421962	
560	"	610
3. (a) The Canadian government travel bureau spent the following amounts on advertising in commercial media during the fiscal years 1953-1954 to 1962-63:
1953-54, $896,184.19; 1954-55, $952,824.81; 1955-1956, $948,024.92; 1956-57, $929,352.67; 1957-58, $1,252,500.72; 1958-59, $1,366,944.19; 1959-60, $1,415,938.58; 1960-61, $1,581,995.42; 1961-62, $1,673,893.02; 1962-63, $1,817,451.02.
3. (b) The Canadian government travel bureau expended on literature and on mailing service the following amounts during the fiscal
years from 1953-1954		to 1962-1963:	
			Freight,
			express &
Publications	Postage	cartage1953-54	$193,583.62	$ 1,550.89	$ 4,890.651954-55	$181,684.45	$ 1,868.62	$ 5,445.321955-56	$132,413.81	$ 2,600.14	$ 5,998.981956-57	$187,931.92	$ 2,945.45	$ 7,377.731957-58	$184,000.00	$ 2,374.75	$ 6,334.831958-59	$278,800.35	$ 3,325.46	$11,297.571959-60	$308,692.92	$ 3,096.07	$11,900.001960-61	$437,455.76	$ 3,603.66	$19,157.171961-62	$436,554.05	$ 7,194.77	$31,472.931962-63	$410,946.99	$12,342.72	$32,740.993. (c)	The cost of	maintaining	Canadian
government travel bureau offices abroad during the fiscal years 1953-54 to 1962-63
was as follows:	
1953-54	$ 48,004.28
1954-55	$ 60,713.74
1955-56	$ 69,002.03
1956-57	$ 73,762.04
1957-58	$ 92,010.06
1958-59	$139,166.71
1959-60	$126,545.24
1960-61	$140,711.37
1961-62	$228,304.74
1962-63	$422,327.19
3.	(d) The Canadian government travel bureau's total expenditures during the fiscal years 1953-1954 to 1962-63 were as follows:
1953-54	$	1,442,6551954-55	$	1,500,5031955-56	$	1,458,2521956-57	$	1,546,2831957-58	$	1,930,7661958-59	$	2,206,1291959-60	$	2,299,9391960-61	$	2,682,5161961-62	$	2,974,8511962-63	$	3,341,428


ACQUISITION OF WEST COAST INDIAN COLLECTION, NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Fisher: 
POST OFFICE CARETAKERS, L'EPIPHANIE AND ST. DONAT, QUE.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Were public tenders let for the appointment of a caretaker for the post office at L'Epiphanie, As-somption county, and for the post office at St. Donat, Montcalm county, and, if so, what are the names of the tenderers, and the amounts quoted in each case?
2.	Does the Department of Public Works Intend to award these contracts to the lowest tenderers and, if so, when?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes. The department called for public tenders and received the following tenders:
L'Epiphanie: Sylvio Riopel, $75 per month; Paul Bernier, $90 per month; Marcel Lafor-tune, $100 per month; Leo Seguin, $116 per month; Andre-Claude Riopel, $125 per month; Mrs. Jeanne Riopel, $150 per month; Emmanuel Poitras, $500 per month; J. R. Lafor-tune, $1,450 per month.
St. Donat de Montcalm: Joseph Rivest, $72 per month; Eugene Charbonneau, $75 per month; Yvon Forget, $100 per month.
2. The contracts have been awarded to the lowest bidders, as follows:
L'Epiphanie: Sylvio Riopel, July 22, 1963; St. Donat de Montcalm:	Joseph Rivest,
July 11, 1963.
(Text):


* ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTERS, NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What are the terms of reference of the assistant deputy ministers' positions in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	How many of these positions are now filled by bilingual civil servants?
3.	How many of these positions are now vacant, and how many are expected to be vacant by July 1, 1964?
4.	When these vacancies occur, is it the intention to fill them by open competition?
5.	Has the membership of all or part of the selection panel or panels for any of the assistant deputy ministership vacancies already been decided and, if so, what are the names of the members, their positions, and the names of their immediate superiors?
28902-5-173
Questions


Mr. Laing:: 1, Under direction of the deputy minister to be responsible for the general administration of the department; to undertake studies, make policy recommendations and prepare reports for the deputy minister as required; to co-ordinate departmental activities throughout Canada; to carry out reviews of the organization and procedures of the department and to make recommendations thereon; to represent the deputy minister in discussions, negotiations and on committees as directed; to perform such other duties as may be required.
2.	Of the two positions, none at present.
3.	One now vacant; second vacancy expected in November 1963; both expected to be filled before July 1, 1964.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


* APPLICATION FOR WATER DIVERSION BY NORTH WEST POWER LTD.
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What is the date of the application by North Western Power Industry Limited, a subsidiary of Ventures-Frobisher Company, made to the government of Canada or any department thereof for authority to divert the waters of the Yukon river to the Taku river in Alaska?
2.	What are the conditions prescribed in the permit or other authorization to carry out the investigation or studies related thereto?
3.	What is the name of the officer of the government of Canada who recommended or issued the aforementioned permit or other authorization?
4.	On what date was the permit or other authorization terminated, and by whose order?
5.	What are the reasons for the termination of permit or other authorization?
6.	How long did the official who recommended or issued this permit or authorization remain in the employ of the government of Canada after the licence or authorization was terminated?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would like the consent of hon. members, because the reply to this question extends to some three and a half pages, to having it taken as read. Perhaps the house would consent to having it printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	(a) No application was made by Northwest Power Industries Limited for authority to divert the waters of the Yukon river to the Taku river in British Columbia. Under the terms of the Dominion Water Power Act and regulations a final licence is required for diversion, use or storage of water for power purposes when such water is located on lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada. Such a final licence is not granted until completion of the project. The normal sequence

Questions
of events is for the agency or company interested in developing a water power project which falls within the purview of these regulations to apply for a survey permit which permits the applicant to enter upon lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada to survey and investigate the project for a period of up to three years. Survey permits are issued by the director of water power.
(b)	On completion of these preliminary surveys and investigations and subject to the conditions set forth in the regulations, the applicant may apply for a priority permit which shall give the applicant priority over other applicants in the consideration of his general layout plans if filed within the time specified in the permit. A priority permit is issued by the minister and is effective for a period of up to one year; it may be extended for a period of up to one year under certain conditions. Such permit shall in no case be construed as binding the minister to issue an interim licence nor as giving the applicant any exclusive claim or right.
(c)	The minister may issue to the applicant an interim licence for the carrying out of the proposed development when he is satisfied that the proposed development is the best possible in the public interest.
(d)	On completion of the project the minister may issue a final licence covering it for a term not exceeding 50 years from the date fixed in the original interim licence for the completion of the initial development.
(e)	On 6 July 1954 Northwest Power Industries Limited applied for a priority permit which was issued on 18 August 1954 by the minister, Hon. Jean Lesage.
(f)	On 22 July 1955 the company applied for an extension of this permit and such extension for a period of one year was issued by the acting minister, Hon. J. J. McCann.
(g)	On 20 August 1956 the company applied for a new priority permit on the grounds of the magnitude of the surveys and studies required on which it already had spent $812,000 and this second priority permit was issued on 28 August 1956 by the minister, Hon. Jean Lesage.
(h)	On 16 August the company applied for an extension to the second priority permit and a one year extension was granted on 28 August 1957 by the minister, Hon. Alvin Hamilton.
(i)	On 22 August 1958 the company applied for a third priority permit for the same reasons covering its application for the second priority permit and this third permit was issued on 11 November 1958 by the minister, Hon. Alvin Hamilton.

(j)	On 5 November 1959 the company applied for an extension to the third priority permit which was not granted as the company produced no evidence of having incurred additional expense on the survey and study under the third priority permit. However, a fourth priority permit was issued to the company on 6 January 1960 by the minister, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, with the advice that this fourth priority permit was the last that would be issued to the company or its associates for this project on the basis of the investigations and studies carried out by the company to that date.
2.	The conditions prescribed in the permit are those contained in the regulations.
3.	The names of the two ministers and one acting minister issuing the four permits and extensions are given in 1 above.
4.	As stated in 1 above, a priority permit can be issued only for a maximum of one year with an extension for a maximum of one year also.
5.	Permits and extensions expired-see answer to 4 above.
6.	The ministers concerned left office at various dates in accordance with constitutional practice.


* APPLICATION FOR WATER DIVISION BY ALUMINUM COMPANY
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What is the date of the application by the Aluminum Company of America to the government of Canada or any department thereof, for authority to divert the waters of the Yukon river to the Taku river in Alaska?
2.	What are the conditions prescribed in the permit or other authorization to carry out the investigation or studies related thereto?
3.	What is the name of the officer of the government of Canada who recommended or issued the aforementioned permit or other authorization?
4.	On what date was the permit or other authorization terminated, and by whose order?
5.	What are the reasons for the termination of permit or other authorization?
6.	How long did the official who recommended or issued this permit or authorization remain in the employ of the government of Canada after the licence or authorization was terminated?


Arthur Laing: The same applies to question No. 1056, Mr. Speaker, except that the answer extends to 3J pages.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this answer be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
(1) Information with respect to authority to divert waters which are contained within lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada is given in the answer to part (1) of question No. 1055. On 4 May 1949 the

Aluminum Company of America applied for a survey permit to investigate possibilities of diversion of water from the Yukon Territory to the Taiya river in Alaska. This survey permit was for a period of one year and was issued in the name of Mr. Bethume L. Smith, K.C., solicitor for the company on 10 June 1949 by the late Mr. Norman Marr, then director of water power and acting controller of the dominion water and power bureau.
On 1 May 1950 the Aluminum Company of America requested the renewal of this survey permit for a one year period and on 15 May 1950 this renewal was refused by Mr. Marr as arrangements had been made to conduct surveys in the same area under government auspices.
On 14 November 1952 the Aluminum Company of America applied to the then minister, Hon. R. H. Winters for approval of the plan to divert the Yukon river headwaters into the Taiya river. No permit was awarded in response to this application.
(2)	The conditions in the survey permit were those contained in the Dominion Water Power Act and Regulations.
(3)	Mr. Norman Marr as stated in (1) above.
(4)	The survey permit was for one year only and expired on 9 June 1950.
(5)	See answers to (4) and (1) above.
(6)	Mr. Marr was continuously in the employ of the government of Canada until his death in April 1954. He became controller of the dominion water and power bureau in July 1949. The name of this position and that of the bureau were changed on 1 April 1950 to chief of the water resources division, in which capacity Mr. Marr served until his promotion in May 1952 to director of the engineering and water resources branch of the department of resources and development. This latter name was changed to northern affairs and national resources in 1953.


REGIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF AIR REGULATIONS, TORONTO
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has an appointment been made to the position of regional superintendent of air regulations in Toronto to replace Mr. M. Louch?
2.	If so, what is the name of the new appointee, and what was the number of the civil service competition?
3.	How many applicants were there for this position?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1. An appointment has been made to the position of regional superintendent of air regulations, Toronto, to replace Mr. M. Louch but the officer has not yet reported to assume the duties of this position.
28902-5-1731
Questions
2.	The name of the new appointee is Mr. Herbert John Taylor. This is a horizontal transfer in that Mr. Taylor is presently employed with the department at Ottawa and holds the same classification as that authorized for the regional superintendent of air regulations, Toronto, to which he is being reassigned.
3.	Not applicable.


TRAVEL ADVERTISING IN EUROPE
Mr. Thompson: 1.	How much is being spent in the current financial year, and in what forms of publicity, to attract European tourists to visit Canada?
2.	What is this amount as a percentage of the total expenditure of the Canadian travel bureau?
3.	Does the government have plans to do more to encourage European tourists to visit Canada in the future?
Answer: 1. The Canadian government travel bureau will spend an estimated $330,538 during 1963-64 to attract European tourists to visit Canada. This amount is broken down as follows:
London travel counselling office	$128,538
Publicity program, including release of travel stories and photographs to newspapers and magazines	$	40,000Visits of British travel writers and agents to Canada	$	5,000
Advertising in Britain in newspapers, magazines and trade
_press .	$150,000
Travel promotion literature	$	55,000
Total	$378,538
2.	The Canadian government travel bureau's estimated expenditures for Europe represent 10 per cent of its 1963-64 financial budget.
3.	Yes. In the current fiscal year the Canadian government travel bureau expects the civil service commission to select a general manager (Europe) and travel promotion officers for Paris and Dusseldorf. Consideration will be given to further expansion of the bureau's work in Europe by extension of its advertising and public relations activities in the estimates for 1964-65.


LABOUR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	What was the total labour force in Canada as of May 31, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	What was the balance in the unemployment insurance fund as of April 8, 1963 and June 30, 1963?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Week ended May 24, 1958, 6,120,000; week ended May 16, 1959, 6,186,000; week ended May 21, 1960, 6,391,000;

Questions
week ended May 20, 1961, 6,542,000; week ended May 19, 1962, 6,590,000; week ended May 18, 1963, 6,658,000.
2. The information regarding the balance in the unemployment insurance fund as of April 8, 1963 is not available. The balance as of June 30, 1963, was minus $24,777,135.85.


STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the strategic air command made the decision to withdraw from the air base at Frobisher and, if so, when will this withdrawal take place?
2.	What property will be made available to the government of Canada as a result of the withdrawal, and what will be the terms of the transfer?
3.	Does the government intend to integrate these properties and facilities with the development program for Frobisher approved in 1961 and, if so, was such integration allowed for in the original planning?
4.	What effect will these changes have on the (a) extent of the development program and (b) cost of the program?
Answer: 1. Yes; operational use by strategic air command of the base at Frobisher Hay ceased on 1 July, 1963, and removal of U.S. government equipment will be complete by the end of the current shipping season.
2.	Under the terms of existing agreements between the two countries, all buildings and other fixtures became available to the Canadian government without charge.
3.	Yes; while this development was not specifically allowed for, planning for Frobisher has been sufficiently flexible to allow the government to take advantage of it.
4.	The integration of these properties into the development program is at present being studied in detail by an interdepartmental committee. It is expected that the extent of new construction necessary will be considerably reduced, resulting in substantial savings in the cost of the program.


WORKS PROJECTS, FORT AMHERST PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What are the plans of the government for restoration of the military fortress which once stood in what is now Fort Amherst historic park?
2.	What other projects will be carried out in the park during the present calendar year?
Answer: 1. Archaeological investigations are currently being carried out at Fort Amherst national historic park. When these investigations are completed, the results will enable the character of the original fort buildings to be determined, and an assessment of the feasibility of restoration to be made.
2. The amount of $5,500 was provided this year for Fort Amherst, to undertake the access road and parking area.
[Mr. MacEachen.l


WINDOW CLEANING CONTRACT, FEDERAL BUILDING, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers, and the amounts of the various tenders, for cleaning windows at the federal building, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Hubert Badanai: 1. The tender of Mr. John Andrews of New Glasgow for $1,600 was the only one received in response to public advertising.
2. Mr. John Andrews.



FUEL OIL SUPPLY, NATIONAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT, NICOLET, QUE.

['I shall be glad to take the question as notice.']
Mr. Drury:: 1. Yes (should read proof and experimental establishment).
2.	Texaco Canada Limited, 1425 Mountain street, Montreal 25, Quebec.
3.	(A) 135,000 gals, fuel oil, type 2 (burner)
Prices Terms
1. Texaco Canada Ltd.,
Montreal	 $0.1239 2% 30
2.	Imperial Oil Limited,
Ottawa	 0.1268	Net
3.	Les Petroles de la Rive
Sud., Nicolet	 0.129	Net
4.	The British American Oil
Co. Ltd., Toronto	 0.1344	2%	30
5.	Canadian Oil Co. Ltd.,
Toronto	 0.135	Net
6.	Shell Oil Co. of Can. Ltd.,
Toronto	 0.14	Net
7.	Irving Oil Co. Ltd., Saint
John	 0.1435	Net
(B) 1,000 gals, fuel oil, type 1 (stove)
1.	Texaco Canada Ltd	0.1635	2%	302.	Canadian Oil Co. Ltd....	0.174	Net3.	Imperial Oil Limited ....	0.179	Net4.	The British American OilCo. Ltd	
0.179	2%	305.	Les Petroles de la RiveSud.,	
0.20	Net6.	Shell Oil Co. of Can. Ltd., 0.209	Net



Mr. Lambert: 1. Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or any of his officials, received any representations with respect to fluoridation of domestic water supplies in the national parks, particularly Banff national park and Jasper national park?

2.	If so, has any decision been reached with respect to the introduction of fluoridation?
3.	If not, when is a decision in this regard likely to be made?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; until there is more specific indication that the principle of fluoridation of public water supplies has gained general public acceptance in Canada, it is considered that fluoridation of public water supplies in the national parks should not be implemented.
3.	See 2.


SALE OF FEDERAL BUILDING, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Has the old federal building at Springhill been turned over to crown assets disposal corporation for sale and, if so, have any requests related to the purchase of this building been received by crown assets disposal corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Valade: 1.	How many contracts for the carrying of rural and city mail have been (a) renewed (b) cancelled since April 8, 1963?
2.	How many contracts for the carrying of rural and city mail have been awarded since April 8, 1963?
3.	What is the name and address of each person to whom contracts have been awarded; what is the amount involved in each case, and have public tenders been called?
4.	If public tenders were called, what is the name, the address, and the amount tendered by each of the bidders, in each case?
5.	Have mail contracts been awarded since April 8, 1963, through direct negotiations and, if so, what were those contracts; with whom were they negotiated and, what amounts are involved in each case?
Return tabled.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether he has any observations to make on a letter which he allegedly received from Mr. Eric Kierans of Montreal, a prospective Liberal candidate in the Quebec provincial by-election, which letter was released to the press last Friday night.
Will the minister assure the house that the consequences foreseen by Mr. Kierans-that is, the potentially catastrophic consequences for Canada, to use the words of Mr. Kierans- of the message sent by the President to the congress of the United States regarding foreign securities are justified; and what is
Inquiries of the Ministry being done by the government to avoid the consequences that Mr. Kierans has warned of in such strong language?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should comment on the particular language that Mr. Kierans uses in his communications. I think this is a serious matter. As the right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, a week ago Sunday the announcement was made of the exemptions which the United States authorities said they would recommend, and the Prime Minister on the following day, Monday, July 22, as reported at page 2438 of Hansard, said that the government would continue to seek exemption for such transactions. In fact I think it is generally known that we have been seeking complete exemption from this particular measure that is proposed by the United States administration.
Since last Monday some useful representations have been received from a number of quarters, and not only from the president of the Montreal stock exchange. The matter is being further discussed with the United States authorities this week. A senior official is leaving Ottawa for Washington later today, and I am looking forward to discussing the matter myself with officials of the United States administration later this week. Meanwhile further studies are being made in this complex field.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister say whether he agrees in general with the statements made by Mr. Kierans; and would he be willing, because of the questions asked on this matter and the interest in the subject, to have the contents of this particular letter printed as an appendix to Hansard of today?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would say in answer to that question that I think this whole discussion of the United States proposal is most serious for Canada. I have said that before. I think we should continue to press for complete exemption. I do not know whether I should-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was consulting the Secretary of State about this matter-


An hon. Member:: As usual.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -because I am somewhat uncertain about the rules that apply in this particular case. There were communications from others, as I have said, last week. I do not know why at this particular time the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would wish to give publicity to Mr. Kierans; but I think the matter has been well publicized and anybody who is really interested in reading the contents of the letter can get a copy of almost any paper of last Saturday and they will see it printed in full.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to inform the house whether he has received any assurances that the interdepartmental committee to be set up in Washington as a watchdog will not mean a rationing or licensing of new Canadian borrowings on the United States market.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the United States treasury informed us on Saturday that they were setting up an interdepartmental committee. They emphasized that the committee will be concerned with implementing the arrangement jointly announced on Sunday, July 21 under which a general blanket exemption from the proposed interest equalization tax is to be provided for new Canadian security issues. No limitation to or derogation from that agreement is involved. The new committee would not be involved in considering and approving particular Canadian security issues. Such activity would be incompatible with the general blanket exemption to be provided for new Canadian issues.
I think it is fair to say that we can welcome the proposed interdepartmental committee if it leads to a serious and continuing study of the Canada-United States balance of payments position by several United States departments and agencies concerned. Our case for the proposed blanket exemption, including outstanding securities as well as new issues, is very firmly based on the facts of the special, in fact I might say the unique, position of Canada-United States relationships. It is desirable that these facts should be understood as widely as possible in Washington and elsewhere.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government been advised of a decision of the U.S. government, reported in yesterday's New York Times, that no further exemptions will be considered in connection with the securities tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I have just stated, Mr. Speaker, the government was advised on 
Saturday of the setting up of this interdepartmental committee. At the same time we were advised that it was hoped that the legislation itself would be available for presentation to congress on August 5, at which time we will know exactly what is proposed and be able to assess the position a little more completely than we can without having seen the legislation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question. Does the minister know whether the interdepartmental committee will study the possibility of exempting outstanding securities?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I know that this will be urged as strongly as possible on behalf of Canada.


SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON MATERIALS USED FOR FARM STORAGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he had any representations from farm organizations, and if so is he going to recommend exemption from sales tax of building materials used for the farm storage facilities that will have to be built this fall to handle the millions of bushels of grain that will be left on the farms as the result of the failure of this government's agricultural policy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I was rather hoping we would resume the debate on the bill in question very shortly.


REPORTED VIOLATION OF INTEREST CEILING BY CHARTERED BANKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice based on the replies I got from the Solicitor General last Thursday and Friday. Is the minister prepared to undertake an investigation to establish whether there is any substance to the allegations that the chartered banks are in fact circumventing and violating the statutory 6 per cent interest rate limit on loans?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am prepared to undertake an investigation, but surely the hon. member knows that there is a royal commission on banking which is sitting from one end of the country to the other, and surely representations of the kind he has brought to the attention of the house can be made to that commission. However, I did discuss the matter more particularly with the deputy minister of justice, and I

am informed by him that subsection 2 of section 93 of the Bank Act authorizes a bank to charge for the keeping of an account of a customer where the charge is made by an express agreement between the bank and the customer. Such a charge is usually made in connection with keeping an account established at the time a loan or advance is made by the bank. If the agreement with the customer for the keeping of the account is an "express agreement"-the quoted words are those used in subsection 2 of section 93- a bank is entitled to make the charge agreed to expressly with its customer notwithstanding that interest of up to 6 per cent may also be charged in respect of the loan or advance.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realize that there is going to be a revision of the Bank Act and that there will be an opportunity for us to review its provisions, but the allegation that has been made is that violation of the present statute has been taking place.


Lionel Chevrier: I have seen the press statement to which my hon. friend refers, and if it is the same one which he has in mind what was said was "Strictly speaking it may be said that we are breaking the Bank Act". But when one looks at subsection 2 of section 93 there is unquestionably a right to make such a charge over and above the 6 per cent referred to in the act.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the interdepartmental committee has now had a number of weeks to study the report of the Norris commission, is it possible that the government is willing to act upon these recommendations before this session adjourns?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are thinking of the Gill committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give that assurance to my hon. friend.


ACCEPTANCE BY UNIONS OF TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT TRUSTEESHIP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Three Rivers asked me whether I had received assurance from the C.M.U., the
Inquiries of the Ministry national association of marine engineers and the Canadian merchant service guild that they would accept temporary government trusteeship over their unions in accordance with the Norris report recommendations.
I wish to reply to the question as follows.
I have received no communication from the Canadian maritime union as to their attitude in this matter. In so far as the national association of marine engineers and the Canadian merchant service guild are concerned, both these unions have expressed their willingness to have their unions under temporary government trusteeship.


CANADA-U.S.-STATEMENT BY AGRICULTURE MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the contents of the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture at Waterton Lake over the week end, and would he indicate to the house whether he considers the views expressed by the Minister of Agriculture on the nature of prospective trade relations between Canada and the United States to represent present government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of reading that speech yet.


RAPESEED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Perhaps in his absence the parliamentary secretary would take it as notice.
Some time ago the hon. gentleman told the house he would ask the Canadian trade commissioners to look into the matter of sales of rapeseed to Japan and other Asian countries. May I ask him if he has done this and, if so, what are the details concerning such sales? This refers to a previous question which I addressed to the minister.


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to take the question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question
2730	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Prime Minister, a question which I ask full of hope. Was the report correct which we heard on the C.B.C. news at eight o'clock this morning, that the signing of an agreement between Canada and the United States for the acquisition by Canada of nuclear arms has been delayed indefinitely; and is this related to the signing of the three power test ban agreement?
High! Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
No, Mr. Speaker, that report in the terms in which it has been put forward by my hon. friend is not accurate, in that negotiations are still proceeding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister mean that negotiations to sign an agreement are proceeding or the negotiations to delay signing the agreement are proceeding?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Negotiations, Mr. Speaker, to sign an agreement.



INTRUCTIONS TO ARMY PERSONNEL RESPECTING EVIDENCE IN MURDER TRIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the reasons for the department instructing army personnel not to reveal information in their possession to a court hearing a charge of murder against an army sergeant? What type of information could possibly be classified-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question, if it is in order at all, obviously should be put on the order paper.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this case is now before the court, and I think the matter is important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he now prepared, or when will he be prepared, to name the committee to select a site for, and to consider other matters with respect to, a veterinary college in western Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the committee to make recommendations on the site of the western veterinary college consists of the deans of


the four western agricultural colleges and Dr. J. S. Henderson of the Ontario veterinary college. The committee is expected to start its work in about a week or ten days.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it permissible for a contractor to buy steel necessary for government dock building or repairs outside Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is obviously one for the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the terrible catastrophe experienced in the Macedonian city of Skoplje, Yugoslavia. I understand that a telegram has been sent to this country expressing the sympathy of all Canadians. Has the government given any consideration to financial assistance or other help needed in this area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a telegram has been sent and the government has also agreed to send financial assistance to the victims of this horrible tragedy.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO UNIVERSITY SERVICE OVERSEAS WORK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a financial campaign is at present being conducted to collect $185,000 to meet the needs of young graduates recruited by the Canadian university service overseas for work in underdeveloped areas of the world, does the hon. gentleman not think this appeal is worthy of at least a token contribution from the federal government?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I agree that this project which has been formulated by voluntary action is a very worthy one. There are other similar projects in the country in addition to that commendable project undertaken by

the Canadian university students organization. These matters are under review and are being looked at sympathetically by this government.


REPORTED REPLACEMENT FOR HIGH COMMISSIONER IN LONDON
[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 Prime Minister. Is there any truth in the news item that Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways, will soon replace Hon. George Drew as Canadian high commissioner to Great Britain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the news item was the first I had heard of this matter.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What action, if any, does the minister propose to take with regard to the announced increase of four tenths of a cent on gasoline, as announced today by the major oil companies as a result of changes in his budget?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, there is no price control in Canada. I was interested in this announcement, particularly as some of the companies in question seem to be doing reasonably well.


TRENTON, N.S.-REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR RAILWAY CARS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: I wonder if the Minister of Transport is in a position to answer the question I asked him the other day respecting C.N.R. rolling stock orders for the Eastern Car Company at Trenton, Nova Scotia.


George James McIlraith: The question was, as I recall it, whether the C.N.R. proposes to place an order for rolling stock with the Eastern Car Company. The answer is that the C.N.R. has no orders in prospect in the immediately foreseeable future for this Trenton company.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr
Speaker, I address my question to the Min28902-5-174
Inquiries of the Ministry ister of Finance. In view of the general concern and confusion existing throughout the country regarding how the government intends to handle this $500 allowance for winter home construction, when does the minister propose to clarify the picture not only for this house but also for the construction industry?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague the Minister of Labour will agree with me when I say "at the earliest possible moment". (Translation):


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCE ROYAL COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it his intention to announce before long to the house the appointment of the two secretaries to the royal commission on biculturalism?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that can be done very shortly.


ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister. Last week the right hon. gentleman said in response to a question that he had no objection to considering whether it would be feasible to appoint some person from British Columbia to the "B and B commission", the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism. I wonder if the Prime Minister has taken a second look at this and come to a decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; no decision has been reached as a result of that second look.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. I have just received this telegram; therefore I did not have an opportunity of prior communication with him. The telegram comes from six railway unions at the St. John's dockyard in Newfoundland. There 200 job opportunities have

Inquiries of the Ministry been reduced to 130 by two lay-offs, and a further lay-off is expected. The average length of time that the employees concerned have been in the service of the Canadian National Railways is about 15 years. Is there something that can be done in this connection to provide either for their continuing or for their alternative employment?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the telegram in question, but this is a matter having to do with the internal management of the Canadian National Railways and I question the propriety of having the matter dealt with by asking a question of the Minister of Transport. I base that statement on the precedents of the former government. However, I will look at the matter and see what is the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the reference of the hon. gentleman to the former government, the propriety of the attitude taken by the government was challenged by the hon. gentleman over and over again.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: wish to address to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question of great importance to this house, though it is one which has local application. My question is based on telegrams I have received from the Columbia conservation federation and follows wide publicity concerning trips which the minister, the hon. member for Kootenay East and various senior officials apparently intend to make to the area. I should like to ask the minister this question because I have to send a telegram immediately after I have received his reply.
Is it the minister's intention to visit the Kootenays in the near future? If so, would he inform the house of the purpose of his visit, the places he intends to visit, and whether he is prepared to meet delegations at those points?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some time ago I did accept an invitation from the province from which the hon. member comes, and I thought while there I might take advantage of the opportunity to examine, with certain officials, some of the existing installations and some of the proposed construction areas in the Columbia river basin. As the hon. member knows the treaty, if and when it is before this house as a result of the conclusion of successful negotiations yet to be determined, would be
iMr. Diefenbaker.]
submitted for examination by a committee of this house and it is, of course, the prerogative of such a committee to decide how to conduct its examinations. I am sure, however, that in accordance with our practice the committee will give all who wish to make representations, one way or another, an opportunity to be heard.
(Translation):



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compfon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could she inform us whether this government has maintained or carried out some of the recommendations contained in the report on social security prepared by Professor Robert Clark in 1959, a report which was prepared at the request of the previous government; and if so, to what extent were they carried out?
(Text):


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. gentleman's question. It is my recollection that no recommendations were asked from Dr. Clark and none were made. However, if the hon. gentleman wishes further information I would be pleased to give it to him directly, or he could put a question on the order paper.
(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Does he intend to meet the Quebec authorities as early as possible in order to transfer to them questions relating to the New Quebec Eskimos, in view of Mr. Levesque's contention that the federal government is putting off on purpose a new meeting between the federal and the provincial authorities?
(Text):


Arthur Laing: My attention has been drawn to the press report to which the hon. member makes reference. I thank him for having given me prior notice. I am unable to find any basis for the report as it exists. There have been discussions with Mr. Levesque and with other members of the

Quebec government, but at no time could any of those discussions be dignified by calling them negotiations with respect to this matter.
My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was in touch with Mr. Levesque only about ten days ago to discuss other material which should be considered by the federal and provincial ministers at their next meeting, and it was agreed amicably at that time that a further meeting date would be agreed upon after consultation.
I am at a loss also to understand the press statement which implies that the federal government has been involved in northern Quebec with matters other than Eskimo affairs. As far as my department is concerned, we are involved in northern Quebec only with Eskimos, for whom the federal government is responsible under the constitution. The buildings in that region have all been built for Eskimo use or for the use of government personnel who are providing services to the Eskimo people.
We are at all times ready to co-operate with the government of Quebec, which is com-mendably anxious to provide normal provincial services in this part of the province. To this end we have, where possible, made accommodation available at cost to the Quebec government, and my departmental staff in that area has instructions to cooperate with provincial personnel in every possible way.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When does the minister expect to have another meeting of the federal and provincial officials?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion on the telephone with Mr. Levesque some three days before he went away on his holidays. That was a week ago last Wednesday, and I do not know whether he has returned yet.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on a communication bearing 22,000 signatures from the St. John's citizens committee supporting a second television station in Newfoundiand. Would the Prime Minister give the house and so the citizens of Newfoundland an answer with regard to the delay by the C.B.C. in proceeding with this projected station, whose establishment was approved by the board of broadcast governors?
28902-5-1741
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the matter and take it up with the Secretary of State who is the minister responsible for taking it up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the Prime Minister cognizant of the fact that the reason I was asked to put the question to the Prime Minister was that this particular committee feels that the Secretary of State has a conflict of interest in this matter?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. When does he intend to present to members of the house item No. 10 under government orders, having to do with a new minister of agriculture for eastern Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in answering this question may I express to the hon. member our great pleasure at seeing him back in the house and I hope in good health. We hope to deal with item No. 10 on the order paper as soon as possible, but that will require action in regard to certain other items which at the moment have priority.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an article in the July issue of Country Life in British Columbia. Would the Prime Minister consult with the farm organizations of British Columbia to get their opinions before this measure is brought before the house again?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will be glad to hear from all organizations which are concerned with this matter. We have already heard from a good many of them.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has she had time yet to read the brief presented to her last week on behalf of the Voice of Women by Dr. Ursula

Inquiries of the Ministry Franklin, which points out serious shortcomings in her department's monitoring system? It so, is she taking any steps to take account of these criticisms?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the hon. lady considered, in view of the successful negotiations with the provinces on other matters, approaching the provinces to take the positive action that is recommended by these very reputable scientists of using the now perfected method of removing strontium-90 from milk?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I informed my hon. friend, I have not yet read the brief, so I could not have taken action with respect to this recommendation.


Colin Cameron: I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the parliamentary secretary read the brief to which I referred, and mentioned to his minister the well documented criticism of the government's monitory plan?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order in respect of this question. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the house. This is a period devoted to inquiries of the ministry, and I submit the question is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a well established rule of the house that it is in order to ask questions of private members if they are about matters about which they could be expected to have knowledge. I submit that the hon. member for Parkdale could be expected to have knowledge about this matter and the question, I submit, would be in order.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State. My question arises out of the statement the Prime Minister made today with regard to the conference over the week end with the premiers of the provinces. Has a decision yet been taken, as was promised by the Secretary of State on July 18, at page 2377 of Hansard, and again on July 23, at page 2506 of Hansard, on the

matter of bringing before parliament again before this session recesses the motion for the introduction of the Canada pension plan so that a decision can be reached on the amendment that is before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government hopes to be able to proceed with this whole matter at the earliest possible date after the resumption of the session this autumn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be this delay in connection with the whole plan, will the government consider bringing in this week a special provision for paying the $10 increase which might be passed without debate?



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE CONGESTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government planning any new legislation to alleviate the serious plight of western growers arising out of the widespread grain congestion problems which have resulted from the failure of the government's sales efforts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the hon. gentleman's question makes it undesirable for me to answer the first part.
(Translation):



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question asked in my absence by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) on the exemption from visa requirements for non-immigrants coming to Canada as tourists.
I am happy to inform the hon. members that, as from September 15 of this year, the citizens of Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Turkey will be able to enter Canada without a visa for visits of three months or less. Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Turkey are, as well as Canada, members of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation. The Canadian government's decision is consistent with one of the general purposes of that organization, as it promotes easier travelling between citizens of member countries.

This decision represents another step forward in the Canadian long-term program tending to exempt from visas the non-immigrant tourists who are on a short visit in Canada. Experience has shown that this method is very convenient, as it simplifies the admission formalities.
This country thus carries on with its efforts to attract travellers to Canada.
(Text):



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act
(a)	to increase the sessional allowances payable to members of the Senate and House of Commons;
(b)	to provide for the payment of an additional allowance to each leader of a party in the House of Commons, other than the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons;
(c)	to provide for the payment of an additional allowance to the members occupying the recognized positions of chief government whip and chief opposition whip in the House of Commons;
(d)	to provide for the payment to members of the Senate and House of Commons of such actual transportation and travelling expenses and telecommunication expenses as the Senate and House of Commons may order;
(e)	to provide for the payment to each minister of the crown, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons of a motor vehicle allowance;
(f)	to increase the allowances paid to the members of the Senate and the House of Commons for expenses incidental to the discharge of their duties;
and to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
(g)	to increase the amount of contributions to be paid by members into the consolidated revenue fund, to provide for the payment of an allowance to the widows of members of parliament where such members have made or elected to make additional contributions under the act and to make changes in the amount of the retirement allowances payable to members;
(h)	to provide for the payment of an annual allowance out of the consolidated revenue fund to persons who have held the office of Prime Minister for four years and to the widows of any such persons;
and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the resolution on the order paper which I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier, involves perhaps the most difficult of all tasks which members of parliament have to discharge; because in dealing with
Senate and House of Commons Act this resolution they are, of course, dealing with their own personal interests. But I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that no member of parliament, no single member of parliament, whatever attitude he may take, will approach this task or come to a conclusion in regard to it in any selfish or self-centred way.
This resolution, Mr. Chairman, involves a responsibility which, if action is to be taken at all, cannot be escaped either by the government of the day or by parliament itself, since it cannot be delegated to any other body. If any decision is to be made in these matters covered by this resolution, that decision has to be made here. I indicated, Mr. Chairman, on Thursday last, and I quote from Hansard, page 2604:
Subject to further consultation between the house leader and hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to procedure, the government is ready to take the responsibility tomorrow of proposing certain changes in the remuneration and pensions of members of parliament,-
The government is not seeking to avoid its responsibility to recommend and I am quite happy, as it is indeed my duty as leader of the government and speaking on behalf of the government, to put this recommendation before the committee. We do not ask opposition parties to share the responsibility of making the recommendation; that is our responsibility. But we did inform representatives of all parties, representatives who were entitled to speak for those parties, as to what the government intended to propose, through the usual channels of communication between the house leader and representatives of parties opposite.
I am advised by the house leader that he received an assurance that none of the three parties opposite would oppose the measure which is being proposed in this resolution, and it is because of that fact, as well as for other reasons, that this resolution is being moved by me, the leader of the government. While it was indicated that there was not agreement to proceed on Friday last, the house leader did receive an assurance from all parties that there was agreement to proceed today, and that agreement is recorded in Hansard for Thursday last at page 2662, as follows:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, on Monday, I am advised there is general agreement on all sides of the house that if the government will put on the order paper the motion regarding the remuneration and pensions of members of parliament there would be no objection raised to going ahead with all stages except third reading on Monday. The third reading would be held over until the next day.
He went on to say:
If that, correctly represents the sense of the house, and it can be so ordered, I will undertake that notice of the resolution will be given tomorrow

