1963-12-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) presented the third report of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping and moved that the motion appearing on today's order paper concerning concurrence in second report of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping presented on December 5, be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of bills.
The Secretary of State-Bill intituled: An act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secrelary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think there was an understanding which was set out by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition last Friday that this bill would simply be introduced so it would be visible to the public and, in accord with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition, would be available for discussion among the various parties and groups during the session. It was also clearly understood that the bill simply set out a method; that it was subject to all the qualifications I set out at an earlier stage; that in any respect except the fundamental principle of an impartial non-partisan redistribution it would be open to amendment from any quarter of the house in accord with the views of the majority of hon. members.
I should perhaps say one more thing. There is one point upon which I would not want to be thought to have misled the house. I gave an answer during the course of the debate
to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka about the suggested method the government had in mind in its legislation of setting up the commissions and appointing the commissioners. In the light of the debate that particular suggestion has been changed, and the change will be seen in the bill. The provision there is not as I explained it to the hon. gentleman because it seemed to me that several hon. members made certain arguments that deserved consideration, and I did not want even to put forward the suggestion that was originally intended because it seemed to me there was a better suggestion than that to put forward. But it, of course, is open to discussion and amendment, and the government has no intention of proceeding with the measure in its present form beyond first reading.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed to reply to the minister, my understanding, and I may have been mistaken, was that there would be no introduction of the bill but that there would be discussion among representatives of the various parties during the period of the Christmas recess or between this session and the next one.
I must say that in my opinion even first reading at this time will not bring about that measure of agreement that all of us desire. I would hope that the minister would consider holding it back rather than having first reading at this time, because introduction of this bill can only increase very considerably the discussion on the bill respecting the appointment of the official. I feel that the bill should not be given first reading at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to comply with the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman. There was only one reason the government thought it would be desirable to introduce a bill indicating a method. It was thought that this might facilitate certain public discussion outside the house, and at the same time we would have a document that would be available in the house. But the main concern of the government in this matter, which concerns all of us, is to achieve the utmost harmony; and certainly if the right hon. gentleman did not understand we were to follow the procedure which I thought had been agreed to I would
5636	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry not wish to proceed. Since the motion has not been put I would simply ask that the matter stand.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, before unanimous consent is given I should like to say that while I have no thought of disturbing any harmony which may or may not exist, the view of this party is that it would be most useful for us to have a draft bill, because if we had such a bill we could then better discuss the legislation having to do with the representation commissioner. Even though it is not intended to proceed with the bill at this session, it would provide a basis for discussion inside and outside the house, and we would be able to approach the problem at the next session much more intelligently if we had this material before us.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it was our understanding that this bill would be presented in this way in order to do the very thing that the previous speaker has outlined, and we would support this procedure without question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there would be agreement to have the matter stand over for the time being so there could be consultation through the usual channels, which I will undertake to carry out in the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Mr. Winch:: There is only one person with any misunderstanding and that is the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, if I may add a word in order that we may possibly have a clearer understanding of the situation, I would point out that the course now to be followed is precisely what I understood in the negotiations would be done.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Secretary of State a question. If it is not possible to get the necessary harmony to go ahead with the introduction of the bill today, will he consider discussing the matter through the usual channels in the hope that the bill may be introduced before this session ends, so we can have it before us and can examine it before the next session?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought that was precisely what I said, and that there was agreement with that view.


Mr. Nowlan:: Yes, that is what you said, and there is agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that this bill should stand. Is it agreed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the request of the government, of course.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that several days have passed since the minister of defence announced the cut-backs and reductions in defence estimates, is he in a position to advise, on the basis of the examination that must have been made in anticipation of his statement in this regard, what will be the number of personnel to be struck from the strength of Canada's armed forces, and what will be the reduction in civilian strength in consequence of this new policy?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have this information with me at the moment, but I will try and get it for the right hon. gentleman if he would like.


John George Diefenbaker: Approximately.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The figures include one or two minor adjustments which are presently under consultation and have to be separated. If the right hon. gentleman wishes, either tomorrow or the next day I can try to separate them; otherwise I can give the detailed figures which will include all the proposals we have made when I get back from the NATO council meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the house should have this information before the NATO council meets. The government has determined upon this course, and this very important information has not yet been vouchsafed the membership of this house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and get the information.


Mr. Churchill:: Will you do it by means of a press release?



REPORTED INABILITY TO SUPPLY LARGER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Winnipeg Free Press for Saturday, December 7, carries an article which says that mainland China wanted 55,500,000 bushels of Canadian wheat in its second contract under the long term agreement but had to settle for 18,700,000 bushels. May I ask the minister if that is

correct, and why it was not possible to take advantage of this very large offer to purchase Canadian wheat.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, of course, that the wheat board did enter into a contract for half a million tons for the second half of the present crop year. The Chinese mainland authorities were interested in obtaining more at the present time. The wheat board, having in mind its commitments to its other customers, decided that it could not safely enter into a larger contract with mainland China at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is this due to the lack of supply or the inability to handle wheat at the port facilities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained on other occasions there is no lack of wheat in Canada today. The limitations lie in transportation, the capacity of terminal elevators, and so on.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, since all members are interested in trade matters, could the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house of the result of his meeting yesterday with the ministers of industry and trade from the different provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: We had a very satisfactory meeting of ministers from eight of the provinces who gathered in Ottawa yesterday. The other two provinces whose ministers were unable to be present were represented by their deputy ministers. These were the ministers concerned with trade and industry, and yesterday we discussed the question of trade promotion. The purpose of this meeting was to co-ordinate trade promotion activities of the federal and provincial governments.
I think our discussions were most useful. We decided there was need for more coordination than in the past. This was agreed on the part of both the federal and the provincial governments. We laid plans to accomplish this co-ordination both at home and abroad. As far as the federal government are concerned, we offered the utmost co-operation to the provinces. We made it clear to them that we had no quarrel whatever with their activities in the field of export trade promotion. We believe that the more people who are promoting our external trade today, the
Inquiries of the Ministry better it will be for the country. In that spirit we offered to help train their people. We offered the utmost co-operation.
If I may say so, I think this was an example of co-operative federalism in action.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us, in view of his great success in the sale of farm products from western Canada-wheat, in particular-whether he intends to try just as hard to sell products of the eastern farmers, namely dairy products and by-products such as butter, cheese, etc. since there is a surplus at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. gentleman
that in so far as external markets are concerned, the Department of Trade and Commerce does not discriminate amongst areas of the country. We give equal concern and equal attention to the products of all parts, including dairy products the exports of which my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and I are both promoting very actively.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
ask the minister if either the depressed areas or designated areas were discussed at this conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand that is being discussed today with these ministers when they meet my colleague the Minister of Industry.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask the minister if he discussed with the ministers from the provinces the question of smaller loans by export credits insurance for export credit?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the federal officials who were present gave an account of our policies in this respect, but I do not remember there being any complaint from the provinces about the inadequacy of our services.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that last August 1, the minister promised to table a report on bilingualism within the civil service, that requests to that effect were made last October 1 and



Inquiries o] the Ministry 16 and that the Secretary of State again promised last November 7 to present a report within two weeks, is the minister now in a position to provide us with a report on the state of bilingualism within the civil service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask the chairman of this independent commission whether the report is yet available. As soon as it is I will bring it to the attention of the house.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the government intend to keep the promise it made a few months ago and give a bonus to bilingual employees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question of policy, and it is not normal to announce matters of policy in response to questions on orders of the day.


CONGRATULATIONS TO CANADIAN WINNER OF FRENCH AWARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Did the government send official congratulations to Dr. Leo Marion, vice president of the national research council, who is the first Canadian to receive the Jecker award from the Academie des Sciences of Paris?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as it happened I wrote him a letter myself this morning on behalf of the government.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. Postal staffs are working at full capacity to handle a terriffic flow of Christmas mail, and their great efforts should be suitably recognized. Will the Postmaster General consider granting a holiday with pay to regular postal workers on Boxing day, Thursday, December 26, when most places of business are closed? In this regard I am thinking particularly of the men who deliver the mail. By December 24 they will have earned a holiday with pay.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the postal employees and especially the letter carriers. I want to congratulate them in advance for the excellent job they will be doing, as they have done in the past, during the Christmas rush.
I am glad the hon. member made this suggestion. I am taking his question as notice and I shall give my answer in the near future.


REPORTED USE OF PATRONAGE IN STAFF APPOINTMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-
Montcalm): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any comments to make concerning the hiring of part-time employees in Montreal and Ottawa, during the Christmas period and at some other time, especially following the statement made by the head of the postal employees' association to the effect that this procedure was only a means through which the patronage handlers within the department could dish out their favours?
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is surely not supplementary to one put to me by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe). In any case, I want him to know that there is no patronage as far as part-time jobs are concerned.
When the time comes to hire employees for the Christmas period, all applications are considered, As a matter of fact, all those made by persons who went to the Montreal post office, among others, were examined and more than 4,000 people were put to work.
Furthermore, as soon as school opens students from the various schools go to the post office and their names are taken down. At this moment most of them have been asked to come to work during the Christmas rush.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: No. The estimates of the Postmaster General's department will be before the house in a few days, and there will be ample opportunity to discuss its administration then.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government reconsidering the question of heavy water manufacture in view of the offer made by British American Oil?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the proposal of a certain company to the government indicating a new and cheaper method of manufacturing heavy water is now being considered by experts of the government, and a report will be made when that consideration is completed.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. In view of the reply given by the right hon. Prime Minister to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka regarding heavy water, may I ask the Prime Minister if this would have any effect on the recently announced decision that a heavy water plant would be located in Nova Scotia?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think an announcement was made to the effect that a heavy water plant would be located in Nova Scotia. The announcement made by the government was of a decision to approve negotiation of a contract with an efficient producer. If in the circumstances it turns out that the technological process envisaged by the present anticipated producer has in fact been superseded by a new and substantially more economical process, the government will have to give consideration to the new process.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did not the minister say the other day that the government had approved the giving of the contract to Deuterium Corporation of Canada; and would he not agree that if all other factors are equal-and I understood him the other day to say that they were-it ought to go to a low employment area such as Cape Breton island?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is correct, Mr. Speaker, that I did announce the awarding of a contract which would result in this heavy water being produced in a low employment area. I would further agree that if all other factors are equal, the contract should go to a low employment area. I am sure, however, that the hon. member would not wish the government to embark upon the production of heavy water -which has a great potential future for Canada-by means of a process known to be obsolete. Unfortunately at the time the decision was made and the announcement was made knowledge of this new process, knowledge of this new breakthrough, if it turns out to be a fact, was not available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that the basis upon which he made the announcement the other day was a process which became obsolete in one week?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is possible that the process- I say it is possible-on which last week's announcement was made is in fact obsolete and was made obsolete by the technological discoveries in the course of one week.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this matter cannot be discussed on the orders of the day, I wonder whether the Secretary of State, as house leader, will undertake to have the remaining estimates of the Department of Industry brought before the committee of supply at the first available opportunity so that we can then discuss it much better and more intelligently than we can now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be delighted to do that, Mr. Speaker, and the earlier the availability, the better.


George Clyde Nowlan: Tomorrow?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would take this opportunity to enlarge upon the statement of the Minister of Industry, in respect of the remarks he made at Sydney last week.


An hon. Member:: They are obsolete.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to the question of the Deuterium Corporation of Canada and ask the Minister of Industry whether that corporation were permitted by his department and the government to revise their bid after all bids were in and before awarding the contract.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the announcement made clear that the decision of the government was taken on the basis of the proposals made by the bidders, closing on May 31, 1963. Subsequent revisions and proposed alterations to bids were not taken into consideration.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government bound by contract with Deuterium Corporation of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXPORT TO U.S. OF PRODUCTS OF STUDEBAKER CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a question for the Minister of Industry following upon the announcement that the Studebaker corporation will do all their manufacturing in Canada. Does the minister expect any difficulty in connection with the export of Studebaker products from Canada to the United States; that is, will there be any resistance on the part of the United States tariff authorities?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the specific question, while I think we all regret the economic difficulties in which the Studebaker corporation has found itself in the United States, I would hope that the United States authorities would not interpose any difficulties in the way of those in the United States who wish to purchase the products of the Studebaker corporation from Canadian sources.



MEMBERS' SECRETARIES TO BE KEPT ON STRENGTH DURING RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Could he tell the house whether the board of internal economy has come to a decision as to what will happen, during the intersession, to the members' secretaries or stenographers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking perhaps unwisely, sir, from recollection, I believe it was decided at the last meeting of the commissioners of internal economy that as the interval between this session and the next one would be rather short, it would be desirable to keep the secretaries of members on the staff during that interval.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he considers the time is now ripe to give the house the facts in regard to the negotiations respecting the Columbia?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: These discussions are continuing, and they will be resumed today at four o'clock. When they are concluded, I think, would be the appropriate time, if the circumstances at that time warrant such action.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread reports, I wonder if the Prime Minister could say whether any changes in the ministry are now imminent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not the kind of announcement to make on orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister categorically state that no changes are imminent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I might take an airplane and go to Quebec during the Christmas recess.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the extraordinarily communicative attitude of the Prime Minister and his discussion about trips, could he tell us whether the Minister of Finance is about to take a trip to the United Kingdom to take over another position there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my previous answer covered that point.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, or in his absence his parliamentary secretary. In view of the recent tragedies in which jet planes have been involved, and the suggestion that marked air turbulence may have something to do with these accidents,

will the minister arrange for an investigation into this question immediately?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In the
absence of the minister I will take this question as notice.



LEGISLATION RESPECTING FEES FOR OVERFLIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, and it arises as a result of research that I have been doing with others outside of this house on Bill No. C-117. This is the bill having to do with fees chargeable for overflights by international air carriers, and I wonder if it is the intention of the government to proceed with this legislation at this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Last Friday the Prime Minister indicated that this was not one of those measures that the government considered it essential to pass before prorogation. We will have to wait and see what progress is made with those items that are considered essential.


Erik Nielsen: Can the Secretary of State say whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with Bill No. C-117 at all?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Secretary of State is not in a position to give any such information because he has not consulted the government as yet.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him when his department will be prepared to answer question No. 1,730, which deals with scrapie in sheep. I ask him this because there is a certain amount of urgency in connection with this subject. The question has been on the order paper now for two weeks, and there are a large number of sheep men in the country who are very concerned that there may be some skulduggery or patronage involved in this question. We would like to have some light thrown on it.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: In so far as scrapie is concerned, I might say we are having a meeting of the ministers of agriculture on the 16th, 17th and 18th, here in Ottawa, and we are going to discuss the matter at that time. Dr. Wells, our veterinary director general, has also been to the United States to discuss this problem. I hope that after this meeting we would have something favourable to report.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Woolliams:: A supplementary question-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The information requested in question No. 1,730 is all statistical. It does not deal with policy, and I do not see any reason why it could not be answered before the meeting of the ministers.


Harry William Hays: I think, Mr. Speaker, we could better answer it at that time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and will be brief. How much compensation was paid to the same family in Drumheller in connection with loss resulting from this disease, and how much has this government paid as compared to the previous government?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper, surely.


Harry William Hays: I am not allowed to disclose this amount. The compensation was suggested by a committee of three from the Canadian sheepbreeders and two people from the department. Of course this deal was made between the producer and this committee, and it cannot be divulged.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: On
what basis does the minister state that this information cannot be divulged? Information along this line has been divulged previously when requested in this house.


An hon. Member:: This was a deal.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the minister take the question as notice.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the reply given by the Minister of Agriculture a few moments ago to the effect that he did not intend to divulge either the amount involved or the recipients of awards made because of the alleged diagnosis of scrapie. I would like to ask the Prime Minister under what authority the minister or the Department of Agriculture can make payments to anyone without divulging to parliament the amount and the recipients.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a legal question which I will be glad to discuss with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture.
5642	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSIDERATION OF BRIEF PRESENTED BY FEDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the minister received the brief of the federation of agriculture and, if so, is he in agreement with that organization which states in its brief that if Ottawa needs new revenues, it should get them from taxation?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I received a brief this morning from the federation of agriculture, which I have not had the opportunity to look at as yet.



FEDERAL AGENCY TO PROVIDE FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the eventuality of having a board of eastern feed grains formed, could this board purchase its wheat directly from the wheat board, and would the minister see any inconvenience in that?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Does he intend to answer before the end of the session question No. 1,168, which has been on the order paper since September 30 last?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CONSIDERATION NEXT SESSION OF BILL RESPECTING BOUNDARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to earlier statements and answers on the boundaries bill. On December 6 when the Prime Minister was announcing the business of the


house he stated as follows, as reported at page 5507 of Hansard:
However, it-
That is, the government:
-is prepared to hold over the boundaries bill until the next session.
Are we not right in taking that as an assurance by the Prime Minister that it will be held over and not introduced now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it certainly will be held over in the sense that no action could be or would be taken in this session. That was the understanding I gave my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly we intend to abide by that understanding.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether it is true that a committee of Liberal members has been created with a view to the adoption of a national flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the government will declare one official flag for Canada, and not two or six?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dan-forth.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: My question has already been answered.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the number of motor car accidents which happened last night on and around parliament hill, would the minister consider having hazardous areas sanded as soon as possible after snowfalls?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: This is a very important question, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for having brought it up. We will certainly look into it forthwith.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question, would the minister move with the same speed and alacrity with respect to the proposal for a second trans-Canada highway?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, there is no decision as to when the provincial ministers of highways will meet on this matter. As my hon. friend knows, the subject was before the federal-provincial conference which met here in Ottawa two weeks ago, which was adjourned and which should meet some time in the coming year.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Complon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
Could he tell the house what will be the functions of Mr. Glen Bannerman who has just become a member of the world fair personnel?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. member to wait until the bill relating to various amendments to the world exhibition legislation is called-that might be today -and then I will be pleased to answer that question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Following the United States decision to reduce foreign aid by a billion dollars, does Canada also intend to reduce its aid to foreign countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the hon. lady could advise the house what portion of the $600,000 for the
Inquiries of the Ministry anti-cigarette smoking campaign is being paid by the federal government.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as announced, this program is to cover a five year period, and all of it is to be financed by the federal government.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister propose to continue to pay the support price to the tobacco growers, to produce cigarettes?



CHICKENS-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Wellington South asked me this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. In view of the fact that the European economic community has imposed a very high tariff on United States chickens entering those countries, and in view of the fact that the Americans will be looking for a market for this product close to home, what steps does the government propose to take to protect Canadian chicken producers?
This is the answer to the question. The higher tariff for poultry under the common market agricultural policy was placed in operation in August, 1962. The cut-back of United States imports subsequent to this time has had no effect on imports of United States poultry into this country. To December 6 of this year the imports of chicken, whole and parts, to Canada has actually decreased from 4,235,838 pounds in 1962 to 4,040,532 pounds this year, or approximately by 4.6 per cent. Chicken producers in Canada have a tariff protection of 12J per cent, or a minimum of 5 cents per pound on whole chicken and 10 cents per pound on cut-up chicken. Our producers appear to be able to compete quite satisfactorily on this basis.
I am sure the hon. member now knows more about chickens than he does about tobacco.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer to my question of last Thursday, but I would now like to have him answer the question concerning tobacco. I do not think the chickens are going to use tobacco.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
5644	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. The dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin shows that the cost of living index is now at an all time high of 134, basis of 100 in 1949. It is up six tenths of one percentage point for the last two months and up over two percentage points in the last 12 months. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, has the government any plans in mind for dealing with this very serious situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government shares my hon. friend's concern at this rise and is giving the matter consideration, but I cannot make an announcement at this moment on orders of the day on any specific steps that might be taken at this time.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Has the Prime Minister been officially informed of the difficulties which exist between the corporation of the Three Rivers bridge and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) with regard to the order in council of last March 4?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know of these difficulties.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Does the Prime Minister intend to make a statement before long on that matter, thus offering a nice present to the citizens of my area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope this matter will be cleared up in the near future, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Would the minister inform the house of the financial situation of the unemployment insurance fund and tell us how he intends to replenish it in case of a deficit?
(Mr. Douglas.]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already given an indication, on behalf of the government, of the method to be followed in replenishing the fund at any time that is necessary. That method is well known and has been employed on several occasions in the past. As to the exact status of the fund at the moment, I have not the details but I will be glad to get them for my hon. friend.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. A similar question was answered yesterday by the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that insurance companies can go bankrupt, like any other company. It is stated in this morning's Gazette, in an editorial:

it would be as well if the Prime Minister himself publicly corrected this serious error, no matter how it came to be made.
Would the Prime Minister like to make a statement at this moment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the house yesterday, but I read what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance said and I quite agree with his statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister agree that even though insurance companies are not likely to go broke, there is a greater possibility of their going broke than the government of Canada?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, not the present government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Will the minister be presenting to parliament, before the session prorogues, an interim report of the trustees of the maritime transportation unions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, shortly after this question was raised by my hon. friend I was in touch with the chairman of the board of trustees. To date I have received no report on any aspect of the operation of the trusteeship. I hope within the near future to have a meeting with Mr. Justice Dryer, and at that time I will indicate to him the interest of the House of Commons in having a report before prorogation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister whether any order in council has been passed containing regulations for this board?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is a fact that the trustees have retained a public relations firm that is communicating with all the Canadian seamen and asking them personal questions relating to their employment, what they do during the off season, and generally requesting very full information. Upon what basis are such requests made, and for what purpose?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the governor in council has approved an establishment for the trustees in which is included, as I understand it, at least one public relations officer. I have no information whatsoever with respect to any questionnaire or activity of the trusteeship except that I did read in the newspapers a statement made by one of the trustees that an effort would be made to gather information on the conditions of life of the seamen involved in the trusteeship.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister table the questionnaire; because it seems like an extraordinary procedure for the board of trustees to follow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the chairman of the board of trustees and will proceed carefully so that in no way will I interfere with the responsibilities which parliament has given directly to the trustees.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister answer whether he will table the questionnaire in the house, or is he going to take the same attitude that the Minister of Agriculture did a moment ago?
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



CONSIDERATION OF PETITION RESPECTING PROGRAM &quot;NINE TO FIVE&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he is ready to answer the question I addressed to the Minister of Justice a week ago concerning the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would refresh my mind by asking the question again.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Justice, as Acting Prime Minister, whether he would report to the house concerning the authors who signed a petition protesting against discrimination shown by C.B.C. with regard to actors in the program entitled "De 9 a 5", by dismissing one of the characters on the ground that he was a separatist?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I will be glad to give an answer to this question. Parliament, when it passed the Broadcasting Act in 1958, vested in the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation control over broadcasting. Control over broadcasting involves decisions by the corporation, which in my view it could not possibly delegate to anyone else, with regard to what shall be broadcast and what shall not be broadcast. It does not seem to me, therefore, that it would be proper for the government to seek, as a government, to interfere with those decisions which parliament has decided should be made by the board of directors.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Secretary of State tell the house when he will set up a special committee to consider the C.B.C. report, which was not done this year or last year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I did say the other day that I intended to suggest to my colleagues that a committee on broadcasting be set up at the next session of parliament.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Miss
[Stage Direction]
Pensions Act
LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-125, to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase from $65 to $75 the monthly benefits now being paid to some
162,000	Canadians under the categorical assistance programs which are shared by the dominion government with the provinces. I am sure that, especially at this time of year, this is a purpose which will commend itself to all hon. members on both sides of the house.
It will be noted that the effective date in the bill is shown as December 1, 1963. What this means is that the federal government will be ready to assume its share of the new increases on that date or any subsequent date that a province might choose to put them into operation. I might point out here that this date was selected after the fullest discussion of the matter at the recent federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa two weeks ago. Some provinces expressed the view that a later date might be more desirable, but none suggested an earlier date. It should be stressed that it will still be up to each particular province to decide when it wishes to implement the increases provided for in this bill. In this connection I might add that it will be necessary, on the basis of this bill as passed, to amend 36 separate agreements with the 10 provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Some hon. members will no doubt remark that in the past it has been customary to introduce separate amendments to provide increases in old age assistance and blind and disability allowances. It was the government's opinion that in view of the heavy pressure of impending legislation, we would save the house a considerable amount of time by including the three necessary amendments on this particular occasion in the one bill.
It is estimated that if all provinces choose to put the increases into effect on December 1 the added cost to the federal government for the current fiscal year will be $4.2 million.
It will be noted that the bill will also raise the permissible incomes for the recipients under these shared programs. For an unmarried person receiving old age assistance or a disability allowance the permissible income will rise by $120, from $1,140 per year to $1,260. For married persons in the same two categories the maximum permissible income will be increased by $240, from $1,980 to $2,220.
In the matter of allowances to the blind, where the federal government pays 75 per

cent of the total as opposed to 50 per cent in the other two programs, the permissible incomes will also be raised by $120 for unmarried persons and $240 for married persons.
The latest figures in my department show that there are some 103,000 people receiving old age assistance, about 8,000 receiving blind allowances and 51,000 receiving disability allowances. As hon. members no doubt know, old age assistance is paid on a means test to those Canadians between 65 and 69 years of age whose income falls below a certain maximum. Blind and disability allowances are paid to blind and disabled persons from the age of 18.
I am sure the increased allowances provided for in this bill, combined with the old age security benefit which was also raised recently to $75, will give our older Canadians and afflicted Canadians who suffer from various forms of disability a greater degree of security and comfort than they have ever had before. This is a fact from which all members of this house, all members of provincial legislatures, indeed all Canadians, can derive a certain measure of satisfaction. It does not mean, however, that we can rest upon our oars. We must continue to move ahead in every way we can to make life happier and healthier for those Canadians less fortunate than ourselves.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister takes her seat I wonder whether she would answer a question. She gave a figure of $4.2 million as the cost of the increase for the present fiscal year. Could she give the figure for a complete year? Does she have it handy?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have it here somewhere. Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to give it later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister can give it later. Would the minister repeat the figures she gave as to the number of persons in the various categories? She said there were
103,000	receiving old age assistance. What were the other two?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There are 8,000 receiving blind allowances and 51,000 receiving disability allowances.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, this one bill covers three different acts. The minister has said that because of the time in the session when these amendments are being brought forward it is thought that this will save the time of the house. Personally I do not quarrel with the fact that it is being brought forward in this form as one bill; my chief concern is to see the legislation passed so that the people in these three categories will immediately begin to receive the benefits. The same result can be achieved in this way, but I feel that more particularized

discussion as it concerns the three categories might have been given had each been brought in separately. I know that in 1957 the hon. member for Essex East, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, agreed with our program of bringing forward these resolutions immediately following the presentation and acceptance of the legislation regarding the old age security increase. I know that as the house agreed to pass the resolution preceding this bill without debate, it will demonstrate our complete unanimity on the fact that it should be proceeded with immediately, and will demonstrate our anxiety to get on with the matter. I only say that in my opinion it is a crying shame that the bill was not brought in before this.
The minister mentioned that the effective date of this bill was discussed at the conference, and that no province suggested an earlier date. I am convinced that at least the province of Manitoba earlier suggested moving on with this particular measure so that it would be brought in at an earlier date. If I am not mistaken the province of Ontario had also gone on record in this respect. Further, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is only brought in now as a result of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition on July 18 last to the effect that these benefits be separated from the over-all Canada pension plan.
It will be recalled that at that time the minister spoke with much firmness about the great qualities of the plan and what she envisaged. She, of course, envisaged an increase in old age security benefits effective this coming January 1. It was only on the insistence of the opposition and others that this particular approach was finally changed by the minister, or by the government, and on September 30 last when we reconvened after the recess we were consequently presented with a new bill to increase old age security by $10 a month effective October 1. I see no reason why this increase of $10 to the old age assistance recipients, the blind and the disabled, should not have been made available at that time.
In response to a question by the hon. member for Ontario on Monday last, reported on page 5321 of Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated that the question of the effective date was under consideration. As the federal-provincial conference had then concluded I felt we might have had an indication that this legislation would be made retroactive, if necessary, and that it would come into force on October 1 so these people would share on an equal basis. The Prime Minister also made this statement about the effective date, that-
-the provinces differed with regard to that matter. That must be ironed out before a statement can be made.
Pensions Act
From what the minister said I took her to mean that the exact starting date was decided at the conference, whereas apparently the government has since made up its mind.
I feel that following the increase in old age security, legislation which was optional to the provinces should have been introduced immediately so that the provinces would have had the option as at that time to enter into an agreement to participate in these measures to the benefit of the various recipients in each province. I notice there is no new tax here as in the case of the old age security increase. Despite the fact that I may be considered somewhat out of order I should like to reiterate that the original election promise of this government was to the effect that these increases would be put through without any increase in taxes. However, this did not prevent the minister from presenting a bill adding 1 per cent to personal income taxes.
I should like to put on record, Mr. Speaker, one or two of our own accomplishments in regard to steps we took when we were in office. Effective November 1, 1957 we not only increased old age security payments by $9 a month but also amended the three acts in question, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. It will also be remembered that a very advantageous step to many residents of Canada was taken at that time in reducing the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. This was a real achievement. At that time, of course, the allowable earnings were also increased proportionately. The blind received the same treatment; their benefits were increased from $46 to $55 per month and the allowable earnings increased by $120 for a single person and $240 for a married person. In 1957 the Disabled Persons Act was amended to increase the benefits from $46 to $55 per month and also coverage broadened to include certain persons in institutions.
I remember at that time a great deal of discussion among various members on both sides of the house to the effect that this particular act should have its requirements broadened so that more people suffering from various forms of disability could benefit under its terms. I expect we will hear more of that today; I hope we do because some further consideration should be given to the interpretation of what "totally and permanently disabled" means, and whether those words should or should not be altered. At that time about 90,000 people benefited from the increase in the old age assistance allowance. Today the minister mentioned 103,000. At that time about 8,300 persons were in receipt of pensions with respect to blindness. The minister mentioned that