Senate and House of Commons Act
evening so that it will appear in Votes and Proceedings. That provides the 48 hours' notice required by the rules.
That has been done, Mr. Chairman, and it is on the basis of that decision of the house that the government is proceeding in this matter today.
If this resolution is accepted by the committee then there will be opportunity to deal with the details of the legislation subsequently, and I do not propose to go into these details this afternoon. Indeed, it would not be appropriate in discussing the resolution itself. The resolution is before the committee, and I think it is pretty clear in its terms.
As a result of our views the government has come to the conclusion to proceed to put the matter before parliament. It seems to the government that action on this matter is needed, and that it is needed now.
Perhaps I might be permitted to mention briefly some of the reasons why, in our view, such action is required. It is not primarily because of individual considerations. That is certainly an important consideration and none of us wish to escape from that consideration, but it is because the action we recommend will, in our view, increase the effectiveness of our parliamentary institutions.
In the first place there has been no revision of members' indemnities since 1954, almost ten years ago, despite very marked increases in remuneration in other fields o activity, and despite the fact that the increased cost of living during those 10 years has been recognized in so many fields of activity, and rightly so. Costs, as we all know, have gone up during those 10 years. Not only have the expenses of members as members, and the expenses of members as individuals, increased during that time, but the sessions of parliament have grown steadily longer. Although we hope shortly to set up a committee which will go into the whole question of parliamentary procedure and perhaps reshape our parliamentary institutions to make them more effective, nevertheless it does not seem to me that anything we do in this connection is likely to shorten the length of sessions of parliament in Ottawa to any considerable extent because of the increasing responsibilities of government and the increasing responsibilities of parliament. I myself cannot think that these responsibilities are likely to be diminished in the years ahead.
Therefore we have to face the fact that members of the House of Commons, to all intents and purposes, now have a full time occupation which is very different indeed from the situation which existed not so very many decades ago. This means that practically all members, except those fortunate enough to

live in Ottawa or very close to it, have to maintain two residences. There is all that this involves in terms of expense, as well as inconvenience, and indeed some sacrifice that has to be made to maintain two residences for the greater part of the year.
I think it is correct to say, Mr. Chairman, and I mention this with some hesitation because it does involve the personal affairs of members, but it has a bearing on this matter, that in order to discharge their responsibilities in parliament as members would wish to see them discharged, many members, especially new members who have come down here recently, find themselves in debt and they have made, and are making, many financial sacrifices which they should not be asked to make.
There is evidence on all sides, and a lot of it has been given to me in confidence- indeed I have been very much impressed and a little distressed by it-to support that statement that a great many members are making financial sacrifices which they should not be asked to make, quite apart from the additional sacrifices of disruption of family life, difficulties of education and that sort of domestic problem.
There is also a further consideration which perhaps it is appropriate for me to mention, and maybe those who have responsibilities in other parties will be able to confirm this- I know I certainly can confirm it from my own experience-that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract or to secure candidates because of the direct financial loss involved, especially for young candidates and young members with young and growing families. There is this financial difficulty, and it is compounded by the difficulty of making provision for old age and other hazards.
Surely it is important to make sure that parliament does not lose its truly representative character because a financial barrier is added to other difficulties in devoting the time and energy which is required to public service. It seems to me if we do not discharge our responsibilities along the lines of this resolution at this time, we may soon find it will be impossible for some citizens in this country to make the financial sacrifices which they would like to be able to make, and which are involved in standing as a candidate for the House of Commons and acting as a member of the House of Commons. In that case, if it does reach that point, then the broadly representative character of the house will be changed, and we will find it becoming increasingly representative of those who can afford to make these sacrifices and those who perhaps are a little older, who

have retired from business and are in a position to accept the responsibilities and sacrifices involved.
It seems to me quite clear that no one is likely to become rich, or even to save money, out of the proposed remuneration if he or she discharges responsibilities to the people that he or she represents, as they should be discharged, and as members of the house do their best to discharge in present conditions. I think it will certainly be agreed there is a real need in these difficult days in our democratic and parliamentary institutions, when their effectiveness and representative character are questioned on so many sides, to attract men and women of ability to parliament and public life. I hope the resolution which I have the honour to move this afternoon will help in that regard and will make it possible for these men and women to accept and discharge the tremendous responsibilities placed upon members of parliament today.
Then, Mr. Chairman, there is the question of pension arrangements, which will be dealt with in the bill which will follow this resolution if the resolution is acceptable to the house. These pension provisions would be consequential upon the scale of remuneration, with one change, and I think it must surely be a change that will commend itself to us all, especially in the light of experience in the past. There will be provision made for widows of members of parliament. The lack of any such provision in the past has, I know, been a continuing source of anxiety to members for a good many years. Some of us have had personal experience of that anxiety and, indeed, of the suffering that can be caused and has been caused on one or two occasions in recent years by the fact that members' widows have been left almost destitute.
This resolution is in my name but the bill itself is in the name of the Secretary of State, who was delegated by the cabinet to work with officials in preparing the measure and who is available to the committee and the house to explain the details at the appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend this resolution to the house. I think it would be false economy not to take action at this time which will enable members of parliament to discharge their increasingly onerous responsibilities without the financial worry that so many of them now have. In that way we will be making the House of Commons more effective, and in making the House of Commons more effective we will be making it possible for ourselves as members of the House of Commons to do more, and to do it more effectively for the people of Canada.
Senate and House of Commons Act


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, while
ordinarily it is not expected that the terms of a bill will be revealed at this stage, I think it would have been most helpful and beneficial had the house been given an indication of the terms of a bill such as this, especially as to the amounts the government had in mind both for the indemnity and the pension.
I begin by saying that I am in agreement with the Prime Minister when he says the responsibility must rest upon the government. That responsibility is theirs. On the other hand the matter is one that, being concerned with personal interest, denies consideration being given on a partisan basis. In other words, each and every member should be in the position of determining for himself or herself the attitude to be taken on this matter.
I intend to review something of what took place in the past in this connection; the attitude taken by Liberal leaders in previous years in this regard and the course followed by them and by a Conservative prime minister, Sir Robert Borden, in 1920 when a similar type of legislation was before the house. I agree with the Prime Minister that legislating to one's own benefit is something that must be subject to the conscientious viewpoint of each and every member. It cannot be decided on the basis of party considerations or party purposes. That has always been my conviction in this regard. All through my political life I have endeavoured to act in accordance with my convictions, even though following that course has not always been politically remunerative.
I say at once that in the past the consultation between the opposition and the government and between members of the various groups was always as between the leaders. I also say immediately that the course followed this time was not similar to the course followed in 1954. Then the prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, having had decided in cabinet the stand to be taken by the government, advised the leader of the opposition as well as the leaders of the other two parties.
As to any agreement entered into, may I say at once that I accept what the Prime Minister says, that it was agreed that this matter would be raised today and that we in the opposition would accept the discussion of this matter today. Beyond that there was no agreement whatsoever, nor was there consultation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. When this matter was called on Thursday I felt it would be injudicious for the members of this house by agreement to set aside the rules


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: As I say, I do not know. But I was myself sympathetic in the last parliament to action being taken. I frankly told my colleagues that something would have to be done on behalf of private members. My own idea was that we would bring that in just before the election. But as it turned out, we did not have very much latitude in determining when that election would be held. I agree with the Prime Minister when he says there is a continual need to rejuvenate the house, to bring in new ideas, as young men and women do.
I do not intend to refer to any of the other provisions because at the moment they are still in general form. I will mention one, however, which has to do with former prime ministers. I do not expect this is going to apply to me, because I have other hopes. The fact that it is to apply to prime ministers who have held their position for four years seems to indicate that the present Prime Minister believes that with the support of other parts of the house he will be in office for that length of time.
I am interested in this proposal for the payment of leaders of parties other than the official parties. Both of those hon. gentlemen are estimable. Both of them are a credit to the House of Commons. But I would point out one fact: Under our parliamentary system this would indeed be a divergence from the whole concept of parliamentary government in the British tradition. Our system recognizes only the government and the opposition party which has the largest number of members. It is interesting to go back and find out how the opposition came by its name, and it is very pertinent today. The title "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" goes back to the year 1826, when Mr. Hobhouse, one of the greatest parliamentarians of his time, afterwards Lord Broughton, while engaging in an attack on Mr. Canning used these words:

Senate and House of Commons Act
It is said to be hard on His Majesty's ministers to raise objections of this character but it is more hard on His Majesty's opposition to compel them to take this course.
Canning referred to the use of this expression and stated in his reply:
My right honourable friend could not have invented a better phrase to designate us than that which he adopted. That we are certainly to all intents and purposes a branch of His Majesty's government its proceedings for some time past have proven. Although with the gentlemen opposite in office, we are in power, the measures are ours but the emoluments are theirs.
That was in 1826, and that has been the designation since. If a means can be reached whereby these two gentlemen could be helped to provide those services which are necessary for them I would say nothing to the contrary. But if, as a result of this action, the entire background of our British parliamentary development which contemplates a government that governs and an opposition, composed of the largest group, which opposes, were to be set aside, then I merely point out that the government may well be introducing a multiplication and proliferation of parties in the years ahead and that our system does not work as effectively as it would if we had two-party government.
I say this with the greatest respect to those in third parties because I know very well that, had there not been a third party in the 'twenties the old age pensions legislation would never have gone through. But Mr. King needed two or three votes and Mr. Woods-worth and Mr. Heaps provided those votes in return for action. When I make this statement I am not in any way being critical of them or of their ability and capacity. I am simply pointing out that this will be a step toward a multiplication of parties within our political system. It is a step which some may feel would be a worthy one. My reading of history and my experience do not place me among those who are its proponents. I realize too that if this legislation were delayed until after the next election, I guess we would not get it through at all because there are members in some of the parties who would not feel constrained to support the government until such time as another election took place.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has stated that this is a responsibility we cannot put off on others. The provision as to ex-prime ministers is one that causes me concern, whatever the future may bring, in that by casting my vote for it I would actually be placing myself in the position of voting for my own benefit, provided I were to qualify, as I hope I never do. That is the position with many members of the house.
When the matter came before the house in 1954 Mr. St. Laurent made a speech that in
[Mr. Diefenbaker.j


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? I should like to ask him if he is now recommending that this whole matter be postponed for consideration by a select committee?


John George Diefenbaker: No. I say at once that has not taken place. That has not taken place, but that has been the system in the United Kingdom. The recommendation there was accompanied by a unanimity of public opinion. This is what we should try to attain, and from the Prime Minister's opening words I took it that his desire was to secure a reasonable degree of public support. There will be time enough later to deal with the discussions that took place in 1954 and also in 1945. I simply say that I know the difficulties. I recognize the problem. Unless some action is taken parliament will suffer. On the other hand, I say that we in parliament as trustees for the people should make the most careful examination of the courses we take to the end that we mobilize public opinion for what we do, however justifiable that action may be.
Indeed, I speak now of the Prime Minister. He occupies the official residence. I followed the course that had been arranged in that connection by Mr. St. Laurent of paying $5,000 a year toward the cost of operating that residence, and at the same time I had to pay income tax on that amount because it was not a deductible expense. I am not complaining about it but simply mentioning it. The other day several members asked that there should be a change in this regard.
I remember the last speech that Mr. King made in parliament in which he endeavoured to give parliament the benefit of his years in public life. He spoke of the overwhelming need to assure that the closing of the door of parliament should not mean the opening of the door to the poorhouse for those in public life. I think it was one of the most impressive and emotional speeches that he ever made. He was describing Laurier house and the terrible difficulty he had in financing it. He said in part:
There is an impression among a great many people in this country that Laurier house has been maintained by the state. It has been maintained by myself personally out of my own pocket and my own income, and if I have not been able to invite my hon. friend and some members who are about me at the moment and many others as often as I should like to have done and extended as much in the way of hospitality as I should like to have done, that is one of the reasons.
I remember that speech in which he told parliament of all the financial difficulties that are incident to high position in the state. As a matter of fact, I surmise that out of that came the establishment of 24 Sussex street as the official home of the Prime Minister.
There is very little more I can say at this time because the resolution will have to be amplified in detail before the committee will know what is, in effect, being done. I simply place before the committee my own views in
Senate and House of Commons Act this connection. I am as anxious as anyone to maintain a constant influx of youthful ability and new blood. I am also fully aware of the very serious problems faced by a number of members, many young members. It is because of that I believe some action should be taken. However, there are certain portions of the resolution which, when translated into bill form and made clear thereby, will need careful consideration and examination at that time.
I want to say to all members in all parts of the house that the manner in which they received the introductory words of the Prime Minister showed a reserve and self-control that was most admirable. At no time was there anything approaching applause except when he came to the provision for the widows of departed members. This is something upon which there is general agreement. I am not going to say more at this time. I have simply stated that this is a matter for the conscience of each member, to be determined by him in accordance with his conscientious views and desires to insure that this institution will always be a palladium of freedom. It cannot be that, unless it regularly has an infusion of new intellect, new idealism, new forcefulness. All of these things young men and women bring to this chamber. They cannot be induced to make this contribution unless they are at least assured a reasonable opportunity to serve without unnecessary sacrifice.


Mr. Thomas:: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has expressed on several occasions during the course of his remarks that he thought this subject should be treated on an individual basis rather than a party basis. So far as I am concerned personally, I should like to see that made-


The Chairman:: Order; would the hon. member state his question of privilege? In my opinion, there does not appear to be a question of privilege. I am sure each individual member will have an opportunity to express his point of view.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: My point of privilege is this; normally, we are working as a party and the leader of each party expresses the stand of that party on any matter. I do not believe in this case, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has inferred, this is being done. It seems to me he is leaving each member to follow his own conscience. He is not speaking for the party.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I recognize the hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is my intention to speak directly and briefly to the principle and basic intent of this resolution. I will in no way attempt to enter into political debate. In our

Senate and House of Commons Act opinion, the time has come, if not already overdue, when the remuneration of members of the House of Commons should be increased. It is well known the present cost of living, and the essential expenses of members of parliament, are in most cases more than they receive. An increase is necessary, first of all to enable members of parliament to pay their way. It is essential also in order to attract and to hold the type of people that Canadians need as their representatives in this House of Commons.
I believe it would be wrong to make politics in Canada a money-making proposition and to eliminate entirely the public service motive. On the other hand, if members of parliament are not paid proportionately to their worth and their expected duties and expenses, this chamber will become a collecting point for the well-to-do, for those who have private means. It will not any longer be a representative assembly of the people. While we have not been informed beforehand of all of the details of the legislation which this resolution will introduce, the Social Credit members in caucus have decided that they are in favour of the principle of this measure. After considerable discussion our house leader and our party whip have so informed the government of the discussions which were conducted. As a party, we are prepared to shoulder our share of the political responsibility for this decision. The decision of our party in caucus was not made with complete unanimity, but the decision to which we have come is, I believe, the right one.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Social Credit party I lend my support to this resolution.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The members of our party in caucus meeting, after a very thorough discussion and apparently unlike the members of the other two opposition parties, aware of the details as they were forwarded to us through the courtesy of the house leader, have approved this proposal of the government to improve the salaries, expense allowance and pensions of members of parliament and other features of the resolution as indicated, including a pension for former prime ministers. I have difficulty, Mr. Chairman, restraining myself at this time from making remarks of sheer, bitter anger after listening to the Leader of the Opposition. It somehow seemed to me he wanted to draw into this discussion the definition of politics as the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
I do not see this resolution, the purposes that it intends, and the members of all parties in this parliament as being in a position to need that kind of line drawn for them today. I know it may be presumptuous of me to say that, but I could review all the


discussions regarding salary increments over the last three or four years, and I can inform the committee that I had some part in them, as an interlocutor at least, because I first introduced the matter as a private members' grievance about four years ago.
As a consequence I was supported-and I have the letters to show it-by members of all parties, including a great many members of the party represented by the Leader of the Opposition. I happen to know that several times in the ensuing years there were tentative negotiations carried on by private members supporting the government, to try and get something done on this matter. They were always full of optimism but they were not getting anywhere.
When I think of the turnover we have had in membership of the house in the last few elections I realize why so many of these people came and went. Many of them were supporters of the Leader of the Opposition but now they have departed, and many of them departed very bitter over the fact that nothing was done and that there was no co-ordinated or co-operative approach on the part of all parties to do something about members' indemnities.
In the four elections we have had in the past five years there has been a tremendous turnover in membership of the House of Commons. When I got up and spoke in the house in favour of more money for members of parliament, and repeated that several years later in the form of a resolution, I did not get much in the way of obvious support. However I think most hon. members came along to me later and said it was a great idea, but they thought I was a knucklehead and that I was throwing away an opportunity for re-election.
In this connection I would like to point out to those hon. members, who may be apprehensive of the fact that some people will tell them that what we are doing is an unprincipled thing, that in two election campaigns my actions were used against me and I did not have much trouble surviving them. I am not saying this is a pattern for all hon. members of the house, but I want to make it clear that this tremendous fear, that especially seems to be built up amongst older members of the house, that this is a terrible thing with which to face our electors, is much overdrawn and exaggerated.
I think the people of the country to whom we are looking for an interest and support in politics will understand and appreciate that this is not only something to improve the calibre of the House of Commons but it is something which has been necessary for a long, long time.

One of the most apparent consequences after listening to the Leader of the Opposition is to ask the question, why did he not introduce the select committee? Why did he not do something about a select committee to have an open discussion about salaries of members of parliament? I am sure the situation was almost as serious a little over a year ago when my resolution was before the house; but the word went out that there was to be no discussion on it, and after one limp little speech by the mover of the resolution, that was it.
It seems to me that in this, as in so many other matters, you cannot have it both ways in the house. You cannot play it along both lines. Either you are for or against something like this, and I know the majority of the members are not only behind the resolution but behind the measure in general as the details have come out; and this will be proved if it is put to a vote.
One of the things that follows from what I think will be generous and sizeable increases in our emoluments, which will enable us to do a better job, is that we will have to meet a higher standard. I know from my own sizing up of the situation in my constituency, and from talking to members of other parties, that the increments that will be available if this measure is passed will induce a great many people into running for the candidacies for all parties. This will be good. In other words, instead of improving our own chances, in many ways we are hurting them.
If that argument is worth anything, then I think we need to acknowledge we are not the most brilliant assemblage in the world. We know the House of Commons could be much more representative of Canada, and I think most of us will agree that this measure will do something about bringing people with wider backgrounds, wider experience and more knowledge into the political field. So far as we are concerned, that will be all to the good.
The attitude may develop out of the discussion which takes place today that for some months we must face a raging debate, back and forth across the country, on whether members of parliament have been shameful in supporting and putting through such a measure as this. I do not believe for a minute that such a debate will continue if each of us has the courage, as individual members, to go out and face our constituents and let them know why this is done. I appeal as an individual member-not as a member of my own party-to all members of all parties to do this, because I am afraid that it may get to be nasty and difficult if the pattern that
Senate and House of Commons Act was set by the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition should be carried any further.
We in this party support the intention of the resolution. So far as we know them we support the details, although we might have had some quarrel about some of the levels if we had received more consultation. However, we do not propose to put up a great many speakers on the motion. We are all for it, and I think future parliamentarians of the country will be grateful to us for supporting it.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-91, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of the bill.