Pensions Act
there were some 8,000 in receipt of blindness allowances today. In the disabled category there were between 36,000 and 43,000 in receipt of allowances, the variation being caused by the increased earnings which were allowable when making the calculation as to whether the recipients were entitled to the allowances.
In February, 1962 I had the pleasure and privilege of piloting through the house, effective as of February 1, 1962, a further increase in old age security benefits from $55 to $65 a month and, in addition, an equal increase in the old age assistance allowances and payments to the blind and the disabled. Here again I should like to emphasize that we made all this legislation effective at the same date.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I thought it was a crying shame that these three categories of recipients of assistance should not all have these increases available to them on the same date, that is the date when an increase was provided for in old age security benefits. Now they have missed two months. Maybe this does not mean very much to some of us, but I know the minister is able to appreciate, having been in office now for some time, just what it means to the individuals concerned. Both in 1957 and in 1962 the government of that day did increase these three categories of benefits at the same time as old age security payments were increased.
Again, permissible earnings were increased by $180 a month in February, 1962 in respect of a single person, and $360 a month in respect to a married person.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Per year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I beg your pardon; the minister is correct. I am wondering just how the calculation is made. I am not doing this through ill intent, but I am interested; because back in 1957, when the old age security allowance was increased by $9, the allowable earnings were increased by $120 and $240 per year. Then in 1962, when the allowance was increased by $10, the allowable earnings were increased by $180 for a single person and $360 per year for married persons. Now, still with a $10 increase per month, we are back to $120 and $240. I am assuming the increase in February, 1962 was probably to round the figure out to an even figure. Perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.
I could not agree more with the minister's statement that these increases will contribute to a greater degree of stability and comfort; I believe that was the phrase she used. I heartily agree with this approach to the measures before us. However, as I say, the

amendment should have been presented earlier. It should have been presented so as to take effect as of October 1 instead of December 1.
I notice that the minister recently made a speech in Saskatoon. According to the Star-Phoenix she wishes to broaden the scope of the Canada pension plan considerably beyond what was apparently her intention as indicated in the resolution which appeared on the order paper earlier this session. I am wondering whether she discussed any of these changes with the representatives of the provinces at the recent conference or, if not, whether she proposes to do so. I should be interested to know when it is expected that this wider plan will be proposed to the house.
Naturally we in this party intend to vote for the measure which is before us now. We pleaded for it earlier in this session, and I can only regret that its provisions are not made retroactive to October 1. I regret most strongly the lack of any retroactive feature, and I cannot help but condemn the government for the omission.
I have nothing further to say at this time. I do feel that these three measures will be of the utmost benefit to all those concerned, and that they should have been brought into being as of October 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware the bill before us raises to a possible $75 a month the pension or allowance available under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. We in this party have asked for these increases to be made. We now welcome the legislation. We shall support it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is our hope and our desire, despite the wide interest there is in this subject in the House of Commons, that because of the unanimity of support for this measure it will not take very long to get through, so we can be certain that those affected by these various pieces of legislation will get these increases promptly. We hope, therefore, that any time which is taken up in speaking briefly on this subject will not be interpreted as anything other than support for this measure even though there are two or three things which need to be said at this time.
First I wish to echo the remarks made by the hon. member for Perth with reference to the effective date of the proposed increases in these three shared programs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare relied on the fact that no province had asked for an earlier date at the recent federal-provincial conference. She also told us some

of the provinces wanted an even later effective date to be set. But she must know that prior to the calling of that conference some of the provinces were already asking for these increases to be made possible at an earlier date, and I suggest a responsibility lay upon her and upon the federal government months ago to discuss with the provinces the possibility of these increases so that the earliest possible effective date might have been arranged.
I know the minister will tell us that she and the government had a different perspective, a somewhat different scheme affecting these matters in relation to the Canada pension plan. I remember what she said in her speech on July 18 about these various plans. But I suggest that she and the government should have realized, shortly after they took office, that the question of raising the basic old age security pension to $75 a month was a pressing one, that it was a commitment that would have to be kept, and once that was done these other increases would have to be made.
The government, in our view, should have consulted the provinces at an earlier date, so we would not be in this position now of having had the old age security at $75 per month effective in October, whereas the $75 under these three programs is effective only in December. We deplore this delay just as much as the previous speaker did. We feel that the government cannot excuse itself for its delay in this matter by the kind of statement the minister made with regard to what was said at the recent federal-provincial conference.
We have no quarrel with the fact that these three measures are presented to us in one package. As a matter of fact, although in the past each time any one of these programs has been improved it has been done by a separate bill amending the original act, there is something to be said for looking at these programs at one and the same time. I hope that the day will soon come when we will look at our social security needs, our social security programs in this country on an over-all basis. This is something I want to elaborate upon for just a moment or two at this point.
I think one of the misfortunes that arises from the way in which these increases have been dealt with in this latter part of 1963 is the fact that we have come at these things on a piecemeal basis, and therefore have denied to the provinces, denied to the country as a whole, a chance to consider all of our social security and social welfare needs. We increased the old age security pension, as we simply had to do. Having done that, we now have to increase these related pensions and
Pensions Act
allowances. Our action in increasing the permissible rates at the federal level makes it necessary for the provinces to contribute their shares. This affects the provinces in terms of their approach to other social and welfare measures.
The minister, in her speech on July 18 when she introduced the Canada pension plan, referred to some of these problems. She referred to the problem of widows with dependant children, the problem of disabled persons who are not now covered, and so on. There is also the question of survivor benefits. There is the whole question of sickness benefits and whether they should be attached to unemployment insurance or to health insurance. There are all these other needs to meet which will be delayed just a bit longer because we have come at this present problem on a piecemeal basis.
In the view of this party, the day cannot come too soon for a federal-provincial conference, such as is necessary, and for bringing in the social workers and those who are experts in this field, to try to devise an over-all program that meets all of our needs. We support wholeheartedly-indeed we have been asking for it-this increase to $75 a month in these three programs, along with old age security. But we think it is a sad state of affairs that there are still no survivor benefits in this country; that there are no provisions for pensions for orphans or for widows with dependant children, and the various other categories to which the minister has referred, and to which I have referred in my remarks today.
There are many people who are facing up to these problems. Experts in the various departments of health and welfare at the federal and provincial level, as we all know, have done a great deal of work and a great deal of study on this matter. Our schools of social work in various universities are working on this matter. The Canadian welfare council and other Canadian social and welfare agencies are all aware of the growing-like-Topsy nature of our social security system. I do not want to suggest by the use of that phrase that it has not some elements in it that are very sound. I think we have made pretty good progress in some parts of the field. I think the establishment of the principle of universality for old age security and at the family allowance level is something good, something of which Canada can be proud. Then, the fact that we have developed these other shared programs is to the credit of this country.
I think, perhaps, that it is good we have not yet laid down lines that are hard and fast. We have not adopted any rigid position which would make it impossible for us to move into new ways of dealing with these things.

Pensions Act
What I think has been sad this year is that we have had to hammer away at the government, first to introduce the $10 increase for old age security and now to get these three $10 increases in these shared programs. We have had to hammer at the government to carry out its own commitment for the Canada pension plan, and the best we can get from the government is that it will be delayed and brought in next year rather than this. This government is the one which said, at election time, it was ready to move, it had its plan and was ready to give the people a new look in the social security field.
I do not blame the minister for saying today that this legislation would bring added security and comfort to those who will receive the increases being provided. However, it really is not very much. It really is not anything for us to boast about in the affluence of our society today that people who have played their part in the economic and social life of our country at age 65 can now get $75 a month if they are single and $150 a month for a married couple, with the right to have other income of $30 a month if they are single and $35 per month for married couples. Well, it is $10 better than it was before this legislation was introduced but it is hardly security and comfort in the accepted meaning of those words.
But, Mr. Speaker, we can move a long way in this field. We have the economic capacity to do it in a country such as Canada. I believe we have the intellectual capacity. I think we have the knowledge in the field of social welfare measures to sort these things out and to get an over-all plan to deal with all the needs of our people. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) has had some tough battles. She has had to fight the insurance companies.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who, me?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I missed that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who, me?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has now said the same thing about the insurance companies as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said.
I am surprised that so many people have risen in this house, as if the insurance companies need to be defended. I think they manage to look after themselves very well.
As I started to say, I know the minister has had a fight with the insurance companies.
I gather from reading a magazine such as Maclean's, which knows what goes on within the Liberal party, that she has had a fight with some of her own cabinet colleagues in this field. I know there is a job of education to do in this country. I submit she not only 
has a tremendous job but she has a tremendous opportunity. If, with the help of the expert people she has in her department, and with the support of a parliament that now believes in social security, she will give a lead in the effort to achieve, not just piecemeal amending of these bits of legislation when pressure comes from the opposition, but to achieve an over-all Canada pension plan, plus a social security plan to meet all the needs of our people, including old age assistance, income in time of illness, provision for widows and survivors, orphans and the disabled, she will do well for the people of Canada. Such an effort could be made with the financial capacity and intellectual capacity that we have in this field.
One of the things that has grown concurrently with our branching out in social security legislation, such as has taken place in the last couple of generations, has been the growth of organizations like the Canada welfare council and the increase in the number of people who are studying social work in our various universities. There is now quite a band of such people. I will not name any of them because it would be unfair to name only some and not others, but there is quite a band of experts in this field.
I am sure the minister has made many more contacts with these people than she ever did previously. I am also sure that if these experts were drawn in and put to work, then before we reach the point when there is another round of increases for items a, b, c and d, we could have an over-all approach to the problem of social security.
I would like to repeat what I said earlier. This is legislation we heartily welcome. We hope, despite the interest hon. members will want to show in it, the house will pass it quickly and the benefit will get through to the people it is intended to cover.
One of the things which disturbed us quite a bit after the $10 increase was given in old age security was to learn that in certain provinces some people got the $10 in one hand and had it taken away, either in whole or in part, from the other hand. We hope that will not happen with this legislation. We asked for this legislation; we welcome it; we support it. But we hope that before the ink can dry on the bill when it is printed as finally passed, the minister will enter upon the hard work of drafting an over-all social security program, jointly between the federal government and the provinces, so that we can meet in an honest, intelligent way the social needs of our people.


Guy Marcoux: I only wish to say a few words in support of

the bill introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh).
Of course, we are all in favour of these increases, but nevertheless I would like to make a few brief comments on the present situation in that regard.
The bill provides for a $10 increase per month. As we said so many times, under this administration as well as under the previous one which had not considered advisable to give retroactivity to the measure, this increase of $10 has been set by rule of thumb because it certainly is not based on any special study of the cost of living at this time. This increase is a good thing, but, once again, we would like that all those increases pertaining to social security, provided at any time and by whatever government, be based on the cost of living.
If we look at the increases which are being granted at this time, particularly in connection with the maximum income permitted the recipients of those social security allowances, we see that a disabled person cannot earn more than $360 a year under the terms of subparagraph (i), subsection 2 of section 1, while a married person living with his spouse cannot earn more than $1,320, for if we add the $900, it amounts to the total of $2,220.
Under subparagraph (iii), subsection 2 of section 2, the permissible income is $2,580. That means that a couple cannot earn more than $1,680. If we consider the cost of living today, we realize that such amounts are clearly inadequate. However, we are pleased that the pensions have at least reached the level provided for in this legislation.
In the case of the Blind Persons Act, the situation is the same except that the amounts are higher.
I should like to bring up here the fact that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has requested that there be no restriction set concerning the blind's income because their incapacity has physical, psychological and mental effects. The institute rightly feels that there should be no maximum limit on the income of those who are entitled to benefits under the Blind Persons Act.
Referring once again to the subparagraphs, it will be noted that the permissible incomes are $600, $1,080, $1,680 and $1,800 in the case of the blind. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that those increases are very little and that they will not do much for the recipients but, in spite of the restrictions contained in the bill, we are glad that the government has decided to boost those pensions.
It is better than nothing. And I would suggest that the hon. lady might consider, perhaps at the very next session, a substantial increase in those pensions, based on the actual
Pensions Act
cost of living and not on political expediency as it has been done in the past by most political parties.
When we consider the Disabled Persons Act, I am always reminded of the time when I used to examine people who applied for such benefits. I was made aware then that the act is indeed restrictive and many people cannot take advantage of it. I am thinking of epileptics, for instance. Those people, afflicted with a recurring disease, might go through long periods of regression, but they can also have attacks at very short intervals. In spite of this, those persons are not yet covered by the act.
I submit that they should be, along with some people who were unfortunate enough to lose both hands in an accident. They are not eligible under the pretext that with the limbs they have left or with the help of artificial limbs, they can still earn a decent living.
I suggest that this is impossible when such a person is a skilled worker. I feel that those people should be eligible under the present act.
I should like to make a few brief remarks about increased family allowances.
As you know, when family allowances were established, the basic rate was $5 per child and the number of children entitled to those allowances was limited to seven. Now, several years after the establishment of these allowances, the basic rate is $6 instead of $5 and the maximum amount is $8 instead of $7, that is only a one dollar increase in both cases. However, there is no limit as to the number of children entitled to these allowances.
Once again, I ask the minister to consider the possibility of increasing family allowances and of extending them to children over 16 years of age, especially to students.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the passage of this legislation and once again, I am pleased to say that our group is in favour of the proposed increase. We are glad about it, especially for those who will benefit from it. But we submit that this increase is not at all in keeping with the increase of expenses for the recipients. Therefore, I hope that in the very near future, the minister will see fit to work out those increases more in terms of the cost of living.
As far as retroactivity is concerned, I do not think political capital should be made out of it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated that he had been advocating that for a long time. We have also discussed that matter for a long time, but I think it is much more difficult to carry out such projects than to discuss them. We also would like to have a retroactive legislation, but we are not going to delay the passing of the bill because there is no such indication.

Pensions Act


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-125, the purpose of which is to increase the benefits now being paid under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act.
Like those who spoke before me, I support with more or less limited enthusiasm this increase of $10 for the persons aged 65 to 70, for the disabled and the blind. But it is to be noted that this increase is far below the increase in the cost of living.
Last summer, sometime before the recess, nearly all hon. members were in favour of increasing their own indemnity. Everyone was saying that the cost of living had gone up, and that therefore, expenses had increased that much.
Well, I think that if our expenses and our cost of living have increased, they have also gone up for the old people, the disabled and the blind who have no other source of income nor any other means than the benefits paid to them under our present laws.
If you draw a parallel between the increase in our indemnity and the increase in old age assistance, and disabled and blind allowances, those benefits should have been raised to about $120 a month, but they are now increased to $75 only.
No one is disputing the fact that the cost of living has gone up, that the cost of everything is going up. The needs of our old, disabled and needy people are the same as ours, that is to say their cost of living is the same as ours. But when it comes to suggesting an increase based on the cost of living, it seems that often we think more about ourselves than about other people.
A single person in receipt of old age assistance or blind persons allowances will be able as from now to have a $1,260 yearly income, while the recipient of an allowance for the blind will be entitled to an annual income of $1,500.
For the person who is married and living with his spouse, the permissible income will be $2,220 in the case of old age assistance and disability allowances, and $2,580' in the case of allowances for the blind.
Considering the number of civil servants necessary to interview the disabled, the blind and the old age assistance recipients, I feel it would cost no more to grant $75 a month, without assessing the income earned by the spouse.
I am thinking of several cases I know, where the wife has to work in order to support herself. Because her salary is a few dollars above the permissible amount under the act, her government pension has been cut down. As a matter of fact, I was able to establish that, in the province of Quebec,

the additional amount provided by the federal government, that is $10, has been deducted from the pension of the recipients of social assistance benefits.
I wish to point out to the minister that today, in order to derive any benefits from the Disabled Persons Act, one has to be a bed-ridden invalid as several members have already stated.
I am thinking more particularly of people who have a heart condition. When we request pensions on behalf of those people, the commissioners tell us that the persons are not completely or permanently disabled, despite the fact that their illness often puts them in what 1 would call a state of helplessness.
The administration of the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act is so restrictive that several inquiries are often needed before justice is obtained from the commission, and in a few cases only at that.
That is why I feel it would be easier to pay $75 a month without a means test as far as the spouse is concerned. The number of employees needed for the administration of the act must be taken into account; it requires bureaucracy and a number of bureaucrats. And even if it makes it possible for the provincial or the federal government to save a few dollars, it prevents some recipients from really trying to earn more money.
In that respect, I am reminded of a woman who, at some time tells herself: What I earn in such and such a month is taken from me by the federal or the provincial government because of the maximum set on permissible income.
Mr. Speaker, we welcome this measure to increase by $10 a month the pensioners' permissible income but, on the other hand, I must say that this increase is not in line with the cost of living at this time or the numerous needs of the disabled, the blind and the old.
If you consider the cost of living today and the way old people must live, you will find that they do not live in the same conditions that prevailed 25 or 30 years ago when children looked after old people. Times have changed and today, because of the housing shortage, old people must live alone and look after themselves.
That is why I feel that the increases as mentioned in the bill are not large enough, for one must remember that we have increased our sessional allowance by some 80 per cent, whereas the blind, the disabled and the older people benefits are increased by $10 a month only.
If the increase in the cost of living or in these people's requirements had been taken into account, I think that the measure now

before us, that is Bill No. C-125, would provide for an increase to at least $120 a month in the allowances paid under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words on the amendment now before the house to increase by $10 per month the payments made under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act. I would say this is one of the most confused and poorly handled pieces of legislation that has ever come before this house. Our senior citizens were given a $10 increase as of October 1 last, and only then after considerable pressure was brought to bear by the opposition. The other three classes of people receiving assistance were left wondering why they did not receive this increase, as they had on other occasions when similar legislation was put through. I had 'phone call after 'phone call; I had letters from people in these three categories. They were asking me, "How come I am not getting the $10 a month increase, the same as the senior citizens" What could we tell them? What did we tell them? All we could tell them was that this government failed to consult the provinces and the matter had to be postponed until after the dominion-provincial conference meeting, that at that time it would be discussed and possibly the increase would be put into effect.
The people in these categories have been discriminated against. Why should they be discriminated against? They are just as entitled to this $10 increase as are our senior citizens. They are people who may need this additional money even more than those in the senior citizens group, but for at least two months they have been denied this increase. This means they have been denied $20, which is a large sum of money to them. Speaking for myself, I certainly would have preferred to see the senior citizens, old age assistance recipients and the blind and disabled get their increase in their pensions before there was any increase in the indemnity of members of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Did you vote against it?


Alfred Dryden Hales: In addition, our increase was made retroactive while the increase for our senior citizens was not made retroactive.


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes.
28902-5-360
Pensions Act


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member inform the house how he voted when the members' pay increase was before us?


Alfred Dryden Hales: I voted for it just as the hon. member did, but I still say I would have preferred to see the senior citizens receive their increase before we were given ours.
The increase for these three groups is going to cost $4.2 million for four months or approximately $12.6 million a year. The hon. lady has not seen fit to tell us from where the money is going to come from or how it is going to be raised. I presume it will come from the consolidated revenue fund. However, she did make a point of telling us in the case of the old age security increase that the money was going to be raised by increasing the income tax by 1 per cent. So there is confusion in the method of payment between these two categories. The matter has been poorly handled all along. It has been done in a confused and piecemeal way. We are now asked to pass this amendment today and I may say we are going to support it.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word or two in respect of blind assistance. I think these people deserve special recognition. In my opinion a blind person has a much higher cost of living and finds it more difficult to exist than other people. This observation can be substantiated on three or four grounds. Many times blind people have to hire help to take care of them in their homes. They cannot see to get around and they need guidance. Quite often they have to live in a different type of home than other people. They cannot live in homes with three or four floors but must live in single ground floor homes so that they can get around. There are special circumstances in the case of blind people and as a result it costs them more to live. In some cases it is a necessity for them to have a car. If they have one they need someone at all times to drive them to their place of work and pick them up. This too is an additional expense. When blind people go shopping they are handicapped. They cannot see the product they are buying or the specials that are on sale, so they are not always able to take advantage of these savings. For these reasons and others I think they should be given special consideration and I hope the day will come when this will be a reality. There are only about 8,000 blind pensioners in Canada, as I believe the minister indicated, and an additional $10 a month for them would not amount to a very large sum.
Finally, I say that this government stands condemned because of its failure to legislate in a clear and fair way for the less fortunate people of our country. They have acted in a discriminatory manner. One group received

Pensions Act
an increase, and the other groups did not get their increase at the same time. This is the way the matter has been handled. We support these amendments and hope that when anything is done with regard to welfare payments in the future the increases will be given to all at the same time. I hope this will be the attitude that will be taken by this or any other government that may be dealing with welfare problems.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) on having an eleventh hour conversion. Some say that deathbed repentances are all right. I congratulate her for bringing in the increase, but how in the name of goodness could she justify leaving these people to the last? Here is a group of people who really need the increase. Their entitlement to it depends upon a means test, and I just cannot see the reasoning behind leaving such people to the last.
I should have liked to see the minister not only make the increase two months retroactive, but go back to April 8 last when the raises for members of the House of Commons came into effect. I think that could only be fair, because surely these people have a proven need. There is not a large amount of money involved in the increase. The matter would seem to be primarily a question of right and wrong, and it does not take a lot of money to make it right because we are told that there are only 103,000 people in Canada who will qualify under the Old Age Assistance Act. This is only one out of every 184 people. In the case of the blind there is only one out of every 2,375 people involved. Therefore I want to ask the minister to reconsider her position and make the increase retroactive at least two months, to the time when the old age security payments were increased. If in the goodness of her heart she could make the increase retroactive to the 8th of April that would be a lot better, because there are only a few people involved and they are people who have a proven need.
So far as the disabled are concerned, here is another group of people who are badly in need. There are only 51,000 of them throughout Canada, or one of every 350 people. We are giving these people $75 a month. At the same time we allow a single person to earn an extra $10 a month.
I know that the minister probably cannot do anything at the moment concerning the point I am about to raise but as I look across the way and see the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who lives in Toronto, I say

to the minister: How in the world does she expect a person to rent a room and live in Toronto on the amount of money that is provided only under a means test? I am well aware of course that hospitalization and medical care are provided to these people but I am wondering about the cost of drugs so far as they are concerned. Again I remind the minister that these are people whose need is proven. In the case of the disabled we are going to allow a permissible income of $2,220 a year for a married couple, but in my view this is a mere pittance. A great many of these people, as my doctor friend from Toronto will know, need special care. They need help in their homes. They need someone to go and get things for them. I am sure he will also agree with me that it is an utter impossibility for a married couple to live on that sum of money in the city of Toronto, or other large centres in Ontario.
Let me again draw attention to the discrimination which we practise in this country. It is all very well to speak of universal pensions and national pensions schemes, but surely there is a great difference across Canada in the cost of living in one area compared with another. In my own province of Ontario there is a great difference between a person who has to live in the city of Toronto-I use Toronto because it is a big city, but my observations could easily apply to Ottawa or other cities and towns-and the fortunate person who has to live in some small village, or even on a farm in his own little house. I should like to point out to the minister that over the years we have gone on practising discrimination between the people needing old age assistance or benefits under the Disabled Persons Act or Blind Persons Act who live in the big cities and big towns and those who live in rural areas.
I should like to see some concessions given to disabled persons who suffer additional hardship. I am thinking, for example, of a family I know where the mother finds it necessary to go out to work in order to add to the income. There are a couple of small children in the family and the father has disseminated sclerosis. This lady has to hire a taxi or keep a car to enable her to go to work. Actually in this particular case she hires a taxi. Surely the quality of mercy is not strained by giving these people then-just dues, instead of discriminating against them. I should also like to say a few words about disabled persons who need special equipment, such as wheel chairs or special beds. I am thinking of those with disseminated sclerosis, and crippling diseases for example. I hope that some day we will be

able to bring in legislation which will take into account the special needs of some people over others.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are other hon. members who want to speak on this bill, but I would just ask that we keep in our minds the problems of the blind person. The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) brought this out very pointedly. These people need others to assist them to shop. They cannot read the bargains. There are one hundred and one ways in which they are handicapped that those who are not handicapped fail to realize. In conclusion may I say we support this measure, with the added rider that we hope the minister will see fit to go back in date at least to the time when the other old age security pension was increased.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Like hon. members who spoke before me, I should like to express our group's approval of this legislation which has been made necessary by the increase in old age security pensions and by the increasingly urgent needs of the recipients.
As the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Mon-teith) and others have stated, it would have been better if the increase had been made retroactive to the date on which old age security payments were boosted.
But, unfortunately, the government did not resort to the necessary consultations with the provinces so as to achieve consistency between the two pension plans.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on this measure, I should like to point out that there is room for improvement with regard to the administration side of it.
I know that the administration of these pensions comes strictly under the provinces which, as a rule, establish a special commission to investigate before making the payments.
However, the federal government determines itself the conditions under which these pensions must be paid.
In many instances, in refusing a pension, the social allowances commission in the province of Quebec, for instance, will inform the person who did not succeed in obtaining a pension, that his or her application is rejected on account of the federal legislation and its requirements.
I submit that this gives rise to many cases of injustice.
In other cases, pensioners had been receiving in good faith for one, or even several years, old age assistance benefits when, as a result of an investigation, it was found out
28902-5-360J
Pensions Act
that the recipient's income was over the permissible maximum. Then the needy person to whom a pension was being paid was compelled to make a refund. In such a case, there is a real injustice, because those persons were receiving that pension in good faith; and it is obvious that they do not have the necessary means to make the refund.
I suggest that when a person has received a pension in good faith, after his good faith has been established through an investigation, he should not be required later on to make a refund.
To judge of the interpretation of the law in cases of this nature, and in order to avoid this rigidity pertaining to all statutes, I suggest that it would be advisable to consider the setting up of a kind of administrative court, which would review the decisions of the commission and before which a claimant might be heard. Thus it would be possible to eliminate, at a moderate cost for the treasury, absolutely pitiful cases of persons who, in our twentieth century and in our society with its population continually increasing, live in almost undescribable poverty.
Mr. Speaker, care should be taken that this increase, which is not very substantial after all, is not followed by a new rise in the cost of living. It is the special duty of the federal government to see to it that rents in housing projects subsidized by it or by some of its agencies are not increased as soon as the increased pensions are received. There are already indications that this might be the case.
I have no doubt that the minister will make sure that this situation does not occur; she might also warn her colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) for instance, of the danger of such an occurrence.
In short, Mr. Speaker, when considering this legislation, it is appropriate that we wonder if the time is not ripe to undertake a review of our social security system.
Our system, as it is now, already drains an important part of our national budget, and yet it remains inadequate and cannot meet the requirements of those who try to become eligible to these benefits. Furthermore, it is obviously inadequate in comparison with the comprehensive systems which exist in most European countries.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we need to take a second look at the philosophy underlying our social security system. It is not as much a matter of distributing a minimum to all as it is rather one of bringing supplementary assistance to those who need it. I am not against the universality of the portable pension plan, but instead of paying a small amount to everybody, most of whom

Pensions Act
are not in need, it should be attempted, through other legislation, to give to those who are really in need a sufficient amount so as to enable them to meet their actual requirements, in order to remove within our society those distressing cases of hopeless destitution which are so numerous in Canada.
By amending this legislation, we could provide for their needs without burdening our budget with excessive expenditures, because assistance would be given where it is needed, and thus we could release our resources for productive purposes and give those responsible for that production adequate remuneration and compensation for their services.
I unreservedly support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is not only asking for a review of pension rates, but of the entire system, in order to make the necessary amendments.