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


Mr. Churchill:: Distribute the bill first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think we should wait until the bill is distributed before it is adopted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the bill is now being distributed. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with two minutes to look at a bill containing 14 clauses I am not very well informed as to its details; that is, shall I say, its minor details and those provisions which are particularly related to the pension aspects of the bill. I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the previous speakers and I have given a great deal of thought to this difficult, decuple and delicate question during recent months. As one who has a Victorian appreciation of the value of money, the virtues of simple living and who suffers the pinpricks of a combined Anglican and socialist conscience, I have made several agonizing reappraisals of the situation in recent months. I am speaking now to express my point of view and to be as fair as possible. I wish to give a brief review of the history of sessional indemnities. It has been mentioned in some respects previously, but I have been asked to do this by persons outside the house.
In the first instance I understand that members of parliament received about $600 per annum as a sessional indemnity; later this was raised to $1,000 and then $4,000 for a number of years. Then on December 13, 1945

Senate and House of Commons Act -I remember the day well, Mr. Speaker-the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King made a motion to provide an allowance of $2,000 for incidental expenses in addition to the $4,000 indemnity. Mr. Maclnnis, the then hon. member for Vancouver East, and the member for Kootenay West were, if I remember correctly, the only two who spoke against and voted against this increase. It was a most interesting debate. The prime minister in reply disagreed strongly with our arguments and later ticked me off when replying to what I had said on that occasion. I want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that prior to introducing that resolution the prime minister of the day informed the Canadian people, during the election campaign, of his intention to provide for an expense allowance.
The next increase came as the result of a resolution, introduced by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent on January 26, 1954, of which the prime minister of that day had given the electors notice in a radio broadcast in which he said something to the effect that he was going to make the responsibilities of members less burdensome. At this time the sessional indemnity was increased from $4,000 to $8,000, thus making a total of $10,000. The then hon. member for Vancouver East, Mr. Maclnnis, opposed the increase and voted against it.
Then we have had the recent efforts of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who on April 28, 1959 urged an increase of the sessional indemnity to $12,000 and an expense allowance of $3,000. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I give him credit for his courage in bringing forward what was considered to be a very delicate and risky question under those circumstances. He was supported by the then hon. member for Winnipeg North.
I think that was the end of the support. Then on December 19, 1960 the hon. member for Port Arthur asked a question of the prime minister as to whether a parliamentary pay raise would have to be a package deal which would include a daily roll call. On March 19, 1962 he moved a simple resolution and proposed an increase of the sessional indemnity to $10,000 and an expense allowance of $3,000. He mentioned at that time that this increase would be sufficient to meet his particular needs and problems.
On January 28, 1963 the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked the minister of justice to protect certain members of his group against certain acts of violence that might occur as suggested by a very famous newspaper columnist if there were any attempt to oppose an increase in sessional indemnities. Numerous editorials have been written across Canada on this question, both


for and against. I have seen two such editorials recently, one representing the Conservative view, and entitled "A Conservative view", by Mr. Frank McGee, in the Daily Star of July 27, 1963, and the other by the hon. member for Port Arthur entitled "Now we'll have to earn our pay"-I agree with him on that point-in the Telegram of July 27, 1963.
There are arguments for and against on this question. The arguments in favour of an increase have generally been, I think, that first it makes it possible for any person with limited means to be elected to parliament. I think that is a reasonable and sound argument. A second argument is that it makes it attractive to the well-to-do, almost a bait to the well-to-do, to run for parliament. I do not think that is a sound argument because throughout the years we have had a good number of well-to-do persons who have represented Canadians in this house without, I am quite sure, any regard to the sessional indemnity and things of that sort. A third argument is that it is necessary to ensure the independence of members. I think that is right; I think it is very necessary that members of parliament should receive an indemnity and an allowance that remove any possibility of temptation for a weak man.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, the argument in recent years has been that a great many members in this house actually need an increase in order to meet their living expenses and other costs. I agree with that argument and I think that is generally accepted. I realize myself, although I am one who has given a great deal of thought to this question, it is a difficult thing for members to decide. I have been most reluctant psychologically, you might say, to come to certain conclusions. I know this is a sound reason for increasing the indemnity. Fortunately money is not always attractive either to the rich or poor. Our history is replete with the names of first-class people both rich and poor who have served this country in parliament since confederation. I refer to such men as Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and then the late J. S. Woodsworth, who I remember made a great sacrifice to serve the Canadian people. I have known of him travelling on day coaches day after day, rather than take a sleeper in order to save that additional expense to the C.C.F. club paying his expenses. There have been numerous people willing to make some sacrifice in connection with representing the public. I remember the efforts made by the late John MacNicol with respect to the question of the conservation of Canadian resources. I think he was a man of some substance who between sessions

travelled through western Canada lecturing and doing whatever he could, far beyond the bounds of duty, because of his particular interest in this question.
The arguments against an increase, Mr. Speaker, are usually two, from what I have read and heard. First of all, the members entered into a contract with their electors during the last election to serve on the basis on the present indemnity and allowance. Some newspapers have supported this point of view. Some radio talks have supported the same point of view. Second, on moral grounds, therefore, any increase should only become effective after the next election. I believe an increase is a problem which has been dodged by members for two or three years and should have been dealt with before this.
Now a few words with respect to this bill. I have not read it, although I know the main substance of it. I usually like an opportunity to read a bill carefully before speaking on it in the house, but I trust that as we go through the committee stage we will have the opportunity to ask questions and to find out what we see through a glass darkly at this time.
First of all, let me say that I think it was unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the leader of the Conservative party did not during the election campaign do as the former Right Hon. Mackenzie King did and as the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent did, and announce to the Canadian people during the campaign that they believed that members of parliament should have an increase in their indemnities and expense accounts. I think in that respect they failed to inform the people. I am firmly convinced that many members of this house cannot make ends meet on the present indemnity and allowance. I know as a result of discussions that various members, especially the younger members with families who are required to establish two residences and move their children backwards and forwards sometimes between their constituencies and Ottawa, have incurred very serious and in some cases quite large obligations. In fact, I was almost shocked to hear of the way a few members have got into debt as a result of becoming members of parliament and performing their functions as such. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be quite a number of bank managers in Canada who will give a sigh of relief when this legislation has been adopted by this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see that strikes a chord in the hearts of some members of the house.
After careful consideration of the question I have come to the conclusion that a total
Senate and House of Commons Act of $15,000 would be an adequate raise; that is to say, $10,000 indemnity and $5,000 expense allowance. I think there are members of all parties who thought that they would be fortunate even to get that amount. I am one who feels that there should always be an element of sacrifice on the part of those who enter any level of public life; otherwise being a member of parliament or a member of the legislature simply becomes a profession and the spirit and the willingness to serve is lost. I believe there is still a place for honour in this dollar-hungry materialistic world, an honour that prompts thousands of Canadians to serve without any thought of remuneration on school boards, hospital boards, irrigation district boards and in many other community organizations. It is very fortunate for us that we have these people who regard it as an honour, a privilege and a duty to serve their districts and their communities.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking frankly, this is a very generous increase, more than was expected, as I have said before, by some members of all parties of the house. In my opinion, to justify it we will have to do certain things. First of all, I think we will have to recognize from this point on that being a member of parliament is a full time vocation that presents a particular challenge under the circumstances of today. Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it should provide for an attendance regulation which will end the Thursday to Tuesday club, and I hope that the regulations are such that this will result. Third, this increase should make it possible for all members to employ a secretary in their riding during any recess of parliament. Members often require a secretary. Those of us who live in country ridings often have to travel for a week or so at a time, returning home without a secretary, having to pound away at the typewriter for several days, which has been my experience, and then leave on another trip without any opportunity for leisure, recreation and so on. Fourth, I think this generous increase will make it possible for all members of parliament to meet the normal and usual requests for donations to good causes without any financial discomfort. It provides a greater opportunity in that respect. Fifth, it does provide a glorious opportunity for those who do not require more than $15,000 to use the balance in support of worth-while community enterprises. I am sure there are some hon. members of the house quite willing to carry on with what is required here and to use any surplus they have to the advantage of the communities in which they live.
2746	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act
Sixth, I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation will provide for a survivors' pension plan. I am sure we all have personal knowledge of widows of members of parliament being left in very difficult and unfortunate circumstances. I am pleased that a pension plan is being placed on a sound actuarial basis and that the means test on members' pensions is being removed. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are only two categories of persons under pension in Canada who are subject to a means test. The first are members of parliament, and the second the recipients of war veterans allowance. I hope and trust the removal of this means test from members' pensions points to a similar consideration being given to the recipients of war veterans allowance; and I see the Prime Minister is taking a great interest in what I have to say on this point.
Regardless of any difference of opinion as to the amount required to meet members' costs, living expenses and allowances, this increase can only be justified, in our opinion, if first we stand up for Canada as a free and independent nation with the right to develop its own foreign and defence policies. We are not a great military power but we can be a great moral force by giving leadership to all those nations who look to us for that leadership in the promotion of world peace through the strengthening of international organizations and responsibilities. Second, we must make certain that parliament provides every Canadian with a standard of living and the basic security to which a free industrious and independent people living in a land of plenty are entitled. Third, we must make certain to conserve our natural resources to the advantage of this and future generations of Canadians, including the surplus waters of the Columbia and the Kootenay rivers, which will be required by the Canadians who live in the Okanagan valley and on the prairies in the years ahead.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say simply this: If we fail to do this, then by accepting this increase we shall be guilty of accepting money under false pretenses.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Louis Freneite (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief.
I am glad to take part in this debate as I wish to say, on behalf of our group, that we are happy of the offer which is being made to us today. To be honest, I feel it is in order to commend the Liberal party for the courage it has shown under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker, the whips of the various parties agreed to support this bill when it would be introduced in the house. That is why I would not take kindly to anyone who would rise to speak against this legislation which is of the utmost importance on many points.
Members of the House of Commons should be well paid and, in my opinion, this fact should have been recognized a long time ago. I feel that the main argument in that respect is that more competent men will be attracted to politics and will thus participate in the conduct of the affairs of the country. Then, thanks to the increasing competence of the representatives of the people, we shall be in a position to make of Canada an even greater country, where each and every one will work together towards its development.
It has been pointed out, and it must be admitted, that public men have not always enjoyed the reputation they would have liked. This may be prejudicial to our chosen profession, but all the same, I believe that if members of parliament are well paid, they shall then be able to meet their obligations as heads of families and their duties as public men within society. With a more adequate income, members of parliament will be encouraged to be more honest in the performance of their duties.
It should also be mentioned that a sufficient income will enable many of us to give up the practice of a profession or the operation of a business which takes up a considerable part of their time and compels them to be too often away from the House of Commons.
We hear sometimes comments which are not always favourable to members, Mr. Speaker, especially by visitors attending the sittings of the house and who note with disappointment and dismay how empty is the house when very serious problems are under consideration. Well, I believe that the absence of many members is precisely due to the fact that they have to earn a living as it is impossible for them to meet their obligations on the salary they get as members of parliament. So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the members' salary will allow them from now on to provide duly for the needs of their families.
As the hon. member who preceded me was saying a moment ago, members of parliament are always requested to donate to various philanthropic institutions. Should there

be some members among us who are opposed to the increase, they could always give that excess money to those philanthropic societies or institutions, or give it to the poor people in their constituency. They would thus acquire many friends who might prove useful during election campaigns.
Mr. Speaker, if fate has it that those who favour the increase in salary should be defeated for that very reason in the next election, they will be able to find some comfort in the thought that their successors will have a decent remuneration and be able to better discharge their duties, as they will be in a position to meet their obligations.
(Text):


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you call the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I have a longstanding pair with the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Asselin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
heads, in our province and all across Canada also need an increase in their revenue. Everyone has to face the same problem, the lack of money, as the hon. members.
When we tell our electors that we came here to represent them, it does not necessarily mean that we came here to vote ourselves a raise in pay. It should be pointed out that the Liberals remember what they promised, because they promised heaven on earth. However, those same Liberals never told their electors that they were going to increase their sessional allowances.


An hon. Member:: Yes, Mr. Caouette.


Mr. Caouette:: You told the electors just the opposite.
Mr. Chairman, such was the stand we took, and I feel it is urgent, and important, that the house should adopt, for example, a measure which instead of saying:


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The proposed increase is to be made payable from April 8, 1963,
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.	would provide that the proposed increase
be made payable from the time family al-On clause 1.	lowances have been increased in Canada.
(Translation):
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we notice the following amendment in section 1 of the bill now before the house:
This amendment increases the sessional indemnity of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons from $8,000 to $12,000. The proposed increase is payable from April 8. 1963.
This afternoon, I voted against this raise of the parliamentary indemnity because I stated several times in this house and outside that we are not against the principle of the bill- we are in favour of it-but that we would prefer to begin with to see an increase in the family allowances in Canada, after which we would accept an increase in the members' indemnity.
I am the first to recognize that with an indemnity of $10,000 a year, once the income tax is taken off, when a member has a family to support at home and expenses to pay here in Ottawa, it is important that he should get a reasonable indemnity. But this increase of the parliamentary indemnity could have come after an increase of the family allowances.
A few days ago, they were talking about increasing old age pensions for the year 1964. Now, they are asking today for an increase in the members' indemnity from April 8, 1963. Yet, our older citizens, just as our family

Let us increase family allowances from April 8, and 1 shall support this bill 100 per cent.
It is odd that they cannot find the necessary money for the families of our ridings and that, on the other hand, they find enough to raise the members' salaries.
They will find the money required to increase the old age pension only next year, but not this year. Then, they take offence if somebody votes against this measure.
The member for Villeneuve will probably be called a demagogue, as my friend for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) is wont to call him.


An hon. Member:: He has not been here since that time.


David Réal Caouette: That is it, he has not been
here since that time. Mr. Chairman, there is no question here of being a demagogue or of raising the passions of the people; absolutely not. The point at issue is to appreciate the population's needs. And family allowances are precisely the means by which every single human being can be reached throughout Canada.


Mr. Boulanger:: Who gave family allowances in the past?

Senate and House of Commons Act


David Réal Caouette: In reply to my friend from he took on that matter and I challenge any Mercier, (Mr. Boulanger), the Liberal party, member to act with as much sincerity. Those in 1945.	are his ideas and his opinion.
However, we had also asked the Liberal party to increase family allowances, and they agreed, in 1953, to increase them by $1 a month-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Villeneuve for interrupting him but I feel it is my duty to remind him that the principle on which this bill is based has passed second reading. In consequence, a member is not allowed to start a new debate on the principle which has been agreed to, and the hon. member is well aware of that. Hon. members must restrict themselves to the clause now under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will keep to the principle of the bill. And I would ask my hon. friends on the government side not to lead me into another field where they might trip themselves.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I will not spend more time on the principle of this bill. I only wanted to explain my point of view and the stand I took this afternoon when the question was put. I had to vote against this bill authorizing an increase in the members' indemnity, not because I do not need the money, because I do as much as any member in this house, but because, in my opinion, we must first look after the families, the old people, the disabled, the veterans; afterwards, we can think about increasing the members' indemnity.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to say that I am happy to see here today the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I should like also to congratulate him for the courageous stand that he took in the course of this debate. It was according to his conscience and under the democratic rights of the house that he voted against the motion before the second reading of this bill.
Personally, according to my own conscience and under the democratic principles of the house, I supported this bill. This means that, in our party, we respect the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought and that we respect also this democratic freedom.


An hon. Member:: The fight is on.


Gilles Grégoire: There is no fight at all. If I ever had any admiration for the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), it is indeed on this occasion, because I realize the stand
I do not think that the hon. member who just made that remark would have shown the same courage as the member for Villeneuve. Besides, all Liberal members gave the impression that they were subservient and cringing before their leader. Things are different in our party, and that is why I am proud to be a Social Crediter and I am proud of our deputy leader.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would ask the hon. member to come back to the discussion of this bill.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to point out that if there was not always a young smart alec of the Liberal party trying to make us drift from the subject-


Mr. Laniel:: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Can the hon. member for Lapointe tell us whether the hon. member for Villeneuve has expressed his opinion about the amount? We are not yet on third reading, we are discussing the details of the bill. I understand that the hon. member for Villeneuve, according to what he just said, is personally in favour of $18,000-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member asked permission to put a question and not to make a speech. I see that he has now finished his comments.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, such is not the matter now under discussion. It would be better for the hon. member to stay quiet and remain seated if he has only questions of that kind to ask. It is inconceivable that such a question should be directed to the hon. member for Villeneuve. The hon. member who asked it does not know him. Otherwise, he would realize that the member for Villeneuve is so broadminded that he would not forgo principles for any amount of money.
I voted in favour of the bill this afternoon but I must tell you this. Previously I. asked the advice of my organizer and of my constituents. I am but a private member who represents his riding; it is in that capacity that I went to see my organizers and asked them what they thought of an increase in members' allowances. They told me that I, Gilles Gregoire, member for Lapointe, surely deserved an increase. I cannot assure you that your constituents would tell you the same thing but that is what my constituents said to me. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I felt free to vote in favour of the bill in spite
2750	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act of what may have been said in the past. It was said this afternoon that it was contrary to British tradition to pay an additional amount to each opposition party leader in the House of Commons-other than the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition- who has at least 12 recognized members in the house. If this is said to be contrary to British tradition, I find it somewhat odd. To my mind, the Leader of the Opposition did not think it over long enough. If some Canadian voters think fit not to support either of the two old parties, it is their democratic right. If some voters decide to send a third and fourth political party with leaders to the house, those leaders will have from then on, added expenses and additional responsibilities. Now, I think that the item included in the bill is fully justified, the more so because this year fortunately we have leaders of a second and third opposition parties, as the leader of the official opposition does not do his job and is lost in old time theories. The leader of the official opposition is very remote from the business of the house; he is lost in obsolete concepts; he is a has-been. Fortunately, we have the leaders of the second and third opposition parties, and I commend this government for having thought fit to grant them an additional amount.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to linger over section 1, but I want to stress that I voted for the principle of the bill, because considering all the time we members spend in Ottawa now that sessions last most of the year, and the expense caused by our stay in Ottawa-considering also that some federal civil servants' salary is five times as high, for instance the president of the C.N.R. who gets $75,000 a year only to show an annual deficit of $65 million at the end of the year, then, I say that we who are here trying to avoid any deficit, even if we experience great difficulty with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) should be entitled to higher sessional allowances.
Before voting in favour of the bill, I obtained the assent of my voters and organizers. That is why I thought free to vote in favour of the principle of the bill.
(Text):


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Monieith:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two on clause 1. I believe
[Mr. Gregoire.l

completely in the principle of the bill. I think something should be done, but I reserve the right to criticize individual clauses, to discuss individual clauses, to examine them closely, and to ask questions of the minister who is piloting the bill through the house. Some rather irrelevant points have been made tonight by the two previous speakers, but I do not intend to go into them; I am speaking about this particular bill only. The previous speeches in connection with family allowances, and so on, have some merit, and also my leader this afternoon pointed out, although this is somewhat irrelevant, that there was a certain implied promise to the elder citizens of this country. I should like to ask one simple question on clause 1. Why is the bill made retroactive to April 8, 1963?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would look back at the debate which took place when the remuneration of members of parliament was last dealt with in 1954, he will see that a change was made at that time from the old system of sessional indemnities, in the course of which on some occasions two indemnities were paid in a single session, a fact which began to raise questions in some minds. I do not want to go into a whole lot of ancient history but it was felt better at that time to base these indemnities on an annual basis and to date the payment of the indemnity from the day of the election. Never yet having been defeated I had not had occasion until recently, to find out whether the new member or the old member was paid for election day, but I was advised by the officials when I was helping to prepare this bill that the defeated member does not get paid for election day; it is the successful one who does.
In order to simplify the measure-this is the same answer as Mr. St. Laurent gave in 1954-it was felt it would be better to take it from the day of the election, which is the date from which the indemnities and expense allowances are claimed. It did not appear to us that this was seriously retroactive since it would apply only to the present parliament. It would also make very much easier the transitional phase of the pensions because a fundamentally new pension scheme is incorporated in this bill, and to have calculated the days between June 1 and August 1 on the old basis and the others on the new basis would have been a complex matter though not necessarily, of course, an impossible one.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Why June? You mean April.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry; I have the
months mixed up.