Frank Howard: When my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke earlier in this debate he outlined the attitude of this party in general terms with respect to the subject matter before us. I think that over the years we have, unfortunately, put the entire question of providing assistance and help to the needy out of the public treasury on the basis of either a handout or some reason of expediency. It is unfortunate, and it is one of the reasons why we have a disgraceful situation in Canada today with respect to the whole field of social security, of which old age assistance, disabled persons pensions and blind persons pensions are a part.
It is almost a year ago, now-I believe it was on December 20, 1962-that the national council of welfare came into being, pursuant to an act of this parliament passed while the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) held the office now held by the hon. lady. One of the ideas we had about this council was that it would be dealing with, and studying items such as we have before us for consideration, now. I should like, in this regard-that is, with regard to the question of planning some program of concerted effort in this field of social security assistance- to make reference to the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year ended March 31, 1962. While I am at it, perhaps I may point out that this report, the one which was tabled by the hon. lady on the opening day of this session, is the last one available. At least, I sent a note to the library and this is the last report they have. It is more than a year and a half old. Nevertheless, it does contain
IMr. Martineau.l
some pertinent information about the general subject matter before us and I should like to make a few references to it and make one or two short quotations from it. The following appears at page 150 under the heading "Income Security". As I say, this report is already a year and a half old and, undoubtedly, the study which went into this took place some while before the date of publication. It reads as follows:
The program of old age, survivors and disability benefits announced in the speech from the throne, January 1962, required the active participation of staff members for a number of months beforehand in discussions to plan the new program.
It is true this relates to the previous government and to a previous speech from the throne. But it does say that the staff of the department actively participated in studying this whole field for a number of months in order to plan a new program. Then it goes on to indicate that the income security section supervisor spent two weeks in Great Britain, that the director spent several days in Baltimore and Washington reviewing the old age survivors and disability insurance program in the United States, that studies were made on the situation in Australia, New Zealand, and so on. We are told that the work of the Ontario committee on portable pensions was examined and that the staff produced a number of bulletins and made an exhaustive study and survey of the particular question which is now before us.
It seems regrettable that at this late stage in the session, with all this active work behind her, the minister has not yet assessed it and is still unable to transform it into some kind of co-ordinated plan and program which the house and the country could consider.
I wonder if I may call it five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member is the last speaker, I wonder if he could be allowed to finish in a few minutes and we could then get the bill through.


An hon. Member:: Take the whole hour.


Frank Howard: I did not know the prescience of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) extended to knowing how long I might take. But I am one of those who have been most vociferous against intruding on the private members' hour and, inasmuch as I have the floor at five o'clock, I do not think it is I who should be asked if I want to go on. I believe the others should be asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether Your Honour would ask the house if there is unanimous agreement to continuing after five o'clock in the hope of making progress.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: I must thank my parliamentary secretary, the Secretary of State, for helping me out in this particular instance.
To proceed, let me express appreciation to the house for this courtesy shown, not only to me but, what is more important, to the recipients of allowances and pensions, because they are the people we are concerned with when considering this particular item.
When the minister spoke, her introductory remarks contained a reference to the dominion-provincial conference, and to the effect that not one province was in favour of extending these particular payments retroactively beyond December 1. This, in my opinion, is a shame and a disgrace to the various provinces if they, in fact, took that adamant attitude. The minister has said that some provinces indicated they were desirous of having this measure made effective at an even later date. This, in my opinion, is even more disgraceful. If and when the minister closes the debate, or at some other stage in the proceedings, I believe she should relate to the house and to the general public just which provinces wanted this measure to become effective at an even later time than is proposed. This would enable the people to know which provinces took this attitude.
The minister said, too, that this was the reason the date of December 1, 1963 was picked as the retroactive date for this bill to come into effect. It seems to me that if the various provinces were so mean and niggardly in their attitude toward this measure that they adamantly refused at the dominion-provincial conference to have it come into effect at any date prior to December 1, then the minister should have taken up the challenge, as she is wont to do, and made the measure effective on the same date as the old age security pension. This would have put the provinces on the spot. She could have said to them, "We are being magnanimous and we are going to pay these people what they should have. Will you not go along with us?"
What I expect happened is that this is the attitude of this government, that this government does not want the measure to come into effect before December 1. It wants to save a few pennies for the months of October and November, instead of being reasonable, just and fair to the recipients of these particular payments. I believe the minister said that the cost involved would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 million a month for the three types of pension that are before us at the moment. I do not know if she actually used the phrase "a million dollars", but this is what I have computed it would cost. The October and November
Pensions Act
payments would, therefore, only involve an additional $2 million and would be payments to those people who really need them more than anybody else. I know the Liberal party is embarrassed because of the attitude taken by the late C. D. Howe, but do they have to be that embarrassed by the statement, "What's a million?" Why do they not say, "What's a million or two million? Let us pay these people for the months they justly deserve and not take a penny-pinching attitude towards people who are really in need".
If the government wants a couple of million dollars, I would remind them that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) was tossing millions around the other day. Apparently he was able to save $75 million in a few minutes of slashing of his estimates. A little more time spent in slashing the estimates of the useless Department of National Defence would give us another $75 million for the people who really need it. After all, we paid millions and millions of dollars for these useless, senseless Bomarcs which we are going to return to somebody in a month or two. Why can we not take the money from this project and use it for people who really need it, the elderly, the blind and the disabled. This, in essence, is what I wanted to say in respect of the general principle, Mr. Speaker; but I should like, if I may, to make a reference or two to some correspondence which I have concerning particular cases. I raised this matter in the house at one stage by way of a question to the minister, but I did not get an answer, so perhaps I should make a reference to it now.
I refer to one instance only, but there are many, in which the provincial department of social welfare of the province of British Columbia curtailed the amount of old age assistance payable to an individual because, and I quote the reason from the form sent to the individual, "old age security to spouse increased from $65 to $75 per month." In effect, what happened-and this happened to many recipients of old age assistance-is that this parliament increased old age pension payments by $10 a month, but the department of social welfare in British Columbia eliminated the increase by reducing the old age assistance payments. We raised this question with the minister. I sent her copies of the particular form, and I sent a letter and also copies of the form to Mr. Wesley Black, minister of social welfare in British Columbia. I asked them to do something about this particular item. I should like to quote the replies which I received, each one of them dated the same day, November 19. The reply I received from Mr. Black in Victoria regarding this matter was as follows, and it refers to an individual case:

Pensions Act
As Mrs. Parnell has been granted an increase of $10 per month in old age security pension, it has been necessary to reduce Mr. Parnell's old age assistance allowance by $10 per month in order to keep within the income limits of $1,980 per annum which is the total amount of allowable income set by federal government legislation. To date the federal government has not announced an increase in old age assistance allowances.
On the surface, I considered this to be a factual statement, except that it is passing the buck. The answer I received from the hon. lady is as follows. It bears the same date and it is addressed to me, dear-it reads-


An hon. Member:: Dear what?


Frank Howard: I do not want to mislead either the members of the house or the public, but when the hon. lady and I both sat on this side of the house in opposition, we got to know each other on more than a formal Mr. and Miss basis. Since hon. members are interested in this matter, may I say the letter is addressed in typewriting, "Dear Mr. Howard", and written over the top of that is "Frank". You can see for yourself, therefore, it is almost addressed, "To whom it may concern". The letter reads in part as follows:
Thank you for your letter of November 15, which was similar to a number we have been receiving regarding reductions on certain forms of provincial assistance to senior citizens consequent upon the recent $10 increase in the old age security payments.
You note that the minister says she has received a number of similar complaints. This is not an isolated case.
As you probably gathered from recent statements I have made in the house on this subject, the government is deeply concerned. At the same time, there are limits as to how far we can go in attempting to persuade the provinces-
Note that, Mr. Speaker.
-in attempting to persuade the provinces to let the pensioners themselves have the extra $10 they have been voted. It is a provincial matter and there is little we can do beyond expressing our concern and disappointment.
I, too, express my concern and disappointment, not only at the circumstances in which these people find themselves but at the answer I got from the minister. The minister's letter continues in a friendly tone and one which leads a person to believe that all is not dark and there are some bright spots on the horizon. I quote:
Please be assured, however, that I will personally continue to do everything I can to see that our older people are treated both generously and fairly by all,
Yours sincerely,
I am sure you do not want me to read the name underneath that.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Frank Howard: I have been asked, so I will say it is signed in typewritten form "Judy LaMarsh" and penned over that just plain "Judy".


An hon. Member:: Just very attractive Judy.


Frank Howard: I did not mean that; I meant just ordinary Judy. Notwithstanding this light hearted banter, the fact is that the minister saw fit to pass the buck to the province and say, "I am sorry, I cannot do anything about it." Then the province passed the buck back to the federal government and said, "It is too bad the federal government does not do something about it," and all these people who are recipients of the old age security program, at least in the province of British Columbia, if not in all the provinces, find they have $10 less a month.
These people do not particularly care whose responsibility it is, and do not particularly care which minister thinks it is the responsibility of some other minister. What they are concerned about is that one government has decided to pinch $10 out of their pockets, all because this government did not have the foresight and real concern for these people, to come a long time ago and ask parliament to endorse legislation such as that we have now before us.
While the minister may address her letters "Frank" and sign them "Judy" this does not help Mr. Parnell and Mrs. Parnell. The end result is that in effect they have had $10 a month stolen from them in October and November.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Frank Howard: I thought the house had been agreeable to proceed and finish the bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is agreed to by this party, at any rate.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.


Frank Howard: I thought the minister was on the point of rising to close the debate on second reading. Perhaps she would relate to the committee the names of the provinces who wanted these increases to come into effect later than December 1.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for trying to spare our correspondence, and I would like to inform him that hereafter I will be careful, in order that he is not further embarrassed, to address him as "Dear Sir."


Frank Howard: She has broken my heart.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The information he asked for is something which I think I cannot give. For one thing, I do not remember it offhand, and I do not have it with me. Second, I do not see that it would assist members of the committee in any way to know which provinces did this.	.
It may be recalled that in answer to a number of questions I stated that this matter would be placed before the provinces. That preliminary discussion was held in September last, and then deferred for a full scale discussion when the premiers of the provinces might be present, and this took place a couple of weeks ago. At that time the subject of discussion was the type of over-all program which looks at need, the type of program which says, "Does this man or woman need public assistance;" and this kind of test is a more modern one, and one which does fill in the gaps which presently exist with regard to categorical programs.
The provinces expressed an interest in exploring future legislation of this kind, and as a result each premier, speaking on behalf of his province, indicated that he was prepared to enter into a series of consultative talks at the civil service level, so that it may take some considerable time to work out a program and recommend it to the federal and provincial governments.
These programs, being shared programs in which the federal government in two cases pays 50 per cent of the cost, and in one case 75 per cent of the cost, can be, and have been in the past on more than one occasion, imposed by the federal government on the provinces as a serious burden, particularly when they come at a point late in the fiscal year of the federal government and the provincial governments, when money has not been allocated in either the federal or provincial treasuries for them.
In the past there has not always been consultation between the provinces and the federal government, and accordingly what has happened is that federal members, in enacting federal legislation, impose an insuperable burden on the provincial governments, because they are then placed in a position that if they do not enact their own legislative changes, in order to keep up with the standard to which the federal government has led the way, they are put in very serious political disability with their own people.
Pensions Act
Accordingly we would want to discuss this. We are moving ahead with what we hope will be a better type of program in the future, but admittedly it will take some period of time to bring about agreement on all sides. At all times it has been indicated it was the intention of the federal government, once the future of these programs was ascertained, to move to bring them up to the same level as the old age security payments.
This is the approach which I am sorry my hon. friend from Perth appears to have forgotten was mentioned in the white paper on the Canada pension plan in July, and which was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the interim, and after consultation with the provinces two weeks ago, the same amount of money, $10 per month, was agreed to by the government and that proposal is now before the committee.
One hon. member inquired why the figure of $120 a month earned income was decided upon. There have been various sums in the past, but it was decided that this amount is sufficient to permit everyone to get the benefit of this $10, and not to suffer by having it cut down, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena. All the provinces asked for a greater exemption of the income ceiling, but I can tell the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that neither his province nor any other suggested that the income ceiling exemption should be greater than it now is in this bill.
The hon. member for Perth said that this legislation should have been presented earlier. I am at a loss to understand a speech such as that, because he and his colleagues are constantly making speeches about the need for consultation with the provinces in advance of action. We do this, and then my hon. friend complains that we have not gone charging in on our own. He cannot have it both ways. We believe that advance consultation with the provinces on matters that will impose a financial burden upon them is the right way to do it, and this is the reason we approached it in this way.
Of course, it might be possible to back date this program to October 1. It provides some administrative problems, I was informed by some provinces, and some were negative in their approach; but their main consideration was the fiscal one. We asked each province in turn to say at what month they thought we should begin payment, and almost half of them placed it as far ahead as April 1 next. As a result of this legislation when it passes-as I assume it will, since from all sides of the house agreement has been indicated-it will be necessary to amend 36 agreements, as I pointed out, which we have

Pensions Act
with the provinces. This is only enabling legislation and I cannot guarantee to the members of this committee or to the interested individuals in this country that payment will commence on December 1. This only indicates that the federal government is prepared to start making its share of the contribution as of that date. I assume that any province which finds itself financially incapable of doing so will not be paying this to their blind, disabled or aged persons who are in need of assistance. But we are prepared to meet the cost as of that date.
While I am mentioning the cost, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam dealt with this question and was able to figure out, as all of us are, that $4.2 million in a quarter amounts to about $13 million a year. It actually comes to $7.9 million for old age assistance, $3.9 million for disabled persons allowances and $.8 million for blind persons allowances, for a total of $12.6 million in a full year. The cost is admittedly not terrifically burdensome when one looks at the over-all cost of welfare. The benefits to the individual are very great. In the past many applications were turned down, mainly within the disabled persons category, and on this and some other occasions hon. members have mentioned the restrictions under the definition of "disabled". To the department and to each minister in succession this has quickly become a familiar problem, as have the representations on behalf of the blind, or by blind individuals and those who care for their welfare. These representations have pointed out the cost of blindness, which these people feel should merit a special allowance. But surely the members of the committee will see that to avoid discrimination, to avoid pigeon-holing people, the kind of program which I as minister mentioned as far back as July, and which has been mentioned by one or two hon. members today, notably the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is moving away from sort of making second class citizens of people because they have a specific disability, is a better type of program. It commends itself to me; it commends itself to those provinces which committed themselves, at least as far as the conference was concerned, and it may well be this will be the last time this house is called upon to make amendments to these three specific pieces of legislation.
I should like to make another observation here, Mr. Chairman. As I think all members know, the administration is handled by the provincial governments and not by the federal government. I receive a number of applications from individuals, particularly for disabled pensions, who do not seem to understand

that this is not handled from a central office in Ottawa. Perhaps one of the better features of its being handled by the provincial governments is that they are closer to the people and are able to keep a better check on the program. Unfortunately these tests are means tests, a test which has come to be held with certain disapproval by most people in the welfare field in this country; but the movement is from the means test to a more liberal test, and that is a needs test-not of what someone already has, but what it costs them to live in an individual area. My hon. friend from Simcoe made this point, that there are differing costs in differing parts of our country.
It is hoped, Mr. Chairman, that this is perhaps the last step with respect to these three programs, and perhaps in taking this last step it is the first step toward something which may fill a greater need, will make sure that the people of Canada receive better value for their welfare dollar, and will move away from categorizing individuals by virtue of a particular disability.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief. I would simply like to say that it seems to me the hon. lady was overly sensitive in this respect, because the provinces already have these acts in force; they have legislation in force, they have agreements with the federal government and this is only a matter of increasing the amount. I still claim this should have been done at the same time as the old age security payment was increased. It would then have been optional for the provinces to decide whether they would take action, as it is now. The hon. lady indicated that apparently some provinces do not contemplate bringing this program in for some months. The same situation would have prevailed with regard to October 1, and those who wished to do so would have been in a position to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, there are a great many things one would like to say in this field of social welfare, because it is an extremely important topic and a question with regard to which we in Canada still have a long way to go if we are to keep pace with many of the other nations of the world which have far outstripped us in establishing adequate social security programs. However, I do not propose to go into the matter in detail at this time because, like all other members of the committee, I am extremely anxious that this legislation be passed quickly so that those in receipt of old age assistance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances will

receive the $10 increase to which they are entitled and will receive it at the end of this month.
Therefore what I wish to say I shall capsule very quickly into four brief points. First I would like to support wholeheartedly the suggestion of my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the government and we in this house must start thinking in terms of a comprehensive social security program for Canada. The patchwork system we have now leaves a great many gaps in the social security program. Anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the social security systems in the Scandinavian countries, western Europe and Great Britain will know that only with a comprehensive program can you be sure there is not a great deal of suffering and a great deal of privation. We have a social security program that goes forward in fits and starts, depending on public pressure and the ability of certain groups to organize and express their disapproval. But the smaller groups which suffer from the lack of an adequate social security program are hardly ever heard, and the result is that they are often neglected and forgotten.
So I do wish to press for the early consideration of an adequate social security program that will be comprehensive in scope and will really make Canada a humanitarian, welfare society.
Second, I was pleased to hear the minister say that her department is giving thought to a new approach to these shared programs; that instead of a means test we are going to begm thinking in terms of a needs test. It is possible to measure income, but this does not measure need.
The hon. member for Simcoe East talked about the cost of living in different parts of the country, but in addition to that problem one also has to keep in mind that there is a difference in the cost of living for two people living in the same community. One person may require expensive drugs such as insulin or aureomycin or may need a special diet. One person may live under certain conditions as a result of which he requires more assistance than another person who is enjoying comparatively good health. Therefore, if we are going to keep up to date in the kind of welfare program which has become commonplace in the western world, we have to reorganize these shared programs so as to provide for a needs test basis rather than a means test basis.
This is particularly true in the case of disabled persons. I am not going to take the time of the committee to remind hon. members of what everyone knows, that the present Disabled Persons Act is so rigid in its regulations that it really applies only to persons 28902-5-361
Pensions Act
who are almost totally helpless and completely incapacitated. Yet there are thousands of people in Canada who are unemployable to all intents and purposes. They are not completely incapacitated but they are incapacitated in so far as it is possible for them to earn a living. A needs test could be applied to people of this kind. Probably they do not need as much as a person who is bedridden, but they do need sufficient to enable them to live in decency and comfort without having to be treated as relief recipients.
The third point I wish to make is to suggest to the minister that consideration be given to doing what the Scandinavian countries have done for a number of years, namely tie pensions to the cost of living index. We tend to sit back, let the cost of living go up, and when it has risen so far that it has eaten up all of the increase we gave these recipients we then boost the pension. A d.b.s. daily bulletin which I received a short time ago shows that the cost of living in the last two months has risen to 134, an increase of six tenths of 1 percentage point, making it the highest cost of living in our history. It has gone up 2.1 percentage points in the past 12 months. This means that as the cost of living goes up the buying capacity of these pensions declines. I think there is a good deal to be said for tying these pensions to the cost of living so that without legislation the department would be able to adjust pensions automatically every quarter or biannually in conformity with the rising cost of living.
The last point I want to make is to join my voice with those of almost every other member who has spoken in urging the minister to give further consideration to the effective date of this legislation. As has been pointed out, these shared programs are on a means test basis which means that those who are recipients have virtually no other income. They are almost completely dependant on the payments made under this legislation. If there are any groups that need the $10 a month increase certainly they are the old age assistance pensioners, the blind pensioners and the recipients of disabled persons allowances. It seems, therefore, most ironic that they should be deprived of the increase for two months when it has been given to old age security pensioners, all of whom are not in the same necessitous circumstances as are those in these groups.
The minister takes refuge in the fact that she had to consult with the provinces and that the provinces indicated that December 1 was about as far back as they were prepared to go. I am not quarrelling about consulting with the provinces. I am suggesting, however, that

. snsions Act
the government has known for some months that it was going to raise the old age security pension by $10 per month and that before the legislation was brought into the house there was no reason why the provinces could not have been approached by letter asking them if they were prepared to agree to a $10 a month increase in the shared programs, so that all persons coming under these programs could enjoy the $10 a month increase at the same time. The minister would then have been able to bring down all the legislation at the same time and treat all these recipients alike.
I object very strongly to the fact that again and again these most needy groups are cheated out of two months increase simply because they have to wait while the federal and provincial governments make up their minds.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Could I ask the hon. member a question? When did this happen before? He has said this has happened again and again. When did it happen before?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would not want to say without checking the record but my recollection is that in 1951 there was a gap.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I just want to make it clear that there was not in 1957 or 1962.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Perth is quite right. There was not in 1957 or 1962. My recollection is that there was in 1951, but I would want to check the record before being categorical. At that time 1 had some responsibility in the matter and I remember the battle we waged. To the best of my recollection there was a gap then between the time when the old age security increase became effective, and the increase in the categorical shared program pensions became effective.
I am simply saying it is not good enough to have this gap between these two programs. If there is to be any gap at all it could more easily be justified the other way, but certainly these groups for whom we are legislating now should not be cheated out of two months pension increase just because the federal and provincial governments did not get together early enough to act promptly and to treat all pension groups alike.
I feel perfectly certain that if the provinces had been told at the federal-provincial conference that the government of Canada was going to introduce legislation making the increase in old age assistance pensions, blind pensions and disabled persons allowances effective as of October 1, and it would leave it to the provinces to come in when they chose to do so, most of the provinces would have elected to come in as of October 1. I do

not think there is any doubt about it. I wish that the government had taken its courage in its hands and simply made that perfectly clear to the provincial governments.
If the minister and the government are adamant and are not prepared to make October 1 the effective date, the very least they can do is to make the increase in allowable income retroactive to October 1 in order to deal with the kind of case referred to by the hon. member for Skeena where an individual has had her old age assistance pension reduced because her spouse has had an increase in the old age security pension. This would at least remove that kind of disparity. I offer that as a very mild concession but I hope the minister will go much further. Before the legislation passes through the committee I hope the minister will agree to change the effective date to October 1, and then use her very considerable influence with the provincial governments to make their payments retroactive to October 1. Some of the provinces may not be prepared to do so, but I hazard the guess that the great majority of them will welcome this move and will be prepared to pay their share of the pension back to October 1. I hope the minister will give this very careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to respond, as I am sure in her heart she would like to, to the appeals which have been made to change the effective date to October instead of December? If it were in order for us on this side of the house to move an amendment to that effect we would do so, but as it involves the expenditure of public money we could hardly move such an amendment. But the minister could. Will she?


Mr. Barnett:: I am sure many hon. members would be quite prepared to give the minister their solemn assurance at this time that, if she does accede to this request, when we return to our home provinces we will be quite prepared to deal with any objections which might be raised in our own areas to this particular move.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with the request made by the last three hon. members who have spoken. But it must be appreciated that after the discussions in September, the week-long federal-provincial conference, and the consideration given to it by the Queen's ministers, this decision was taken in light of all the information available. It is not

within my province now, despite the matters brought forward by my hon. friends, to alter that decision. Therefore, most regretfully, I must say I am not prepared to sponsor such an amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, could I just answer a question put to me by the hon. member for Perth a few moments ago. I have just checked the facts. In 1952 all the pensions came in at the same time, effective on January 1, 1952. I was in error when I suggested that at that time there was a difference in dates.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then I do not suppose there has been any time when they actually lagged, up until this present period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe that is correct.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could point out that under the auspices of the Department of National Health and Welfare a publication was presented which states year by year and date by date precisely what the hon. member for Perth has just contended, that up until this present time there has never been a lag. Whenever old age security has been increased and has come into effect, at the same time old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances have been increased accordingly. This is a new venture, and it is unfortunate that it has to take place under the jurisdiction of the hon. lady because she is such a kind, gentle and humane soul, and I hope this is not her parting act as minister.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Next sitting of the house. I should like to point out that in 1962 when the same bills were put through, third reading was given on the twelfth of the month and the increases were made payable as of the first of the month. Therefore, tomorrow being the eleventh, I should like to suggest it receive third reading then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house? Agreed. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, does the house really want to proceed with private members' business at this late hour?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
28902-5-361i
Private Bills


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There are a number of very important private bills on the paper and we are hopeful that they can be put through by six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then the house will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-45, respecting the Executive Board of The Canada Conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod of North America.-Mr. Ormiston.
Bill No. S-47, to incorporate Royal General Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).
Bill No. S-48, respecting The Northern Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Morison.
Bill No. S-51, to incorporate Family Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).

Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-49, respecting the Canada North-west Land Company (Limited).


Frank Howard: I would appreciate it very much if the sponsor would give some outline of the purposes of the bill.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, this company is an old company. Originally a land company, it has now sold practically all its land holdings. I believe it now holds only a quarter section of land and a number of mineral leases. Over the years its operations have gradually changed, till at the present time its operations are more those of an investment company rather than those of a land company. The amendments now proposed are for the purpose of making its charter consistent with the business it is now carrying on. Its objects are being changed and its capital structure is being changed to conform with its present operations. All the directors and officials are residents of Canada and this is a Canadian owned company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-50, to incorporate the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada.

Private Bills


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the sponsor of the bill would tell us something about the company which ji< to be incorporated.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee of the whole on Bill S-15, an act to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada (as amended).-Mr. Enns.
Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the sponsor of this bill and he has kindly agreed to let it stand on the understanding that it retains its position on the order paper. I have already spoken to the acting house leader and I believe this is agreeable to the government.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I agree to giving precedence to items three to seven, but I request, by unanimous consent, that item No. 2 follows item No. 7 on the order paper.
Order stands.

On the order:
House in committee of the whole on Bill S-15, an act to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada (as amended).-Mr. Enns.


Mr. MacNaughi:: I wonder if the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) would consent to allowing item No. 156 to be called? It is a similar bill to the last, it will only take a moment, and I think it is desirable that it be passed so that it may be disposed of this session.


Siegfried John Enns: I am quite agreeable to following the conciliatory mood of the house this afternoon and agreeing to the request of the hon. gentleman.
Order stands.

House in committee on Bill No. S-15 to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada-Mr. Enns-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.