Mr. Nowlan:: You were thinking of another June a year ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the 10th. I remember it, as I am sure do most hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I wonder if the minister can give us some explanation how the figure of $12,000 per annum was arrived at.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These things are, of course, to a certain extent, arbitrary. In 1920, the prime minister of that day, Sir Robert Borden, as we have been reminded this afternoon, suggested that the indemnity be increased from $2,500 to $4,000. In 1954, it was increased from $4,000 to $8,000 and it was felt that the sum now proposed would be a reasonably proportionate increase.
If I may go a little beyond this clause, it was felt by the government that a certain amount of the remuneration should be taken in the form of an allowance which is taxable, and a certain amount in the form of a payment in lieu of expenses which we all know we have, and which never enter into the income of our families at all. To arrive at a certain figure there had to be a division between these two. I would be dishonest if I tried to pretend that a lot of careful and mathematical calculation went into this.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Like the Canada pension plan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the analogy is really accurate. Not so long ago, a good many of us were over there-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are on your way back, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I doubt it after today. But I must not allow myself to be diverted by the genial member for Winnipeg South Centre. It seemed reasonable to fix this figure and I feel I could not really add to that, even if I went on talking for a long time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Deductions for non-attendance.
Robert Norman Thompson: It has been said this afternoon that one of the basic reasons for this increase is because the previous remuneration did not cover the expenditure which had to be incurred by hon. members and still leave a sufficient amount for family expenses. As a result, many members found it necessary to carry on other forms of gainful occupation in order to meet their expenses, and all too often this has resulted in many absences from the house. I would say that this increased remuneration brings with it
29, 1963
Senate and House of Commons Act an increased responsibility to make sure we do spend our time in this House of Commons as those who elected us expect us to do.
I do not like to think in terms of discipline, but I think it would do a measure of good if there could be brought back into the operation of this house some attendance check. Perhaps this could not be done in the bill itself. I do not think such a thing has ever been done before, or that it would be entirely proper to do so now, but I would suggest to the minister that it would be an important expression of good faith from those of us who are members of parliament to subject ourselves to the discipline of indicating that we have been in attendance. It seems reasonable that we might give this expression of good faith not only to our electors but to ourselves, collectively, since we have this responsibility together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This clause, taken with a later clause, has the effect of raising the amount which a member has deducted from his remuneration when his absence exceeds 21 days in the session. The total would now be $120 for each such day and I am sure we all agree that taking into account such a generous allowance, namely 21 days absence during which no deduction is suffered, this is a proper figure.
I would like to endorse what the hon. member for Red Deer has said, namely that with the kind of remuneration we will now receive we should take more seriously than we have sometimes, perhaps, in the past, our responsibility to be here. I agree that this is not the kind of thing to put in a bill but I would offer two suggestions. First we might consider this matter in the special committee on procedure, whenever that is established. Even in the other place they have a form of roll call. The attendances are kept and recorded in each day's Minutes of Proceedings of that other unmentionable place. The other suggestion is that perhaps this is a matter for discipline within each of our party organizations. I do not think it is my place to stand here and preach to members of other groups, but I can tell the members of my own party that as party whip, the whip will crack a lot more after this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not wish to intervene in this debate and I should not have done so but for the remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The difficulty in parliament is that if one does not rise and state an objection, people say, subsequently, that nobody was opposed to it. I stake out a claim right now against the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer

Senate and House of Commons Act and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I will fight them on it in the rules committee if it is ever set up.
I have heard it said often in the past that members must answer a roll call in the House of Commons to let everyone know that they are in attendance. I have spent a great deal of my life under discipline of one sort or another, whether in school or in the army, and I react strongly against suggestions that there should be this type of discipline for members of parliament. This is an institution unique in this country and if members do not have a sense of responsibility, their constituents will soon discover it and they will retire them, as has happened to so many people who were in this chamber.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And they do it so graciously.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, and they tell you afterwards how sorry they are that they had to vote against you. There is no use raising the example of the other place. The very fact that there is an attendance roll there is never held up as an instance of the achievements of that honourable institution, and I am finding no fault with it at all'.


George Clyde Nowlan: They have not got the
discipline of an election either.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Like other members of parliament, perhaps if I ended up in the other place I would gladly sign the roll, but nevertheless let us not hold that up as an example of what should be done here. I firmly believe in the parliamentary system. I believe in the responsibility of the member of parliament to his constituents and I believe in the good common sense of the voters of this country to retain in the house those people who they believe will perform their duties properly for the constituency and for the country. Therefore I reject completely any nonsense about a roll call or being subjected to as is the army to a sergeant's check of a platoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will my colleague permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does my friend from Winnipeg South Centre take the same attitude toward the fact that we have to sign an affidavit at the end of every month stating whether or not we were present? Is that not a form of discipline?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is all right, and there is a penalty here in the bill. If people are not diligent in their attendance they pay a certain penalty. But the suggestion of a daily

roll call for mature people who are members of parliament is to my way of thinking a bit of nonsense. In any case, if you have a daily roll call there are ways and means of evading this responsibility. I do not suggest that anybody in the present parliament would do so, but a person could be in attendance for a roll call and absent for the rest of the day. That is not a solution to the maintenance of this institution.
In any case, and finally because I do not want to prolong the debate, I am just giving notice that I will oppose such a suggestion in the future if it comes up again under the proper circumstances. This institution has survived for a good hundred years, and its predecessor before that, without a roll call and without harm to the people of Canada, and I think it can go on for another 100 or even 300 years without the necessity of imposing that type of restraint upon responsible members of parliament.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the house leader of the official opposition has stated his position because I must say I find it very difficult to see any merit in it at all. I can remember going to the accounts office, as I am sure many other hon. members have done-this occurred not after I had been here a few weeks or a few months but after I had been here three or four years-and asking the accountant who a certain gentleman was and being informed that he was the member for such and such a riding. Yet I had never seen him. I am sure there are other occasions when members, after having been here for six or eight months or a year, will look around and wonder who the member is sitting in a particular seat and think that it would be a good opportunity to rise and say that there is a stranger in the house.


An hon. Member:: Who are you?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Raise a point of privilege.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, with the remuneration we previously received I was quite happy in seeking election on a number of occasions to declare my attendance in the house and I have always been happy to do so. I know there are those in the house who know much more about legislation than I do, and who will say that you cannot write these things into a bill. Maybe we should not have put any amount of money in the bill either. Maybe we should have left these things up in the air. Then if the accountant found that the money in the treasury was sufficient to give us a certain amount that could then be done. However, it has not been thought

right to do that and I do not think there are many members who would support a proposition of that kind.
I do think we have an obligation to the country at least to provide a record of attendance in the house although I admit at times members may be somewhere else for legitimate reasons. There are members who have said over the years that they have had to supplement their incomes elsewhere, and I think this may have been true. It is quite true that some have a higher standard of living than others and if you become accustomed to a certain standard of living it is not very pleasant to have to reduce it. Being a member of parliament certainly has meant a reduction in the standard of living of many people, even a reduction in my standard of living as a trade union representative, because I believe my take-home pay here is less than what I received in that job. If this is true in my case, I am sure there are many professions where the difference is greater. Therefore someone would say, perhaps legitimately, that he could not be here on Monday because he had to be in his office and he might also say that he could not be here on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday because he had to be in his office.
There may be some justification for that; but if we pass a bill of this type providing fair and reasonable remuneration, then we also have an obligation to the country to show that there is some method of recording attendance. I have heard the former prime minister, the member for Prince Albert, say on several occasions that there should be no restrictions placed on a member so long as he could say that he was working in the interests of his constituents, and that he could be doing so either in Ottawa or in his riding. With that I agree, but this is where I think a problem will arise.
I was given the opportunity of addressing a meeting the other day that involved many of the representatives of the municipalities in my riding. The problem concerned me and I was asked to discuss these matters with them. I would think I did so in my capacity as their representative in parliament. It is probably true that I was in my riding when certain bills were being dealt with here that I should have been present to discuss, but I think there are times when matters are being dealt with in your riding that are as much your responsibility as your duties in the House of Commons. I think that is where the dilemma will arise.
It is difficult for me to decide whether he should be at a fall fair or at the opening of a bridge or in the House of Commons. I think this is where the member's own responsibility and integrity will come into the
29, 1963
Senate and House of Commons Act picture, when he makes a decision as to where he is going to be. In my view there can be no objection to a roll call. I have been associated with many organizations where there was a roll call of the officers at every meeting. Every officer was not always present, but quite often someone would rise and say that brother so and so is not here because he is at work or attending to something else. Honest, legitimate reasons were given for his not being there. I do not know how we can arrive at that in the House of Commons. If the 21 days are tied to the roll call it may be that that would be unfair. We are very stupid in devising solutions for something that does not appear to be obviously easy, and so we may have difficulty in arriving at a solution in this regard.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think we have an obligation to the country and to parliament itself to ensure that attendance in the house is maintained. It really is no joke when you hear the expression "T to T boys". I think it is a disgrace to parliament and it has only been justified by the fact that many members were unable to carry out their responsibilities with the remuneration they received.
In making their recommendation I believe that the government has considered the job of a member of parliament to be a full time one, and therefore the representatives of the people should be prepared to give at least the major part of their time to the duties that have fallen upon them as a result of being elected to parliament. I believe that we must arrive at a much better method than this one of signing an affidavit. I am sure some members know of other members who have been signing these affidavits under what would be considered elsewhere to be dubious circumstances.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this matter will be given consideration. I would particularly urge that the minister piloting this legislation try to insert something in clause 2 that would strengthen the interpretation of public and official business. I feel that each member will represent his constituency in a different manner from that of his fellow members even in the same party. I hope it will not be left to the whips themselves to police this provision because that will cause a great deal of dissension. I do think that they will strengthen public support for the institution of parliament, and support that will be necessary to those members participating in this debate if they wish to return to this house, if we give the public assurance that we have provided the necessary safeguards to ensure active attendance in this place.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not intend to prolong the debate on this clause. I gather, however,

Senate and House of Commons Act from the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken that he is in favour of regimenting everybody and everything. I could not agree more with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in this respect.
I should like to ask a question, however. Apparently clause 2 which amends section 36, contains words referring to a member who does not attend a sitting of the house of which he is a member because of public or official business. I am asking for clarification of this, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that for a number of years now there have been appropriations made to cover this kind of thing, that is attendance at United Nations, going to NATO and various things of this sort.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The member mentioned a fair in his riding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I would not think that would come within the terms of this clause. I think it would cover something to which the member goes as a representative of the government or the House of Commons; that is my understanding. This has been covered by an item in the estimates, and it was thought when we were amending the act we should bring it up to date.


Edward Nasserden: I was going to bring up that point, because I believe there are times when a member of parliament's attendance at some function in his riding is just as important as his attendance here in the House of Commons. There have been times when I have read the affidavit we have to make and I have wondered just what we are signing. I have wondered whether it includes such particular things. I would not try to convince the Secretary of State, but there are times when a person should be in his riding at some of these functions, and that would be just as important in terms of fulfilling his duties as being here in the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would consider, sir, when we are allowed 21 days before this clause is effective, that would be sufficient. I think I am about as assiduous a representative of my constituency as anyone, but I believe there could not be 21 fall fairs, even in the Rosthern constituency, so important that the hon. gentleman would have to attend.


Mr. Patterson:: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State if he could tell us the relative length of the session at the time this 21 days absence was set. Were the sessions at that time as long as they are now? Has there been any increase from the original
[Mr. Monteith.I
figure that was set concerning days absent? Just what is the relative position?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was changed in 1954 from 15 days to 21 days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking from memory, but my recollection is it was 15 days when I was elected to parliament in 1953. It was changed to 21 days at that time because it was thought the sessions were getting a Little longer. They have been getting a lot longer since 1954, and I hope that has nothing to do with my being in the house. I think 21 was about in proportion to the increased length over the period when 15 days was set. The government, at the present time, is not suggesting that 21 should be changed.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I should like to say a word about this public service provision. Those who live a long distance from Ottawa cannot get home to a fall fair within a day, whereas those who live close to Ottawa can take a half day off, spend part of the time in parliament and still attend the fair. Those of us who live in the area of West Middlesex must be absent a whole day to attend a fall fair, unless we fly both ways.
Now, I believe these circumstances make a difference in the manner in which this particular clause should be interpreted. I know the people in most of these constituencies do like to see their member come into the constituency to attend these functions. They invite the member to do that. If we are going to limit this provision to 21 days, I know from my own experience that 21 days will not begin to cover the events to which a member in that area is invited. I think it is much better to leave the interpretation of those words "public business" to the member. I know when I am conducting public business or when I am acting in my own interests. I think a member should be allowed reasonable leeway in making an interpretation of that term "public business".


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to say a word about the interpretation of this particular clause relating to public or official business. If a person is a member on the government side of the house, he often has to represent the government at one place or another. Nobody would argue about that. Members of opposition parties, all three of them in this case, are invited to attend functions, whether they are fall fairs or hearing representations from labour groups or manufacturers groups. The reason you are invited is that you are a member of parliament for the area. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in those cases such attendance would be interpreted as attendance on public business. It is quite clear that you

would not be invited unless you were the elected representative. I think there is some need for clarification in connection with this matter, and I hope the Secretary of State will provide it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the simplest thing I can say is that, although this provision has not been in the statute before, it has been in the appropriations for several years. I do not think there is any thought of changing the interpretation that has prevailed up to now.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the interpretation I have suggested one with which the Secretary of State would substantially agree?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never had to do the interpreting, and I hope I never have to do so.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If a member of parliament were sick for one, two or three years I hope the government would not charge him $60 a day after this first period?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand you can be
sick as long as you like.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to prolong this too much, but I feel some of the hon. members have laboured the question of attendance too heavily. I have often wondered whether members of parliament should not think as businessmen. Being a businessman does not necessarily mean sitting at a desk acquiescing in what might be done or acquiescing in what is not being done. That situation may arise, but I am not suggesting that a person could hold a seat in the House of Commons for any number of years by doing that. The measure of a member should be the responsibility he takes, and his accomplishments. These are more important than actual physical attendance, and if an hon. member can accomplish something on the broad scale for his country, his province or his constituency, then he is doing a good job.
A second thought which occurs to me is that asking the Secretary of State for an interpretation is putting him on the spot, because all our statutes are interpreted by the judiciary, whose function that is. If we are to get into a dispute of what public business means it will have to be determined by a higher body than the House of Commons or the Secretary of State.


Mr. Winch:: In view of what has been said during the last few minutes I think we have to be very careful in considering this. I have been here 10 years, sir, and upon occasion I meet people and discover they are members of the house, but I cannot remember ever having seen them here.
28902-5-175
29, 1963
Senate and House of Commons Act
I come from Vancouver and that is a long way from Ottawa. I say our job is here, and this allowance of 21 days before an hon. member is fined for not being here, is about right. If you cannot do it in 21 days you are not on public business; you are campaigning, and you yourself know it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Travelling expenses.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to say a brief word on this clause. I am glad to see that what was provided for in the estimates of 1931 is at last being written into our statutes, in what I think is the proper place. I am referring to the provision of a motor vehicle allowance for members of the cabinet.
Some of us have been here a long time and know that this matter has been discussed on previous occasions, as to whether it was proper to carry it forward from an item which Mr. Bennett put in the estimates in 1931. It is now put in this statute where it belongs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Maybe the minister would explain how this is going to operate-this new motor vehicle allowance for the Senate, House of Commons, ministers and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is absolutely nothing new whatsoever. It is, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, transferring it from the appropriation account of 1931, where it has been all these years, into this statute where it ought to be. I am of course referring to subsection 2, but with regard to subsection 1 perhaps the hon. member for Perth would like to say something first, because I may want one of my colleagues to propose a small amendment. It concerns something which was drawn to my attention since the bill was introduced this afternoon.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to move that clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "residence" in line 42 thereof, the words "or his constituency."


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I move:
That clause 4 of the said bill he amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "residence" in line 42 thereof, the words "or his constituency."


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say, sir, that it has been drawn to my attention that there might be some question about the residences of certain hon. members from the point of view of what is intended in this clause, and perhaps one of these hon. members would be the member for Bonavista-Twillingate. It is
2756	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act really intended that the travelling expenses should provide for travel between Ottawa and their constituencies. This might be interpreted in a narrow sense without the amendment. I do not know precisely what the law would say about "residence," and there are one or two hon. members who actually do not have residences in their constituencies but who are re-elected pretty regularly. In fact I am sure that those who do not live in their constituencies have all the more need to travel to them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am quite happy to accept the amendment suggested, but with regard to subsection (1) I am a little concerned about the phrase:
__and such actual telecommunication expenses
incurred while in Ottawa, as each house may by order prescribe for its own members.
We all have certain telephone calls coming in collect, and we have to accept that type of thing. We also must, of necessity, make telephone calls elsewhere; but I feel there should be some indication of the lines that should be followed in setting these amounts. I am not suggesting anybody will overdo the matter, but there should be some limit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I imagine the initiative would be taken by the commissioners of internal economy, and they would make a suggestion to the house which would have to be approved by the house. It was represented to the government by a number of hon. members in all parts of the house that for a member, say, from Vancouver, the problem of telecommunications was very different from that of a member, say, from Bussell, who at most might have to pay 20 cents to call some place in his constituency.
There is a real inequality there, and it is my hope that the commissioners of internal economy will act in a thoroughly responsible manner, and that there will be no abuse whatsoever of a provision that is really meant to take into account the vast extent of our country and the inevitable inequalities between those who represent constituencies a long way from Ottawa and those who represent constituencies nearby.


Robert Norman Thompson: One of the most difficult inequalities for hon. members arises over the question of distance. The travelling expenses for hon. members living in St. John's or Victoria are certainly very different from those who live in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal. This likewise applies to telecommunications, and one of the fairest aspects of this legislation is this very thing which is being suggested with respect to transportation and telecommunications. I would suggest to the minister that if this could be applied in terms


of usage rather than in terms of dollars it would be much more equitable.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: As the provision now stands the motor vehicle allowance paid to ministers is $2,000, which is not taxable income, and I think it is only proper that it be placed in this statute where it should be. Under the act as it now stands it was recognized, apparently that ministers of the crown should receive an automobile allowance which was untaxable. In addition to that, since they are on government business a great deal of their time rather than on constituency business, there is an allowance for the expenses they incur while on government business. It was felt, apparently, that in the case of the $2,000 expense allowance for members of parliament who are also ministers of the crown, this amount should be taxable. I notice this is being eliminated from the act and I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State would give an explanation as to why it is considered that this past conclusion is no longer valid.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government did give a good deal of consideration to the point raised by the hon. member for Queens. It was felt that there was no less expense to a minister of the crown than there was to any other hon. member in representing his constituency, and probably rather more because of the fact that he did have to spend, necessarily, so much of his time, even when parliament was in session, in Ottawa, and that this was not a very equitable provision of the law.
The hon. member for Queens will remember that last time the remuneration was changed there was an increase in the salary of the prime minister and in the salaries of ministers, and no such proposal is being suggested at the present time, notwithstanding the fact that ministers' salaries are just as much out of line with other remuneration as are members' indemnities. But the government has no thought and no suggestion of proposing any changes in them whatever at the present time. However, it was thought that what seemed to be in a way a discrimination against ministers of the crown and against the Leader of the Opposition, who is also elected in a constituency-and against the Speaker as well, I believe-should be changed and this disparity reduced.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then am I to understand that in the future ministers of the crown are going to receive a total of $8,000 tax free?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that would be correct.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A private member receives only $6,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. member's pardon?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was replying to the undercover remark of the hon. member for Niagara Falls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, the $2,000 which was appropriated in 1931 for an indefinite period thereafter is not being changed in any way.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is being continued as it was.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Am I to understand, however, that the private member receives $6,000 under this proposed clause, tax free, and a minister of the crown actually receives a total of $8,000?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Secretary of State, in connection with clause 4 (1), whether he would clarify for me the interpretation of the term "actual moving". Does it mean household goods in that case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say to the hon. member for Kamloops that the language in subclause 1 is exactly the same as it has always been except for the words that are underlined. The words "travelling expenses" and the reference to telecommunications are the only new part. I am advised that whatever has been done in the past with respect to moving or transportation will continue to be done. Nothing new is being imported into the act because of the amendments.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an explanation from the Secretary of State in connection with clause 4 (1). In the French translation of the act up to this time there has been included the phrase "une fois l'annee au retour", but this does not appear in the new clause. Does it mean that a member will have his travelling expenses paid to go to his constituency every week end or so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The actual number of times that it would be possible to have this privilege or right, or whatever one likes to call it, would be determined by each house separately; that would be determined by the house itself. At the present time, under an arrangement that was made by the previous administration and proposed in this house by a former minister of transport, I think there are three occasions, or something like that, in addition to-


An hon. Member:: It is four at present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not even sure what the number is, but there is a certain number. They are determined by the house; they are 28902-5-1751
Senate and House of Commons Act not in the legislation. The same practice would be followed hereafter; the commissioners of internal economy will make a recommendation to the house, which will be accepted or rejected.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I feel that an interesting suggestion could be made to the government on that point. It has often been said that we discuss legislation in this house but that we have not enough contacts with our constituents. Does the Secretary of State not think that it would be advisable to provide members with airplane passes between Ottawa and their ridings so that they could keep in closer touch with their electors?
For instance, Mr. Chairman, when I visit my constituency, which is situated in the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, I must leave the capital on Friday afternoon at ten minutes to five and I get home only the next morning at nine o'clock, after having spent a rather uncomfortable night because the railway is in a pitiful condition in that area. So, on Saturday, I have to spend the whole day at my office and then get ready to come back at a time which is not too convenient. Travelling in such a way, I am only able to sleep at home one night out of three. So if members who live some distance from Ottawa had the privilege of free travel aboard planes, it would be possible for them to leave Friday evening at six o'clock and to get to their constituency that same night. They could then sleep at least two nights at home and they would have two full days to devote to their electors.
As for me, at the present time, I am in contact with my electors only every fortnight, and that after having spent two nights on the train and not to mention the work I have to do right here. You will understand that such a schedule is rather tough, especially with sessions as long as they are now.
So I wonder whether the Secretary of State would consider the possibility of supplying especially those members who live rather far from Ottawa with a pass to travel by air.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say, sir, that is precisely the object of the amendment.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, when the Secretary of State is considering these things I would ask him to consider that there is, as he is undoubtedly aware, a special problem with the Northwest Territories in that at the

Senate and House of Commons Act present time Trans-Canada Air Lines dumps me off approximately 600 miles south of my constituency if I happen to be travelling west, and quite often the member for the Northwest Territories also has to travel east to Montreal to get to the constituency, which as some hon. members may know is, at its easternmost point, east of the city of Halifax. I wonder whether this will be considered at the time air transportation is being considered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has just proposed and which the committee has just accepted will take care of precisely the case of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, which certainly should be taken care of because I think we all recognize that he has perhaps the most difficult problem of all, although not much more difficult than the problem of my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, before we pass this clause I would like to have one clarification. At the end of the old section 44, subsection 4, as appears on the right hand side of page 3 of the bill, it refers to ministers of the House of Commons and members of the Senate. Does this mean there will be a certain amount of tax free money for the members of the other place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a correct interpretation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: How much is this going to be?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The allowance proposed for members of the Senate is half of that proposed for members of the House of Commons.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is going to be tax free?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Was the $2,000 car allowance they received an expense?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the senators-


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was taxable before?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The senators do not receive a car allowance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They just receive a straight indemnity of $10,000 which was all taxable?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The remuneration of senators under the present law is $8,000 sessional indemnity plus $2,000 so-called expense allowance which is taxable.
[Mr. Hheaume.l


Jay Waldo Monteith: And in future, as I understand it, it will be $12,000 plus $3,000 which is not taxable?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is right, and this is half that proposed for the hon. members of this house.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
On clause 5.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, there is rather a lot of technical language here and we have not had much opportunity to study the bill. We had an hour over dinner time to have a sandwich, although some of us did not get that opportunity. Would the minister outline in brief form the new pension scheme?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I could do that, and I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Perth is a good one. As I am not an expert and do not claim to be one on these matters, I hope hon. members will forgive me if I hesitate a little and get a little prompting from time to time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We expect that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As hon. members know, the pension at the present time is, as I understand it, based upon a contribution from members of 6 per cent of one half their sessional indemnity; that is to say, of the $4,000 which has been the sessional indemnity since 1920'. The maximum pension available is three quarters of that indemnity, or $3,000, which is arrived at after about 16 or 17 years; in any event, it is longer than I have been here. There is no pension for widows. The pension is reduced by the amount of the old age pension for anyone receiving the old age pension after the age of 70. It is proposed for all members of the house with respect to the pension with which they have paid before April 8 that they will have three options. They can either freeze the benefits they have earned up to now just as they are for themselves alone-


Mr. Southam:: That would be hard on the widows.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other two are not so hard on the widows. In the second place they can convert the benefits they have earned up to now, so that there is a survivor clause in it, without paying any additional money; so that instead of getting three quarters the pensioner would get five twelfths of his contribution as a pension and his widow would get three twelfths.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Three fifths.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three fifths of his or three twelfths of the whole. I am advised by the experts that that arithmetic is correct.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is not three twelfths one quarter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The hon. member for Bow River is better with lassoos than I am and I suggest he let me do my arithmetic slowly by myself. Then instead of freezing his benefits under the one way or the other a member has a third option, and any of these options can be exercised within a year. The third option is to pay the contribution with interest on the other $4,000 indemnity since 1954, or any part of the period since 1954 when he was a member. If he does that he can double the benefits he would get for the period since 1954, but he can only do it for a survivor pension; he cannot do it for himself alone.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just one brief question arising out of that. Under the third option he can double his own pension, and would that automatically include his wife?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. He will get only five twelfths instead of three quarters.


An hon. Member:: What if he is a bachelor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then presumably he would not be very much interested in worrying about his wife.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is five twelfths of the increased amount?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of the whole amount. If a member chooses to augment the pension he earned before April 8, the whole amount must be converted into a survivor pension; that is, what he has now and any augmentation.
They are the three alternatives as far as the past is concerned. From now on a member will be obliged to contribute 6 per cent of $12,000, or $720. That contribution will go on as long as he is a member. The maximum pension he can earn will be $9,000 and it will take about 30 years' membership in this house to earn it. It is not expected that many hon. members will ever attain the maximum.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It would not include the previous pension earned up to April 8, the $9,000 maximum?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The $9,000 is the maximum regardless of whether part is earned before April 8 or after. Three quarters of the present indemnity is the maximum pension, and I doubt whether there are two members of this house who would ever attain the maximum. For a widow the maximum is $5,400. I think that is about as succinct an explanation as I can give.
Senate and House of Commons Act


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, let us have a little further enlightenment on this matter. Assuming a member is defeated or retired, if he has converted his pension, including the survivor clause, I understand he will qualify for five twelfths of his contribution and the wife for three twelfths?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, the widow.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Do I understand that they draw it at the same time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no. The wife has to be a widow before she draws it.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions in connection with this matter which I should like cleared up. First of all, I should like to say that I thoroughly approve of this legislation, and the questions I am asking are for clarification rather than in criticism of it. In the case of a member of the house-I might say here that I happen to be one of the people who have been here longest, I think; only seven members of this house have been here longer than I-who has completed his payments under the old pension system, as some of us have, if that member elects to remain on that system and not take the option of paying in so much in a lump sum in order to cover the period from 1954 to the present, is the old age pension which he would not have received under the old system still subtracted from what he would receive, or does this legislation wipe that out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This legislation wipes that out completely, not merely for members of the house but for existing pensioners as well. Many representations were made to the government from all sides of the house as it was felt most unfortunate that this particular provision was in the law. This is one thing which is being done for the pensioners as from the date of the passing of this bill. The old age pension will not be subtracted from any pension.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I have understood the minister correctly, members of parliament now in receipt of retirement allowances will be entitled to the present $65 a month which they are now getting if they are over 70 years of age. I am glad to hear this. The latter part of clause 6 says-
-an amount equal to 6 per cent of the sessional indemnity payable to that member in respect of that period minus the amount contributed or that could have been contributed by him in respect of that period.
Would the minister tell us what is meant by the expression: "that could have been contributed"? I am thinking of my own situation and of the situation of a number of

Senate and House of Commons Act hon. members who have not been contributing to the pension fund for the last two or three years or more, and of the effect this will have as far as future contributions are concerned, if an election is made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed that in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North it would have no effect at all. From April 8 on, the hon. gentleman would pay 6 per cent of the new sessional indemnity. But if a member chooses to leave his pension or convert it without augmenting it -the pension he earned before April 8- this would have no effect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am a little puzzled as to the arithmetic in regard to this and, probably, the minister's arithmetic is no better than my own. But it would seem to me that those of us who are in the position of having completed our payments under the old pension system, and who, if we had retired, in the last few years, would have been entitled to $3,000 a year, would be required to pay, if we made this election, $2,160 plus interest for the last nine years. Having done that we would be entitled to a pension of $2,566, rather than $3,000. We would, of course, have gained a survivors benefit. Is that more or less correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Subject to the hon. gentleman's figures being correct, that is correct. And that, I am informed, is actuarially sound.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does not this place the present member of parliament who is new to this institution in a better relative position? Within 10 years a new member, if he survives that long-and it is not easy, of course-will qualify for a $3,000 pension. The man who has been here for 17 years and who is now qualified for $3,000 is not really any further ahead despite these back payments that he makes, except, of course, for the allowance for the widow. There is no actual increase in the pension for the person who has paid in for 17 years as a member of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in respect of past services, apart from the ability to pay on the extra amount. I think the hon. member for Calgary North will appreciate that if he paid on the extra 9 years, that would be an addition to the converted value of his $3,000 -it would not be in place of it. He could convert the $3,000 for which he would now be eligible to the lower rate, to the five twelfths instead of three quarters, with three twelfths for his widow, without paying any more, if he wanted, and he could also pay

in respect to the other $4,000 year for the last nine years and do that on the survival basis only.


Oscar William Weichel: The Secretary of State mentioned a while ago that the old age pension would not be affected by these payments and he said this would apply to all such pensioners. When he said "all pensioners" did he mean war pensioners or war veterans allowance recipients?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was speaking about this bill only.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one further question. Was any consideration given to older members of the house paying back, perhaps, more money so that they would be put in the same position as new members are now on the basis of, say, 15 years' service? Fifteen years service under the new plan means a pension of $4,500. Members of. this house who have had 15 or 20 years service, possibly by paying back extra money, might be put into the same relative position as the people who will be here 15 years from now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there would be great difficulty about doing that. After all, these pensions are related to the indemnities. They are based on a 6 per cent contribution. The maximum indemnity paid up to April 8, 1963 was $8,000 and I think it would be hard to suggest that members of parliament should be put into the position of being able to make contributions in relation to something they never did receive. It is going quite far to say that they should be allowed to make contributions on the extra amount.


Michael Starr: The Secretary of State said members should not be allowed to contribute more than the charge on the indemnity they have been receiving. When the increase in the indemnity was made we were only paying 6 per cent on the $4,000 up to 1954. We have been receiving an additional $4,000-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And you can pay on that. That is precisely what this bill will allow members to do. It will allow the hon. member for Ontario to pay 6 per cent of the other $4,000 for the last nine years either in a lump sum or in instalments, and earn that much extra pension. But I do not think we could go beyond that.


Michael Starr: There is not much extra pension as far as the member himself is concerned. In my case, on retirement, it is about $2,050. If I paid that $2,160 plus interest I would also have the privilege of getting a survival benefit-


Some hon. Members:: Oh no.


Michael Starr: By doing that my pension would actually be reduced by some $16 a year.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the understanding which I have of this. If we go back and back, in my case, to 1954, we find at the moment I am entitled to X dollars. Somebody speaking on the radio yesterday morning said this was the most generous pension system the world had ever heard of. Well, I do not think so, and I would hate to think that the guild was getting one on the same basis. One has to win three elections to get a pension at all, which is not too easy, and having won them, one has to stay here for a good many more years. I have been here since 1948, and I can now get a pension somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,600. If I pick up the option my pension would be a little less than than, but my wife would have the benefit of a survivor's pension. So that although I would get a little less, ultimately, according to the ordinary law of nature, she would get a bit more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is perfectly clear that I have not made myself clear. In addition to realizing a benefit for oneself alone, there are two operations. One is just to convert and that means that your pension will be less. The other is both to convert and to augment by paying the back contributions on the other $4,000, and if you do that for that nine years the pension, of course, will be double what it would be if you did not augment.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like that to be cleared up because my understanding is exactly the reverse. For the sake of argument, suppose that I am prepared to go back to 1954 and to pay up everything. In other words, I am prepared to double. I have got my impression simply through casual conversation and I am not at all sure of my facts, but it is my impression that if I do that I will get a lesser pension should the bill go through and should I elect. If I should retire immediately afterwards I would get a lesser pension than if I did not elect at all. I am not critical but, as my colleague said, some of us were hoping there was an option whereby we could get survivorship and at the same time augment the rather meagre pension.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what there is. I think you have got to look at the two cases. There is the case of mere conversion without paying any more money. If one is in the fortunate position of the hon. member for Calgary North with his $3,000 pension he has three quarters, and if the officials will tell me what five twelfths will be it will be much easier for me to go on from there.
29, 1963
Senate and House of Commons Act


George Clyde Nowlan: You mean that by conversion you simply hold it where it is?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You just hold it where it is. You do not pay in another cent.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could answer this question before I have another one to confuse me.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: I think I have a simple explanation that will clarify this very point. Members like myself who have been here some six years have earned a pension of some $90 a month, if they wish to retire without paying anything additional.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt, but the Secretary of State has had a question put to him by senior members and I think that should be clarified before we clutter up the record with more facts. I make this as a suggestion.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps we could allow the hon. member for Timmins to continue until such time as the Secretary of States is prepared to reply to the particular question put to him a moment ago.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Possibly the hon. member for Bow River did not realize I was not asking a question. Without making any additional payments the members' pension on the joint basis would be reduced to $50 a month, but in the case of his death his widow would receive $30 a month as long as she lived. If he wants to increase his pension he can pay in some $1,440 and that would increase his eligible pension to $100 or twice what he would now have and it would increase his widow's pension to $60 or twice what she would have now. I think that should clarify the matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: If that answer will be accepted by the Secretary of State-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have had the arithmetic done and I am told that if you have paid enough to qualify for the $3,000 pension the survivor pension would be $1,667 for a man and his wife and for his widow it would be $1,000. This pension is already earned without paying in anything more. Without paying in another cent that is what you would get. If you want to contribute at 6 per cent on the $4,000 additional that you received as indemnity since 1954 you would get five twelfths of the additional contribution for yourself and three twelfths for your widow over and above what you have already earned.

Senate and House of Commons Act


George Clyde Nowlan: I never was any good at mathematics and I am not going to carry on a discussion with the Secretary of State. I do not know what the situation is if you have a $3,000 pension. The Secretary of State says that you will be able to do so and so. I do not have a $3,000 pension but I have one a couple of hundred dollars less and I am told the situation is entirely different. I am sure there must be some misunderstanding. I do not suppose we can clear it up tonight. We will have to leave it to the officials. Will the Secretary of State assure the committee that there are three options open to us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is absolutely no question that there are three options open. The pension earned up to April 8 can be left just as it is, or the pension can be converted from three quarters of the contributions to five twelfths for the husband and three twelfths for the widow. I admit that is a considerable reduction in the amount of the pension but it is a survivor pension and I am told it is an actuarially sound conversion. It is also open to contribute on the $4,000 additional that any member has received for any year since 1954 when the allowances were last increased, with interest, and that additional contribution would earn a pension of five twelfths of the contribution for the contributor and his wife and three twelfths for his widow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do the figures that were put on the record by the hon. member for Calgary North hold, namely that the paid up pension now of $3,000 together with the amount paid back for the nine years would result in a pension entitlement of $2,500 plus survivor benefits?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told that those figures are approximately correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have got into a fair amount of arithmetical confusion, but I want to say that I think the provisions of the bill in this respect are very fair and I do not think there is any discrimination against the older members compared with the newer ones as was suggested by my neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not use the word "discrimination".