Mr. Deachman:: When this bill came before the committee in the first instance there were a number of considerations which arose in consequence of which it was sent back to the committee for further examination. When the bill was again before the committee for further study, additional witnesses were called and additional information was obtained. Following this further scrutiny, certain amendments were made. These appear, I believe in Votes and Proceedings of December 9.
However, despite these amendments and despite the testimony given by those who were called to give evidence before the committee in respect to this bill, a number of features remain which, in my view, warrant the careful scrutiny of this house, and it is for that reason I rise at the present time.
First of all, what is the Good News Broadcasting Association? I am not yet satisfied, though I listened carefully to the witness from the United States who appeared before us on behalf of the Good News Broadcasting

Corporation of the United States, the parent company, one might say, which is associated with Good News Broadcasting in Canada- I am not convinced that we are actually dealing here with an association. Rather, I believe we are dealing with a proprietorship of one or several individuals; that the so-called Canadian association is not truly an association but, in fact, an extension of a United States franchise.
I might point out that no evidence was brought before the committee to show, for example, that those associated with Good News Broadcasting in Canada are in any way an association with an elected body- elected members with a congregation, for instance, as a church might have a congregation.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In view of the fact that some 45 minutes of the private members' hour were spent discussing other matters I wonder whether the Chair would permit the hon. member to complete his remarks, in which case we might get this bill through.


Grant Deachman: I think it was understood on both sides of the house that time usually taken up by private members' business would be shortened for the purpose of dealing with the legislation which preceded these items. I see it is six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Deschatelets (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. C-120, to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Last evening when the motion for second reading of this bill was proposed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order to the effect that since this bill contained money provisions it should have been initiated by means of a resolution based upon the recommendation of the Governor General. During the course of the discussion reference was made to a number of citations
World Exhibition Corporation Act in Beauchesne's fourth edition and also to section 54 of the British North America Act.
I do not intend to discuss the merits of these citations except to say that, meanwhile, I have had an opportunity not only of reviewing these citations but also examining the provisions of the bill. It seems to me that there is at least one money provision in this bill. Section 3 of the bill seeks to increase the number of directors from 12 to 14. Section 5, subsection 2 of the original statute, provides for payment by the corporation to the directors of reasonable travel and living expenses. The financial provisions of the original bill were as follows:
The Minister of Finance, at the request of the corporation, may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the corporation by way of grant such amounts as are required for the conduct of the business of the corporation but the aggregate of all amounts paid to the corporation under this section shall not exceed $20 million.
It is obvious that the increase in the number of directors, requiring additional expenditures out of public funds for the payment of the additional directors' travelling and living expenses will not affect the total sum of $20 million authorized by existing legislation. However, the new act will change the conditions attached to the spending of these moneys by the original act, and to this extent the bill now before the house would appear to be a money bill.
I have, of course, given serious thought to the arguments advanced briefly by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to the effect that the proposed legislation does not require to be preceded by a resolution because there is existing legislation authorizing the total capital fund out of which will be paid the additional expenditures contemplated by the amending bill. May's sixteenth edition, at page 754, has the following comments which would perhaps fortify the minister in his views:
The question often arises whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, that is, a provision in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law. The comparison of provisions in a bill with the law on the subject, as it exists, may show that, while such provisions undoubtedly involve expenditure, the power to incur such expenditure is covered by general powers conferred by statute.
Many examples of expenditure which, as being covered by pre-existing legal powers, is not treated as a charge are given on page 761. This standard of reference is readily applicable in the case of the large and increasing number of bills which are, in terms, amendments of previous statutes on the same subject. But in other cases considerable research is necessary to determine whether a

World Exhibition Corporation Act provision which obviously involves expenditure is a "new and distinct" charge. The application of this test has given a somewhat uncertain answer to one difficult question- whether a provision for expenditure which proposes to finance that expenditure out of funds provided by statute for another purpose is or is not a "new and distinct" charge.
Undoubtedly, there are a number of precedents cited in May's which might be considered to support the view that the proposed increased expenditure in the bill before us is covered by the general authorization in the existing law to the extent that a resolution is not required at this stage.
However, these precedents which come from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom are at variance with our own parliamentary practice. This may stem from the fact that the British usage in this regard is based on precedent, while we are bound in Canada by the constitutional provision of section 54 of the British North America Act, which is restated in standing order 61 of the standing orders of the House of Commons.
It must also be pointed out that the precedents referred to in May's are not recent decisions and at page 763 of the same edition it is stated in part as follows:
Recent practice makes it doubtful whether certain older decisions, exempting on technical grounds charges from the requirements of financial procedure, would now be upheld.
Later on pages 763-764, it is stated, in part, as follows:
The examples given below are precedents which require due consideration. It is doubtful if they would be now followed. Indeed in 1928 a bill which proposed to substitute a new purpose for an existing statutory grant was ruled out of order because it had not been introduced on a resolution recommended by the crown.
The exemption of these cases from the provisions of the standing order was made on technical grounds and seems hardly within the spirit of the rules. It is true that in the cases given below the proposals emanated from ministers of the crown, and consequently the principle of the financial initiative of the government was not in substance abrogated. But from the abandonment of the machinery for enforcing the principle it would follow that the proposal of such methods of financing expenditure would be equally open to private members, and even in the cases referred to there would have been no ground for refusing amendments offered by private members for increasing the proposed expenditure.
May I now refer to section (1) of citation 260, Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is as follows:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past 25 years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Our Journals are full of precedents to this effect.

The principle enunciated in section 54 of the British North America Act and in standing order 61 is expressed in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 355, in the following terms:
Bills involving expenditure of public money or taxation, and all measures involving a charge upon the people must be preceded by a resolution.
It should be noted however that a resolution is required not only when an amendment seeks to increase the amount previously approved by parliament, but also if it changes the modality and conditions of the grant authorized by the original legislation.
Citation 246 (3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
In my opinion, the bill before the house seeks to alter the conditions relating to the expenditure of the funds previously authorized by parliament, and should thus be considered as a money bill, which can only be introduced by a minister of the crown after a proper resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my face is not as red as it would have been if you had made your ruling last night because, after a certain amount of reflection, I came to the conclusion that the rather tentative views I expressed last night might be found by Your Honour not to warrant justification. The fact that you have upheld the initiative of the crown cannot be altogether displeasing to those who sit on the treasury benches. I think the best thing I can do in the circumstances-and in anticipation I have spoken to my right hon. friend who is the sponsor of the bill-is to put a motion on the order paper in the normal way, and when it is proceeded with in the normal way we will take on the bill. Meanwhile I would appreciate it if you would call the next item of business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this bill now on the order paper stand, or does it get reintroduced after the house has passed the resolution which is now to be placed on the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to let the Chair decide that without argument.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that there is a precedent, dating back to 1912 or 1913, where the procedure which is now proposed by the Secretary of State was followed.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was a good government then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Secretary of State was not here then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the bill stand as agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-121, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


[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-Auditors.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with regard to section 1, I would have a few questions to direct to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith). Since he is not here and since the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is indicating that he is replacing him, I will put my questions to him.
First, who were the C.N.R. auditors before those we are appointing now and second, until what time did the previous auditors assume those functions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is better informed than I.


Mr. Benson:: I could perhaps explain this briefly. As I understand the situation, from the inception of independent auditors for the C.N.R.-I believe it was about 1923

to the early 'thirties, George A. Touche and Company were auditors of this firm. Then in the early 'thirties, at the time when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was elected prime minister, Clarkson, Gordon and Company were nominated as auditors of the Canadian National.
When a Liberal government was re-elected a few years later the audit was then reverted to George A. Touche and Company and they carried on until, I believe, 1958 at which time a Mr. J. A. de Lalanne was appointed as auditor to Canadian National Railways. This continued until last year. Now, Mr. de Lalanne was a partner in the firm of McDonald, Currie and Company, and last year
Canadian National Railways the audit was put in the name it is now in, in the C.N.R. finance bill which is to come before the house, appointing the auditors for last year when the audit was transferred to McDonald, Currie and Company.
This bill is simply to revert the audit to the auditors who have been auditors of the C.N.R. for the entire period it has had public accountants as auditors, except for two brief periods.


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance if the former accountants and auditors are being replaced because their services were not satisfactory.


Edgar John Benson: I think that the government has decided that the firm which has done the audit of the C.N.R. during most of the period it has had independent auditors is quite well qualified to carry on with the job. I would not like to imply political patronage at any time in this entire operation of the C.N.R. Nevertheless, the firm of George A. Touche and Company have always been the auditors of the C.N.R., except for the two brief periods I mentioned, and it is the belief of the government that the audit should revert to the firm that has traditionally done the auditing.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would have another question to direct to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I recognized the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I shall recognize the hon. member for Lapointe next.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I want to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he would not agree that this is the Enterprise post office formula on a larger scale?


Edgar John Benson: I think it is not nearly as near the Enterprise post office formula as was the appointment made in 1958.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, auditors are appointed here to the C.N.R. This is therefore, among others, quite an important function concerning the control of the C.N.R.
Now, when looking over the list of the C.N.R. board of directors, one finds that among the president and 17 vice presidents, there is only one French Canadian. On this

Canadian National Railways very matter, I was asking the Minister of Transport a question the other day concerning-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Lapointe could indicate to the Chair how his comments tie in with the bill now before the committee, which concerns exclusively the appointment of auditors for the C.N.R.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you know very well what may involve-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -the appointment of auditors for the C.N.R. It is not because some individual on the other side of the house shouts "order" that one is out of order.
You know very well that we are discussing the appointment of a person who will act as an auditor-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I should like to ask the hon. member for Lapointe not to go beyond the bill now before the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the bill now before us. As I said, parliament is being asked to appoint an auditor for the C.N.R. This is just one of the functions in the Canadian National.
Each time somebody is appointed to the Canadian National, such an appointment is within the general frame of the present debate. I submit that my remarks are completely within the limits of the debate on the bill.
When, as I said a moment ago, I note that out of the 18 directors of the Canadian National, there is only one French Canadian, and that when there is a new appointment to the Canadian National, it is not a French Canadian who is appointed, are we not entitled to protest? Every new opportunity which arises to appoint a French Canadian is disregarded.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say this. The appointments are made without parliament knowing about it, without the hon. members knowing about it. On the other hand, when this bill, or any other bill, is submitted to the house, when our approval is sought we have the right to stand up and say: when the government appoints people, it does not take into consideration-and it did not in the past-the fact that we are living in a bilingual country, that both races, both cultures, English and French, have the right to be recognized, and consequently that French Canadians should be appointed to high positions within the crown companies, and not exclusively our fellow citizens, heirs to the other great cultural heritage of this country.


Mr. Chairman, I submit that my remarks are in order. I request that they be taken into consideration in the appointment provided for in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: Surely, Mr. Chairman, you will protect us from these wild, irresponsible, demogogic statements that are being made by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.
I know we often deal with the French fact. That may not agree with certain members. But I would remind these members, who are perhaps the ones who speak from morning till night when agriculture or western wheat is discussed, that we do not complain. On the contrary, we encourage them to speak about their problems in the House of Commons. Should there be in the house western members who wish to speak about wheat, we shall approve them.
Each member speaks about the problems in which he is interested. As far as we are concerned, we speak about those in which we are interested. I think the hon. member is ill-advised to interrupt as he did a moment ago.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please-


Mr. Teillei:: Mr. Chairman, I-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe cannot make remarks in that respect, since they refer to the appointment of members of the board of directors of the C.N.R. However, I believe that when he complains, for instance, to follow his line of thought, that generally the government does not name French Canadians to certain positions, he comes closer, to a certain extent, to the bill under study.
On the other hand, I would ask him to link his remarks more specifically to the particular appointments we are considering at the present time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, my remarks are connected, by way of consequence, to the appointment of the auditors for the C.N.R. since that appointment forms part of the general picture. It is through that deduction that it relates to the bill under consideration.
In my opinion, it is not demagogic for a member to rise in this house and claim part of what belongs to his own people in a country where one would like understanding to prevail. That is how I connect my remarks,

because understanding will exist only when appointments are made to ensure that the two great nations that make up our country will co-operate in the administration of public business, the various departments and crown corporations.
That is why I protest, not against any specific appointment, because I trust the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, I recognize the competence of those accountants and their honesty when auditing the books of the C.N.R.
The only thing I deplore is precisely- [Text]


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question? I was wondering whether the hon. member is aware that there are a number of French Canadians in the firm of auditors that is being appointed for the C.N.R. audit. In fact, I would think there are as many French Canadians in this firm as there are in any major accounting firm in Canada.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
I should not like to leave unchallenged-


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order? The hon. member for Lapointe still has the floor.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there may be several French Canadian accountants in that firm. I was asking for information about that a while ago and I am only too happy to get some. Besides, I pointed out that those appointed as public accountants are qualified, and the protest I raise tonight is not against that firm of accountants. I do want to say that, but it is rather against the fact that we do not appoint a reasonable proportion of French Canadian people within the federal civil service and the crown corporations.
It is on that point that I raise my objection.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat a suggestion that I think I first made 15 or 20 years ago. It was rejected then and was rejected several times after I first made it. It seems to me that tonight it is more appropriate than ever. My suggestion can be put in the form of a question. Why not have the Auditor General of Canada do the work of auditing the accounts of Canadian National Railways?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Is this still the point of order?
Canadian National Railways


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Is there a point of order?
I was making a speech. Just because I am on my feet does not mean there is a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a reasonable assumption.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I thought the Chair a moment ago pointed out to me that we were discussing a point of order and asked whether my remarks were on it, and they were not. I thought I had the floor then.