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
George Clyde Nowlan: Without survivorship.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am one of the old timers and in addition I have not only been able to study this matter in academic terms but I have had experience with it. I was given a holiday in 1958 and one of the things that went with that holiday was to go on the pension for the time I was out of the house. I had been here long enough before the election of 1958 that when I went on that holiday I drew the full $3,000 pension, because I had paid in the full $4,000. In fact, I had paid it in by 1956. I understand that if I simply choose the option to convert and nothing else my pension when I leave again 20 or 30 years from now on the basis of that former pension would be only $1,667. That sounds like quite a drop but I suggest it is a very small price to pay for the guarantee that for my widow there will be a pension of $1,000. I suggest that not only is this well worked out actuarially but that it is very fair and a good bargain for any member to purchase for his potential or prospective widow.
Now, the member for Winnipeg South Centre says a young lad can come in now and is going to be able to earn $3,000 in the next ten years. So am I. If I am here for another ten years I can earn another $3,000 pension and have $3,000 plus the $1,667 that I have already earned from the old scheme. I have got more than that, because I can pay the 6 per cent on the $4,000 upon which I was not allowed to pay from 1954 to 1958. I suppose I could also pay on the $8,000 on which I did not pay anything at all, because I had paid the full $4,000 allowed under the former act. If I pay up, ten years from now my pension entitlement and my widow's potential pension entitlement will be a lot better than that of the young lad who has just come in.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did not like me calling it discriminatory, and I withdraw that word. But I do not believe there should be a suggestion that there is any unfairness in this to old timers like the hon. member for Calgary North and myself. We earned a certain pension for the service we put in here at the rate for the job at that time. We are now being given an opportunity to enhance that pension through payment on the portion on which we did not pay. We are also being given this other option, which is to accept a lower pension for ourselves in order to have a guaranteed pension for our widows. I think even the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings will discover, if he has his case worked out, that with what he is able to pay back on the $4,000 he was not able to pay on, and the fact that he may stay around a year or so or maybe another term,

he pension he will have earned and the pension he may leave for a potential widow will De pretty good.
I do not believe we should go any further n the matter of trying to enhance the pension by going back prior to April 8, 1963. I ;hink this will be found to be very fair to all )f us.


George Clyde Nowlan: I believe I should say that 10 one on this side of the house was trying ;o enhance it. What we were trying to do was jet the situation clarified.


Michael Starr: I understood the Secretary of State to say that there were three alternatives. Che third alternative was, if a person had a lension of $2,000 paid up he would have the iption of going back to 1954 and paying 6 per cent on the $4,000 indemnity for each fear. This would cost him about $2,160 and vould earn him an additional pension of five ;welfths of that amount which would be about >900. He would, therefore, increase his pension o $2,900, approximately. At the same time, lis widow would have a survivor's benefit if three fifths of the $900, which would give ler $540. Is that correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the $5,000 is on ;he whole amount. I am not sure whether 'ragmenting it makes it correct or not.


John Angus MacLean: This is the very hing which needs clarification. Perhaps I :an simplify it a bit. If one considers the pension which one earns by one year's serv-ce, he finds that last year he paid a contribu-;ion on half of his indemnity of $4,000 at 6 per cent which would make him eligible for * pension of $180 a year for that one year. Does this mean he can now contribute twice hat amount and double his pension; is that me of the options?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did not think, whether ve were wise or not, that we should permit ;he augmenting of the pension unless the :urvivor benefit was included. An hon. mem-per can freeze his pension for himself or he :an freeze it for himself and his wife, or he :an augment for himself and his wife, but he :annot augment it just for himself.


Mr. Nugent:: You cannot augment it as a pachelor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a sort of tax on pachelors.


John Angus MacLean: In the case of a nember who tries to pay back and con-;ributes on the extra $4,000 a year upon which he did not contribute formerly, is his pension reckoned on the basis of five twelfths pf only $4,000 or is it five twelfths of the |>8,000?
28902-5-176
Judges Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is five twelfths of the whole amount he has contributed.


John Angus MacLean: Then he can only augment his own pension by $20 for the five previous years' service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is not recognizing the very real value of the widow's survivor pension.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I want to ask the Secretary of State about the effect of this clause on former members who draw a pension. Can they get the survivor benefit and can they make any additional payments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the only advantage that former members have is that when they reach 70, if they do, there will be no deduction of the old age pension.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to increase the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada and the superior and county and district courts of the provinces; to provide salaries for eight additional judges of the superior court of Quebec; two additional judges of the supreme court of Nova Scotia including one chief justice, one additional judge of the queen's bench division of the supreme court of New Brunswick, one additional justice of appeal of the court of appeal for British Columbia, one additional judge of the supreme court of British Columbia, one additional judge of the court of queen's bench for Saskatchewan, one additional justice of appeal of the supreme court of Alberta and one additional puisne judge of the supreme court of Newfoundland; and to make certain consequential amendments to the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the bill to be founded on this resolution has two main purposes. The first purpose is to increase the salaries of judges of superior, district and county courts in Canada. Salaries for the judges of these courts were last increased in 1955, and I think most persons will agree that these salaries are at present inadequate.
Judicial salaries ought to be in keeping with the dignity of the bench and should be adequate to attract leaders at the bar. At the present time the financial sacrifice that must be made by many of the outstanding lawyers

Judges Act
of Canada who desire judicial appointment is greater than they can reasonably be expected to make. The increases that will be proposed will be fair and more realistic than the present salary scale and will, I am confident, enable us to continue to have in Canada a judicial service of the highest integrity and quality.
The second purpose of the proposed bill is to provide salaries for the additional judges mentioned therein, and for which provision has been made by the legislatures of the provinces concerned.
The bill also includes some consequential amendments to the definitions of the courts and Criminal Code, made necessary by certain changes in the organization of the supreme court of Nova Scotia.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say at this point to delay the passage of the resolution. It is one in which some of us have had a substantial interest for a considerable time. I realize there has been a great deal of pressure to augment some of the salaries in some of the courts, and in dealing with a widespread country such as we have it is difficult to lay down a uniform rule from Atlantic to Pacific.
There may be some judges who feel perfectly happy to go on the bench under the remuneration paid at the moment. There are others in different regions who feel they cannot afford to take an appointment to the bench. It is difficult to differentiate between one area and another, and on the whole this is a resolution which should commend itself to the committee. I personally, and I think my colleagues and associates, would be prepared to support it at this time.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman, to say that we can only approve this resolution, which will be followed by a bill, because it is admitted that the number of judges is insufficient, especially for the superior court in the province of Quebec.
However, before the bill is before us, 1 should like to submit one idea or two to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) who perhaps will be able to take them into consideration, and if necessary, propose the necessary changes.
The particular point I want to raise at this time concerns the appointment of eight new judges for the Quebec superior court. Has the minister made any inquiry, in view of the number of cases pending before the courts in the province of Quebec and of the waiting period before the cases are heard, which is

sometimes one year and a half, two years and even two years and a half?
Furthermore, does he think that the appointment of eight new judges will be enough to catch up with the cause-list in the superior court of the province of Quebec?
Does the Minister of Justice believe that eight new judges will be enough to enable reasonably prompt hearing, at least more prompt than at present, of cases now on the rolls of the superior court of Quebec?
Mr. Chairman, I raise this point because we are dealing now with a resolution providing for the appointment of eight new superior court judges in the province of Quebec and I am wondering whether this number is enough. The minister will undoubtedly reply that it is following investigations he carried out, because I do not believe he would have mentioned such a figure, eight new judges, without previously inquiring to determine whether the number would be enough, not only to catch up with cases presently pending, but also taking into consideration the fact that there is a constant increase of the number of cases submitted to the superior court of the province of Quebec.
Consequently, I would ask the minister to tell us why he suggested the appointment of eight new judges and why he selected this number.
(Text):


Mr. Brewin:: I hardly anticipate that discussion of this item will arouse quite the same interest as discussion of the last item to come before us. Nevertheless I should like to say a few words on the resolution before it passes, and it then may not be necessary to speak at any length on the bill when it is introduced.
Generally speaking we in this party agree with the resolution. I do not believe anybody in the house will disagree with the proposition that one of the pillars in our democratic system is an independent and highly qualified judiciary. The rates of salary therefore must do two things, enable men of high standing in the profession to be available, and to give those appointed as judges reasonable financial security.
As some hon. members know the practice of law produces fairly high financial rewards. Some people may not like that. In fact there are several members of my own party who are not particularly enthusiastic about it, but whether we like it or not it is one of the facts of life. When judges are appointed to the bench it is a tradition that they should be

prepared to accept financial sacrifice; but nevertheless there is no benefit to the country, and indeed it would be very injurious, if the degree of sacrifice were so great that some qualified men could not accept judicial office or, if they did, were burdened with financial anxiety.
It was suggested, with regard to the bill and resolution increasing the salaries of members of this and the other house, that there was a proper corollary, namely, that they should be expected to attend more regularly to their duties and give a higher degree of performance. It would be obviously improper to attach any such corollary to the proposed increase in salaries of judges. In fact, as I myself might have to return to practice I would be the last to make any such suggestion, but nevertheless I think there is a useful corollary to this resolution that could be added if these salaries are increased.
It is that appointments to the bench at the higher rate of salaries should be made strictly on the basis of merit without any reference to political patronage. I have been informed that this has occasionally crept into appointments in the past. I suggest that with this resolution should go the corollary that appointments to the better paid judicial posts should in future carry with them the fact that they are such that it could never be suspected by anybody that they were rewards for political service.
We in this party are filled with the equali-tarian philosophy and a deep sense of justice. For that reason we are particularly anxious to see that the bill takes care of those on the lower level of judicial salaries and in the so-called lower ranks of the judges, county and district court judges, who have a greater burden of work than those in the higher realm of appellate courts. We are anxious to see that the bill is fair to those on the lower level, rather than is sometimes the practice of increasing the salaries at the top and not paying too much attention to those on the lower level.
I also notice the resolution provides for the appointment of quite a number of additional judges. That may be necessary, but I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should at the same time discuss with the provincial attorneys general a series-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that quite a few conversations are being carried on in the chamber, which makes it difficult for the Chair to follow what is being said.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I opened my remarks by anticipating that discussion on 28902-5-176J
Judges Act
this subject would not receive the degree of attention that was given to the previous subject. Nevertheless I thank you, sir, for reducing the competition. I was just going to finish my remarks by saying that the overburdening of the courts today is largely due to the fact that in many instances they are performing functions which could far better be performed by others, namely administrative tribunals. I am referring to the heavy burden imposed on all our courts by motor accident cases, often tried with juries, which is a most antiquated, inadequate sort of procedure for dealing with the type of problem that is involved in these so-called negligence cases.
If we were to find out from our judges how much of their time is devoted to this perfectly useless and inadequate procedure it may be that the provincial governments could be persuaded to hand over actions of this type to administrative tribunals, such as the workmen's compensation board which now deals with industrial accidents. If we had a board to deal with motor accident cases, they would be solved much more quickly, cheaply and satisfactorily. It would relieve the burden on the courts and we in this house would not be asked constantly to provide for the additional judges to perform this type of function.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its close attention to my words. I conclude by saying that in general we approve of this resolution.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I rise just to say I am very disappointed in this resolution because I see no additional judges are to be provided for the exchequer court. All hon. members will be aware of my reason for being disappointed that this has not been done. I would have thought this would have been the ideal time to appoint additional exchequer court judges and it could have been fitted in with the judicial program of the Minister of Justice. However, that is not really my reason for rising to speak. The minister can make these additional appointments at any time and perhaps he thinks the exchequer court already has such a limited amount of work at certain periods of the year that no additional judges are necessary.
I rose to say, again, that some consideration should be given by the government as to the type of people they appoint as judges, particularly in the lower courts. We have some terrible magistrates in this country. I can remember an old magistrate about whom everybody used to say it depended on the state of his ulcers as to the kind of a disposition he would make of a case. There are

Judges Act
others today that to my knowledge fall within the same category. There is one particular judge to whom I think the minister should give some attention. He has sat on an arbitration case for something like 11 months. It is this sort of work that is being asked of judges. Of course, it has to be approved by the minister, as I understand it, or one of his officials before they can take on this extra work. It is not work that we would like to eliminate completely because there are times when a judge sits on a labour dispute or matters of this type, such as Mr. Justice Norris who sat on the recent commission, and does a remarkable job and a job that one should be quite proud of. But there are other cases where judges are taking on extra work outside the judicial field, which I believe is not in the interests of justice and where in many cases a judge is not really required to decide the issue.
I have raised this matter previously and I know it was considered by a former minister of justice. There was some review of the number of outside jobs judges were allowed to take on. I am sure the minister has this matter in mind and there will be some tightening up of the extracurricular work judges are allowed to undertake, in the interest of justice and in the interest of other jobs they may be called upon to perform.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-92 to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent.


Lionel Chevrier: 
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this is technically the second reading of the bill, but it is much easier in a clause by clause study to deal with it in detail in committee rather than when discussing the general principle. I intend to take only two minutes on second reading just to follow up the suggestion of the minister on a matter to which I think he should give pretty careful consideration. I have just glanced over the suggested increases and I think the house will agree that they are on a reasonable but fairly generous scale. As some of us know, there have been cases in the past where judges have had to take on extra curricular activities, shall we say, either because it was of the custom in the area, or because in other cases quite frankly they needed to earn additional money. It would appear to me that the salaries which are suggested here-and I know a certain predecessor of the minister felt very strongly about this matter-are such that the minister should be very careful in exercising his discretion in permitting judges to undertake any extracurricular activities outside of their appointment to the bench.
That is, of course, a matter with which the minister will have to deal. I realize there are cases where it is desirable in the public service that certain judges be authorized to do that; but there have been many complaints from some areas of judges spending so much time on commissions and on various references that they either did not have much to do on the bench, or if they had they did not spend much time on it because they were spending too much time off the bench.
Second-again this is a matter for committee-there is no reference to pensions. I know that pensions in some cases are automatic under the statute. Probably the minister has been told that there were certain classes of judges, from whom I have heard very often, as I am sure he has both in his present position and before he sat where he is sitting now, where an increase has gone through for county court judges and district court judges with no corresponding increase in the pension, and they felt that an injustice had been done. 1 think that complaint has some merit, and

Judges Act
when we get into committee the minister can discuss further with us the question of pensions for the judges.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to address to the house on second reading of this bill. I think all hon. members will agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and I must commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) for carrying out a great deal of the work which had been done by his predecessor toward achieving the result arrived at at the present time. We know that in many provinces, because of increased population and business activity, and what have you, there are interminable delays in hearings as a result either of a paucity in the number of judges or because some judges, as my colleague from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) indicated, have been occupied with matters outside their normal judicial functions. The minister has rightly said that the question of increases in the numbers of judges in the various provinces is one for the provincial legislatures concerned. I commend him for his attitude, that the role of the Minister of Justice in this regard should not be entirely passive. I have had some experience with my own province in this connection and I know that a prod from the Minister of Justice can bring about appropriate results. I believe this applies, also, to the other provinces.
Another point with which the minister might concern himself has to do with the administration of justice generally. It goes to the question of whether justice is done. Unfortunately, there are a certain number of judges who show a degree of procrastination in getting out judgments. Some judges are more notorious than others in this regard. I think a periodic review of some sort might be undertaken; a prod here and a prod there from an official source might help to remedy the situation. We know that judges working on crowded calendars tend to deal with those matters which are relatively simple and to lay aside those which are complicated. The first thing we know is that, notwithstanding all the goodwill which exists, there is an accumulation of reserved judgments. I suggest the minister might look into this and institute a periodical review.
An increase in the number of judges in Alberta at the level of the court of appeals as well as an increase in the salaries has been much in the minds of the hon. members from the province. A number of us are lawyers and we have continuing contact with the courts of that province. I should like to point out that the hon. member for Bow River has been a member of the committee of the
Canadian bar and has made recommendations with regard to this question in the past. I think that with the level of salaries now proposed we should be able to attract the right type of man. There are things that a man has to give up when he leaves private practice to become a judge. This is only a measure of compensation. With regard to the proposed increase in the number of appeal judges in Alberta, may I say this will be of great help because it would permit the court to sit in two sections and do more than double the work the present court can now accomplish.
With these few remarks I commend the government on the introduction of this bill and express the hope it will readily pass.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have here one of two notes I should like to interpolate for the house. I had an idea, earlier, of making an extended address. However, I see it is getting late.
I wish to indicate immediately my support for the purpose behind this bill. As a member of the New Brunswick bar I have long felt that judges of the superior, district or county courts are grossly underpaid and I am pleased the government has recognized this fact. The Canadian Bar Association has recommended, I understand, that the increase be 50 per cent of present salaries. The bill before us does not provide quite this amount but it is still an indication that the government recognizes the seriousness of the situation which exists as far as the bench of Canada is concerned.
The national commission for the administration of justice has been studying what it feels to be the vexing problem of judicial districts. I hope the Minister of Justice will vigorously pursue the objective of redefining the area of responsibility of county and district judges in consultation with provincial attorneys general. It seems to me that in 1963 county judges must have over-all jurisdiction within the province and not be confined as they are at the present time within ancient boundaries no longer having any relevance in these days of rapid communication and changing living patterns. As an example, in my province of New Brunswick, the superior court and the county court meet on Tuesday of the week. If one is a historian and investigates this, he finds it is because it was the feeling of the officials that judges could not get to their respective county seats before Tuesday, having in mind the transportation facilities available. This, of course, is an ancient clutter of the law. There is no reason why courts should not start their work on Mondays. I hope the minister will look into this situation.
I have here a comment concerning the amendment to the Judges' Act which was

passed in 1960, and I see I have classified this as an urgent matter. That amendment made it compulsory for superior court judges to retire at 75 years of age. I had the privilege, when I was in another office, of recommending this change to the cabinet of New Brunswick and it was unanimously adopted by all the provinces as well as by the government of Canada. I think it was sensible legislation but I will allow my heart to rule my head for a few minutes. It seems to me that this legislation might well benefit those judges who have retired between 1960 and today. I intend to ask the minister if he would find out for me how many judges were affected by the amendment to the British North America Act and whether the public treasury would be subject to an intolerable burden if these judges or their dependants could be brought under a scheme enabling them to enjoy the wider benefits which are inherent in the present legislation.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who is now surrounded by a covey of advisers, in a most interesting address at another stage of this bill mentioned the subject of judges who were given other responsibilities, and I feel this is a matter which the house should consider. Here I am treading on Ontario soil, and I am told that for a lower Canadian to tread on Ontario soil is dangerous. I am told there are district court judges in Ontario who have other responsibilities; that there are some, for example, who are chairmen of liquor boards. Then, in a most interesting juxtaposition there are others who are chairmen of milk boards. Whether this is a puritan counterposition I do not know. I am new at this; but I feel that if judges are to become chairmen of provincial boards they should be required to withdraw their demands on the public treasury in relation to their judicial functions. Either they should be chairmen of milk boards and liquor boards or they should be county or district court judges. I know that the national association for the administration of justice has considered this matter and is concerned about the extracurricular duties of judges. I have in mind two rather recent instances of judges serving in other capacities. One is a highly respected judge of the supreme court of New Brunswick who was called upon to be chairman of a commission to investigate the liquor laws of that province. I think this justice was placed in a most invidious position. I am speaking here with all the protection afforded by this house, but I think that this is a wrong avenue for judges to exercise their responsibilities. I have no criticism of the particular judge. I admire him; but I think that judges should not be called upon to exercise duties for which
Judges Act
the provincial authorities seem unable or unwilling to find people to carry out these responsibilities, and so they slough them off on our supreme court judges.
Although I have no evidence to support my statement, I understand that some of the wealthy provinces, such as British Columbia -here I am looking at the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Nicholson)-pay their superior court judges extra-well, I will just say "extra" in quotation marks and leave it dangling like that.


Mr. Nicholson:: The hon. member is wrong. It is county court judges, and it is paid for doing surrogate court work.


Mr. Fairweather:: I am not going to argue with the hon. gentleman whose experience is much vaster than mine, but may I put it this way: There are provinces in Canada that pay an extra amount to judges. I am not going to single out any province, but I think this is quite wrong in principle. This is a multiprovincial problem and it should be faced in the same way across Canada. I hope the minister will keep this in mind when he is making appointments. In the first place, judges should not be paid anything extra because of the province in which they happen to serve and, second, they should not be asked to carry out extracurricular duties by reason of their independent status.
Lastly, may I make a plea with regard to judges' expense accounts. I was going to refer to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau) with a pleasant adjective and I cannot think of one, but the feeling is in my heart. He has had experience in the Department of Justice and I say to him: For heaven's sake, can we not allow judges to submit their expense account without having some official check them? The position of judge is the most senior position at the hand of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Surely if we trust judges to administer the law and to make decisions affecting our lives and liberties we can trust them to furnish expense accounts that do not need to be checked by officials. This is quite a serious thing with many of our judges, and I hope that under the administration of the present minister this petty problem will be solved at an early date. This matter has also been discussed by the national commission for the administration of justice. I think that judges should not be subjected to this invidious checking by people who have no idea of the problems that judges have to face.
To sum up, may I say that I am in favour of the increases. I had hoped they would be those that were recommended by the Canadian Bar Association, namely, 50 per cent of

Judges Act
the present stipend. May I urge the minister to check on the problem of extracurricular milk and liquor board duties that are engaged in by some of our judges. Lastly, I ask the minister to respect judges' expense accounts by not checking them.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Quebec bar, I am pleased to congratulate the government on this sound initiative following on the legislation adopted by the province of Quebec to add eight new judges to the present bench of the superior court. In the second place, I wish to congratulate it for having understood the truly remarkable task performed by the judges of the superior court in the province of Quebec. Their work is sometimes very heavy and, unfortunately, it should be added that their task is not always easy, due to the lack of co-operation on +hp part of the members of the bar who too often find some reasons for not proceeding, with the result that, in almost all judicial districts, there is an incomprehensible load of pending cases. It happens at times that contending parties have to wait 18, 20 and even 24 months before their case is heard before the judges of the superior court.
As far as Quebec is concerned, a suggestion might be made, which does not concern federal authorities, but which nevertheless deserves consideration. It would be advisable to extend the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court to cases involving up to $500 instead of $200, which would help clear out the rolls of the superior court, in addition to permitting the dispatch of cases pending before our courts.
Judges of the superior court, the itinerant judges as well as those residing in the city of Montreal who must visit many judicial districts, carry out a truly remarkable task, because they are very humane in the performance of their duties and anxious to help lawyers, especially those from the rural areas.
To my mind, and whether my colleagues in the large cities like it or not, hon. judges very much like to have members of the rural bar plead, because the latter are, perhaps, those who prepare their cases best. And here, I would be remiss not to suggest to the Minister of Justice to give special consideration to a request which was unfortunately not granted by the last government, that is the
[Mr. Falrweather.l
perpetual request by the rural bar association of the province of Quebec for better representation and better treatment as far as the choice of superior court judges is concerned.
I have great respect for the large city lawyers, more particularly for those in Montreal; but the recruiting is, from my humble point of view, too frequently limited to the city of Montreal, whereas members of the rural bar are overlooked in appointments to the superior court. Every year, or at least almost every year, a resolution is passed by the rural bar association to that effect, but the government, whichever it may be, does not seem quite to realize the significance of that issue. I think that the members of the rural bar are entitled to a better treatment than the practising members of the rural bar in the judicial districts of the province of Quebec are now getting.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wanted to make in the house, and I am sure that the judges of the superior court and of the court ot appeal in me province ?f Quebec will be delighted with this legislation which was needed for quite some time, and which is particularly well deserved because of the truly magnificent work accomplished by the judges of those two courts.
I trust that the Minister of Justice, when he will consult his cabinet colleagues, will look after the needs, and more particularly the very legitimate claims of the rural bar in the province of Quebec. It would be desirable that at least three of those eight judges be chosen among the members of that bar, when the government proceeds with the needed appointments.
(Text):


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I join with others in congratulating the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). I think that all members on both sides of the house certainly must commend the minister today upon bringing forward this particular bill relating to our judges. I think a member who has sat in this house for even the short time I have appreciates that the Minister of Justice is a man who is equally fluent in the French and English languages, is1 perfectly bilingual, and that all lawyers respect him as one of our gentlemen members of the bar. We are very happy to see him in his position of Minister of Justice.
1 know the minister would not mind me saying at this time that a lot of credit is due the Canadian Bar Association and particularly Mr. Pattillo, who worked with this committee, and met not only with this government but the previous government to discuss

problems relating to increases in pay for those people who are dedicated to public service, the members of our judiciary. I listened with great interest to an hon. member who is also a member of the Alberta bar. I may say to the minister that in the province of Alberta we feel we have a very fine court of appeal. I do not believe we have ever had a complaint from the Alberta bar or the Canadian bar in reference to our court of appeal. They have always given good service not only to the members of the Alberta bar but to the members of the bar of other provinces. They have always been prompt in delivering their judgments.
I think, too, we have been very fortunate in that province in the calibre of the men we have had, no matter which government has made these appointments. Our judges are of a high standard, not only in the court of appeal, the trial division, but in our county courts as well. There have been occasions when we have had the odd judge delay a judgment. I think, when it comes to getting work done the most important position in these courts is that of the chief justice. If the chief justice organizes the work with the members of the bar, they can avoid a lot of headaches. I know that many of our judges, particularly in the trial division, state that on some occasions there may be nine or ten cases set down for trial during a week. When the cases are called there are only three or four ready to go ahead. In some cases it is not the fault of the members of the bar, but their clients or witnesses are not ready for litigation at this time.
So far as the bar of Alberta is concerned, I can safely say they get good service from the court of appeal, the trial division and district courts. I should like to mention also that I feel the three most important things to consider in choosing a judge are the character of the person, his experience and his understanding of human nature. Of course some people say, probably in a humorous vein, that if they have a little knowledge of the law that is helpful also. Seriously, so far as that province is concerned, I do not believe we have any complaint.
I should like to pay respect to two men who have dedicated their lives to the service of the bench. I practised in Saskatchewan for ten years and I have practised ten years in the province of Alberta. The chief justice of Saskatchewan, Mr. Justice Martin, served his province for, I think it was 25 or 30 years on the bench. He did a tremendous job and left an impression not only on most members of the bar who appeared before him but other members of the bench. I should like to mention also Chief Justice Clinton Ford of the province of Alberta.
Judges Act
I do not want to delay this measure, but I should like to congratulate the minister once again. I do not think anyone could say that there has not been action on the part of the government today. This should go down in the history of Canada as one of those days that was very important to those men who serve the interests of the public.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did
not intend to say a word in this debate, but I rise to say one or two things that have come to my mind this evening. First of all, like other members of this group, I support the principle of this bill. I must say that I have had very happy associations with a number of supreme court judges and county court judges in British Columbia and realize the valuable work they have done and the valuable function that they perform on behalf of our democratic society. I think Canadians, in the last week or two, must have had that brought to their particular attention because of the illuminating report of Mr. Justice Norris in respect of the ruthless dictatorship of Mr. Hal Banks over the members of the seafarers international union.
Then, this evening we heard of the decision of Mr. Justice Lett of the supreme court of British Columbia in respect of Premier Bennett's acts of piracy in connection with the takeover of B.C. Electric. I think in one instance we found one justice protecting human rights, civil rights, and the other one protecting property rights in the right sense of the word. We are all in favour of public ownership, but we believe in the rule of law, and those things being done so that everyone's rights are respected. When things are brought to a conclusion, everybody realizes they have received justice under the law.
I rose, Mr. Speaker, simply to make these few comments on this particular situation that exists this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Salaries of judges of Supreme Court of Canada.
George Clyde Nowlan: 1 do not know whether the minister is prepared to deal with detailed questions at this time. I certainly do not want to go into too much detail anyway, but I mentioned earlier that the statutory provisions for pensions of judges are separate and apart from the salary schedule which we have before us. However, I can remind the minister fairly forcibly, as I have been reminded forcibly by friends of mine on the bench, that at least on one occasion when an increase was put through in the salaries

Judges Act
of judges someone overlooked amending the pension statute. Although the judges, in this case the county court judges, received a salary increase from $8,000 to $10,000, the pension remained payable and is still payable on the basis of the original statute.
I would hope that amongst the matters with which the minister will deal will be the pension legislation. I hope it will be amended so that, if necessary, it will reflect the increase in the salaries, if that is the desire of the government and I presume it is; and I would suggest to the minister that he look also at this matter to which I referred, namely the increase in salary for county court judges some years ago. Since I came here I have been told very forcefully, one might say blasphemously but of course judges never swear, that the increase in salary was effective, but someone overlooked the increase in the pension. That was one category of judges to whom the increase did not apply. I would hope the minister would take a careful look at this point.


Lionel Chevrier: T can assure the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that tnere was careful consideration given to the question he has raised with respect to pensions. Not only was consideration given but representations were made by several groups. However it was thought inadvisable to put them in this bill.
If one looks at the increases, which the hon. member earlier said were on the generous side, then one can come to no other conclusion but that the annuities, because of the increases, will be increased as well; but the whole question of pensions, annuities and survivor benefits would have meant a tremendous increase in the cost to the treasury, and after careful consideration the government decided to present the bill, as it now is, to the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: You might take a look at that one particular class to which I have reference, the county court judge class.


Lionel Chevrier: I should be glad to do so.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is the minister in a position to answer my question about judges who might have retired as a result of the amendment to the British North America Act, and the consequent amendment to the Judges Act, retiring judges at 75 years of age?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Royal has posed a number of questions and I do not know whether he wants answers to all of them.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: I am hoping it will be possible to get this legislation through tonight;

if not, I will be in the hands of the house. His main question related to how many judges were affected by the amendment to the British North America Act, passed in 1960. The answer is 160. Then there was also the question of the cost. I am unable to give the amount but I would say there would be a fairly substantial amount of money involved.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Could the minister advise whether these judges who are presiding over milk and liquor boards in Ontario will be entitled to this increase, and at the same time be milk men and liquor men?


Lionel Chevrier: This question of the extracurricular activities of the various judges affects not only the judge or judges which the hon. member has in mind but, as I said earlier, there are not nearly as many as the committee might think. In the case of Ontario I do not think there are more than three or four, and this bill does not affect them. In order to do so I think one would have to amend the act, and the government did not see fit to do this because of the small number of them.
If the act were amended, then they would have to cut out these extracurricular clCLlVlUtC, and I do not think we would be prepared to do this because of the numerous demands that come in from provincial governments and which are sometimes difficult to resist. The appointments are made by the governor in council, on recommendation of the Minister of Justice after careful consideration; but the one my hon. friend has in mind was made some time ago.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I know the minister is anxious to have the bill pass, but it seems to me that some years ago there was a feeling there would be an option for these judges. I am glad the minister tells us there are only a few of them, and they could either put up or shut up, if that is a judicial term to use. They could either accept this increase and get out of their extracurricular activities, or else not be obliged to receive the extra indemnity. To me this would be reasonable.
Perhaps this is the wrong place to discuss it, but for instance the judge of the county court of York, as I understand it, earns more than the chief justice of Ontario, with extra and fringe benefits. This is a wrong principle and I hope the minister will courageously pursue the ending of this system. Does he earn more than the chief justice of Ontario?


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member referring to the chairman of the liquor control board in Ontario?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the new bill he will not.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: How close will he come under the new bill? I think it is quite a wrong principle.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to discussing this, if that is the wish of the committee, but I would bring it to the attention of the hon. member that if we are to go into these extracurricular activities, then one cannot select one particular judge. One must go over the whole field; and then if we get down to police magistrates we will find that there are police magistrates in certain parts of the country who are getting far more than judges.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is quite correct.


Lionel Chevrier: But police magistrates do not come under the jurisdiction of this parliament. They fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and certainly this is the case in Ontario.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Could the minister inform the house whether the government of the province of Quebec has officially informed the Department of Justice, in Ottawa, about the passing of the bill so that they could proceed with the appointment of superior court judges for the province of Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, a bill was passed by the province of Quebec legislature, and it is for that reason that we are discussing this bill at this time, the second part at least, together with the recommendations made by the other provinces.


Rémi Paul: But was the Department of Justice officially informed by the province of Quebec legislature of the adoption of such a measure?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and later on through conversations I had with the attorney general.


Rémi Paul: Does the bill provide for the appointment of judges for designated judicial districts?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Rémi Paul: Does the minister intend to proceed with the appointment of those judges before the opening of the courts?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, if this bill is adopted, I should like to see these judges appointed for the fall sittings.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell the committee to what judicial districts have been assigned the eight judges of the superior court?
Judges Act


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There are three for the Quebec district, three for the Montreal district, one for the district of Hull, and one for St. Francois-Bedford district.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. members who sit on this side of the house, I would feel remiss were I to let this opportunity go by without congratulating the Minister of Justice for this bill concerning the salary of judges in the different courts.
Due to the late hour, I will have only a few words to say on this bill which not only provides for a well deserved salary increase for the judges in the various courts, but deals also with the appointment of eight new judges to the superior court to fill a very great need. As you know, this is a civil law court in the province of Quebec. I also congratulate the minister for acting with such speed.
I remember that for many long years members of the bar, with the support of the newspapers, the trade unions and a host of public authorities, have been requesting the appointment of additional judges to the superior court. However, it was only in the last few weeks that the premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage, realized the situation and authorized the appointment of eight new judges in the districts mentioned by the Minister of Justice, particularly the district of St. Frangois-Bed-ford. I am sure that the appointment of a judge in the St. Frangois-Bedford district will greatly speed the administration of justice.
I take this opportunity for congratulating the Minister of Justice who, in such a short time, has done all he could to help the administration of justice. This is characteristic of the dynamic spirit of the federal government.
In addition, I hope the Minister of Justice will appoint those judges to the superior court before the fall sittings, which will make for a better administration of justice at the very beginning of the court hearings in September.
Since I do not want to delay the passage of this bill, I conclude my remarks by offering, on behalf of the lawyers from the province of Quebec and the hon members sitting on this side of the house, my congratulations to the Minister of Justice for this timely legislation.
(Text):


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the bill and in order to accelerate its passage I just want to ask the minister a question regarding clause 5.


Lionel Chevrier: Could we get clause 1 through
first?

Judges Act


Howard Russell MacEwan: If you wish to take it that way, that is fine.


Lionel Chevrier: I would prefer to do that.


Howard Russell MacEwan: All right; as long as clause 5 does not pass until I have raised this question.


Mr. Baldwin:: I have just one question, Mr. Chairman, in the light of what the minister said when he introduced this measure. With regard to the two sections of the British North America Act dealing with the administration of justice and the appointment of judges, I wonder whether the minister would find an opportunity before this matter is completed to obtain an opinion from his officials as to whether or not under section 96, dealing with the appointment of judges, the Minister of Justice has the right to indicate what should be the limitations upon the duties of judges so far as matters apportioned to them by provincial governments are concerned.
This is a matter I have had under consideration for some time. I know that in our province, for example, the surrogate and estate court work is something in regard to which county court judges have been assigned duties, and it functions very well; but under section 96 I am wondering to what extent the minister, in making an appointment within the four corners of that section, can limit what shall be the duties of the judge.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, my understanding from the officials of the Department of Justice is that the sole right of the Minister of Justice is to appoint.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up any time on this matter but I would like to move an amendment as follows:
That following subsection (b), clause 5, in section 1 of part 1, add subsection (c);
"one puisne judge, for divorce, each $21,000''.
The argument could be made that this would be adding to the expenditure of the government, but I would maintain that in view of the resolution preceding the bill this amendment would be in order and could be accepted on the basis of being covered by the original resolution.


Lionel Chevrier: If I might just say one word, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is clearly out of order for the reason that it is not covered by the resolution. It not being mentioned in the resolution, I do not think the hon. member has the right to move such an amendment,

because this will mean an additional expenditure to the treasury. Therefore I submit, with deference, that the amendment is out of order.


William Arnold Peters: I would be happy to accept the minister's position without any argument and would suggest he could move this amendment and it would not then be out of order. I would be quite happy to have that done.


Lionel Chevrier: I am very grateful to the hon. member for his suggestion, but I am afraid I could not accede to it, at this time at least.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair will rule immediately on the amendment. I think it would probably be admitted by the hon. member who moved this amendment that it is clearly out of order because it introduces something entirely new to the resolution which was before the committee. Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Salaries of judges of suvreme court of Nova Scotia.
Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister if he would clarify the change in section 10 of the Judges Act regarding the provision of two additional judges for the supreme court of Nova Scotia. As I understand it, and it is clear here but I am a little thick in the head at times, the present chief justice of Nova Scotia would then become the chief justice of the appeal division, one new judge would be appointed to the appeal division and a judge from the present trial division would also be added to the appeal division of the court; so that finally there would be three judges in the appeal court, including the chief justice, and a chief justice and five judges, instead of the present six, in the trial division of the supreme court of Nova Scotia.


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding is that there will be two additional judges and that new commissions will have to issue. I think the explanatory note is quite clear as to what the intention is. The judicature act of the province of Nova Scotia provides for this. It does not follow that this will be done; it will depend upon whether or not the act is proclaimed by the province of Nova Scotia. If it is, then consideration will have to be given to these appointments by the federal government.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I understand there was legislation before the house in the twenty fifth parliament regarding this matter and it was certainly conditioned on the proclaiming

of the Nova Scotia judicature act. But there was legislation before the twenty fifth parliament in this regard.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 5 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the house leader. One, what is the business for tomorrow; second, is he prepared to give us a forecast of the business for the rest of the week so we can determine how long the session will continue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am really grateful to the hon. gentleman for putting the question the way he has, because I think I had better indicate first, as clearly as I can see it now, just what business there still is that the government feels must be done, if at all possible, before we have an adjournment.
There is the third reading of the two bills that we completed in committee stage today, which normally are not even announced but which would be the first things taken tomorrow. Then there is the completion of the committee stage and the third reading of the excise tax bill; there is the committee stage and third reading of the economic council bill; and second reading, the committee stage and third reading of the municipal development and loan board bill. There is also the bill on the surcharge order, which I think
Business of the House is on the paper for second reading at the moment. Then there is the bill about the bridge across the St. Lawrence river which has already passed the other place, and I am very hopeful the house will be able to find a few minutes to dispose of it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Interim supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us do the bridge bill now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, as it does not have to go to the other place, if hon. gentlemen are in a mood to put anything through we might put the economic council through now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only other item I can think of, and I am speaking from memory because I went over the order paper not long ago, is the possibility that there may have to be a request for some legislation arising out of the Norris report, but I am not able to say more than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister not forgotten one important item, interim supply?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was an exchange between the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and myself that the hon. member perhaps did not hear. No, I have not forgotten that. So I think the order will be as follows: the excise tax, the economic council, the municipal development and loan bill, the surcharge order, interim supply and the bridge bill. There may be something arise between now and the end of the week which none of us can foresee, as has happened before, but I sincerely hope there will not be.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will try to think of something.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 30, 1963