Lucien Lamoureux: No, I am afraid not. I recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not blame my hon. friend and neighbour from St. Boniface for being confused. When I made the suggestion some years ago that the Auditor General might do this job, there was never at that time any comment such as we have heard this evening, involving the use of the word "patronage". We proposed that the job should be done by him because we thought the Auditor General of Canada could do the job for us. After all, he is responsible to this parliament. But because the banter back and forth this evening over the changing of the firm of auditors has raised questions about patronage, it seems to me a good way to remove any such allegation would be by having this job done, not by a firm that might be friendly to this party or the other, but by the Auditor General appointed by the parliament of Canada. It seems to me also it would meet the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, because I understand that in the office of the Auditor General there are about 180 employees and I am sure a reasonable proportion of them are English speaking and a reasonable proportion are French speaking. I believe that not only does this suggestion made good sense and good economics, but it would do away with this query about patronage. It would also meet the contention of the hon. member for Lapointe, if the government would consider having this audit carried out by the Auditor General of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may make some brief remarks in this connection. I have some sympathy with the hon. member's suggestion with regard to having the Auditor General audit the accounts of the C.N.R. However, there are several corporations-and I think the minutes of the proceedings of the public account's committee of last week would indicate the number of audits-which are carried out by other than the Auditor General. I think there is a reasonably good reason for this, in that the Auditor General has

Canadian National Railways consistently had a tremendous problem in maintaining enough staff to carry out the work he has to undertake. I believe that in the public accounts committee over the past several years we have been trying to find ways in which the Auditor General can more easily obtain staff. This has now been solved to some degree, I believe. Nevertheless I think it would be utterly out of the question for the Auditor General to attempt to undertake an audit of the magnitude of that of the C.N.R. in the forthcoming year, in any circumstances. I will bring the suggestion of the hon. member to the attention of the government.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in order to take up the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) concerning western Canada.
I merely want to remind him that in the west, besides wheat, there are French Canadian groups that have many problems and often suffer because of the irresponsible words of the hon. member for Lapointe and other members of his group.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order. After what the minister has just said-


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member for Lapointe rising on a question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Norman Platt Lambert: The hon. member had better make sure there actually is a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) has described our remarks as irresponsible. I wonder whether his French Canadian colleagues do not really find his own remarks of tonight irresponsible, because the demands we make are as much for his fellow citizens as for our own-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is not justified.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with your ruling. There was no question of privilege and I am surprised that attempts are being made to keep us from speaking by raising so-called questions of privilege.

On another point I would ask the parliamentary secretary if it is not a case of there being more friends in one firm than in the 

other, because both of them are national firms and have representatives in the major cities where the Canadian National operates. Since he cannot show that there is a greater degree of competence in the one firm than in the other, why does he not face up to the situation and say that the government prefers the one firm to the other?


Edgar John Benson: I think it is fairly obvious, and I made the point in my earlier statement that the C.N.R. audit is reverting to the status it had originally in that it is being given to the firm that has carried it on almost continuously since the C.N.R. has had independent auditors, except for the period when Mr. de Lalanne was appointed. I did not mention it earlier and I will try not to mention Mr. de Lalanne's position when he was appointed auditor in 1958. The audit is now simply reverting to the firm that has carried out the C.N.R. audit continuously except for a period when Clarkson, Gordon and Company did it in the 'thirties. Would one say that that firm was friendly to the party that is now in opposition? I really do not know, but the Clarkson firm was appointed by the Bennett government in the 'thirties. Mr. de Lalanne was appointed in 1957 or 1958 and it was then turned over to his firm of McDonald, Currie and Company. It is now simply going back now to the firm that has done the C.N.R. audit almost continuously.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the parliamentary secretary what amount of fees is involved in an appointment of this kind. How much would this firm of accountants receive in fees?


Edgar John Benson: It is $100,000 or $125,000 for the total audit. I believe it is $100,000, but I am subject to correction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the Auditor General not engage a few people for that amount of money?


Edgar John Benson: About 15 chartered accountants.


Reid Scott: I have been listening to the parliamentary secretary closely and I did not hear the reasons he gave for dissatisfaction with the present firm.


Edgar John Benson: There is no dissatisfaction with the present firm. I would say that the firms are equally good. I do not want to dwell upon the appointment of Mr. de Lalanne in 1958. I did not want to point out that he was a candidate for a particular political party prior to his appointment. The audit is simply reverting to the firm that has traditionally done it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, following several remarks on the part of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), concerning the appointment of new auditors for the C.N.R., to my mind he has not been very clear yet. I should like to get more particulars, if possible, as to the actual reasons for such a change every time a new government is elected.
In the case of a company, there is no question of having a new auditor every year or every four years. The president may change, but the auditor does not, except for special reasons.
Just because the government changes, it does not follow that the auditor should. Presidents as well as directors of companies are replaced, but auditors are not unless there are very serious reasons.
That is the reason of my request to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member I would say that the auditors of the C.N.R. are appointed annually as is the case in most commercial Arms. The appointment comes up annually and in the case of the C.N.R. the parliament of Canada has the right of appointment and may choose the auditors to be appointed.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance if it is not correct that the auditors were changed during the last five years? One firm was changed to another. Is this not in keeping with the practice which has been followed during the years that the C.N.R. has been coming before parliament?


Edgar John Benson: In answer I would say that the auditing of the C.N.R. has changed, as I indicated earlier, and this is simply a change that has taken place.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. de Lalanne is being changed for another firm.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, can the parliamentary secretary state whether the minister or the government received representations by members of the firm or other persons in favour of the appointment of this firm as auditors of the C.N.R.?


Edgar John Benson: Not to my knowledge, and I think I can assure the house that there was no approach by the particular firm.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I said by the particular firm or other persons.


George Clyde Nowlan: There was none.
Canadian National Railways


Edgar John Benson: I really do not know about other persons but I would say this particular firm did not approach the government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the reticence on the part of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I think most of us know what the problem was with Mr. de Lalanne. Obviously he was a percentage man. He was not carrying out the audit. He was hardly in a position even to supervise it. He was contracting it out and it was an unsatisfactory arrangement. It was quite obvious it was unsatisfactory to anybody who saw Mr. de Lalanne's performance before the sessional committee that deals with this matter, and I think that the government should be congratulated on changing the auditor.
The only question in my mind is why the government did not give McDonald, Currie and Company, who have developed experience, the opportunity to discuss whether they would be willing to take on the job. It seems to me they are a firm of such size and scope that if they were given the contract there would be no question of this business of diddling back and forth on the basis of whether the Grits were in the swing or the Conservatives were in the swing. If the hon. gentleman really wants to know the main reason, that is it. If he thinks I am wrong I would ask him to go back and look at the evidence before the sessional committee, not so much last year but the year before and the year before that. If he does he will see how unsatisfactory it is to have someone as auditor appear before a parliamentary committee who has really not been intimately in touch with the audit which has been carried out by another organization entirely. I think the parliamentary secretary will have to agree with my analysis and I cannot see why he has to be so circumspect.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just before the parliamentary secretary replies, may I say that the remark of the hon. member for Port Arthur that the previous auditor was a percentage man is completely unwarranted. True, he may have had other assistance in respect of completing the audit of the C.N.R., but I certainly believe that remark is completely unwarranted.


Edgar John Benson: I also rise simply to say that I have no reason to agree with the statement of the hon. member for Port Arthur. In my statement to the house there was no question of the professional competence of the present auditors of the C.N.R., McDonald, Currie and Company. They are auditors of the C.N.R. subject to approval in the railway financing bill which is coming before the house. There is no question of the professional competence of Mr. de Lalanne, who is a chartered

Canadian National Railways accountant, or of McDonald, Currie and Company or of Ross, Touche and Company. The reason the change is being made is that Touche and Company are the traditional auditors of the C.N.R.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, is that sufficient reason for changing the auditors, because the other one has been there and it is more or less a tradition? I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to explain the statement that it is something of a tradition in the auditing of the C.N.R. books that there should be a change. If one is doing the job properly, why not keep him?


Edgar John Benson: There has been no long experience with the present firm, who are auditors of the C.N.R. for the year 1963. This is the first year of this firm's appointment as auditors. We are not questioning the professional integrity or competence of either of the firms, but the firm presently doing the C.N.R. audit has had the appointment for only one year. The technique of auditing the C.N.R. books has been built up by the firm of George A. Touche and Company, which is now Touche, Ross and Company, over a great many years, and we believe they are perfectly competent. Without in any way questioning the competence of the other auditors, perhaps this firm, under these circumstances, is the best firm to perform the audit.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question. Was the auditing of the C.N.R. done well last year?


Edgar John Benson: It is not finished yet.


Raymond Langlois: How can you change them if it is not finished?


Edgar John Benson: The audit for 1963 is not finished. McDonald, Currie and Company were the auditors for 1963 and the audit is not finished. It will be coming forward to the house in due course. We are appointing auditors for 1964, if the hon. member looks at the bill.


Raymond Langlois: I agree you are naming them for 1964, but you said a minute ago the others had done a good job. Would it not be better to wait for the report, and if the auditor has done a good job to keep him?


Edgar John Benson: The auditors have to be appointed in advance. It is a continuing audit which starts on January 1. The auditors should be appointed before the beginning of the year. The audit of the C.N.R. is a tremendously large task.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to

the Minister of Finance whether he expects the deficit of the C.N.R. to be smaller following the change of auditors.

I should like to ask whether the deficit of the C.N.R. will be reduced because they are auditors?


Edgar John Benson: Being a professional auditor prior to my coming to parliament, I wish I could say that auditors did decrease a deficit merely by being auditors.


Marcel Lessard: I should like to put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. Could he inform the house whether this new attitude of the government means that the auditors will be changed every year so that every reputable accounting firm may have its turn? That seems to be the government's new policy.


Edgar John Benson: The auditing of the C.N.R. is an annual appointment.


Mr. Caouetle:: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary this question. According to what he has just said, this firm has been hired, or their services have been retained, by the government of Canada for many years prior to 1957. They were changed in 1957 and the de Lalanne firm was appointed when the Conservative government took over. Now the Liberals are back in power and they are returning to the same company. Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that this is purely and simply political patronage on the part of the government?


Edgar John Benson: I would say not. There are really very few firms in Canada of a size which would enable them to carry out the audit of the C.N.R. Speaking offhand I would say there are about four firms. Clarkson, Gordon and Company is one of these firms. They were the auditors of the C.N.R. in the thirties. Touche, Ross and Company are another firm capable of carrying out an audit which is on a nation-wide basis. McDonald Currie and Company are carrying out the audit at the present time for 1963. They are a large firm. There are really very few other firms which could handle an audit of this size.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) would like to have the floor. Since he has not had a single opportunity to speak since the beginning of the session, I should like you to recognize him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has given us the history of the appointment of these various firms of auditors across the years. There is one stage in that history which seems to have escaped me. I understand how Clarkson, Gordon were appointed. I understand how George A. Touche were appointed. I understand how Mr. de Lalanne was appointed. But how did McDonald, Currie get appointed for 1963?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. de Lalanne, as I understand the situation, was a partner in the firm of McDonald, Currie and Company; I assume I am correct in this. As I understand the situation, Mr. de Lalanne in 1963, at a time when this government was not in power, felt that the job was too onerous for him to carry on under his person and it was turned over to the firm of McDonald, Currie and Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I will satisfy my hon. friend for St. Boniface with a point of order yet. I understand the auditors of the Canadian National Railways have to be appointed annually by parliament. Since when did Mr. de Lalanne take the place of parliament and appoint McDonald, Currie and Company?


Edgar John Benson: He did not take the place of parliament. As I explained earlier, legally perhaps the auditors for 1963 for the C.N.R. are not yet appointed because they are included in the C.N.R. financing bill which has not got through the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been given first reading.


Edgar John Benson: This will officially sanction the position taken at the beginning of the year, when McDonald, Currie and Company took on the audit for 1963.


Stanley Howard Knowles: McDonald, Currie and Company have been doing the audit for the months thus far of 1963 without authorization. Is that correct? If parliament did not pass the bill or if it amended it to cut that firm out, we would then have a nullity as far as the audit for 1963 is concerned. Is that the situation? Then someone did exercise the prerogative of parliament at the beginning of 1963.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the title carry?


Mr. Leboe:: I just want to ask a question. Is it not possible to have these auditors submit bids? The parliamentary secretary says
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act that there are four capable auditors in Canada. Is it not possible to submit a bid on this matter? In this way we could get away from this type of thing.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would hate to see us come to the position in Canada where we employed professional people such as lawyers or accountants on a bid basis.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the hon. member making some kind of distinction between a professional person such as an accountant or a lawyer and, say, a contracting firm or group of businessmen?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like an answer. Is that what he is suggesting?


Edgar John Benson: I can answer this very quickly. The rules of etiquette of professional associations do not permit them to tender on audits. This is quite proper and is in the code of ethics of this particular profession.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am sure the large private companies do.


Edgar John Benson: I can assure the hon. member, having been a chartered accountant and a member of the profession, that in the profession it is forbidden to tender on audits of firms.


George Clyde Nowlan: And you would be disqualified if you did.


Edgar John Benson: Certainly you would be disqualified if knowledge of such action came into the possession of the professional institute of which you were a member.


An hon. Member:: How does this relate to civil rights?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.



CURRENCY, MINT AND EXCHANGE FUND ACT AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SECURITIES OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-106, an act to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.


Edgar John Benson: When the resolution relating to this amendment was considered by the house last Friday, November 15, I made an explanatory statement of some

Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act length. The house will not wish me, at this stage, to repeat all the explanations I gave. Suffice it to say, today, that this amendment is being introduced in order to empower the government to implement a commitment made neary two years ago. In brief, this commitment was to join with nine other leading countries in an undertaking to make advances under specified conditions to the international monetary fund, in time of need, to supplement the existing resources of the fund.
All the relevant details of this arrangement, which is known as the general arrangement to borrow of the international monetary fund, were explained at the resolution stage.
It seemed to me, however, from the discussion that took place last Friday, that I could usefully add some broad observations. Indeed, before the debate concluded, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) undertook that this would be done. At that time, several hon. members showed considerable interest in some studies which are now being carried forward under the auspices of the same ten countries as are making financial commitments under the general arrangements to borrow. I think it would help to clarify matters if I began by saying a few words about these studies.
These new studies were launched by a meeting of the finance ministers of the ten countries early in October at the time of the annual meeting of the international monetary fund in Washington. They had in mind the fact that the agreement under which the international monetary fund was established is now very nearly 20 years old. Hon. members will recall that the Bretton Woods conference was held in 1944. It seemed to them that the time had come for a new, extensive and forward-looking review of the functioning of the international monetary system. In the communique which was issued on October 2, they said:
This examination should be made with particular emphasis on the possible nature of the future needs for reserves and for supplementary credit facilities which may arise. ...The studies should also appraise and evaluate various possibilities for covering such needs. ... The ministers... have now instructed their deputies to examine these questions, and to report.. .over the course of the coming year.
In recent years, as hon. members are aware, there have been many proposals for improvement in the international monetary system. These have been put forward by governments, by bankers, by economists, and by others. It will be the task of our representatives who are carrying forward these studies to appraise, evaluate, and report on them. It is my hope that the ministers may receive a report by next summer so that whatever action might seem appropriate could be taken at the next

annual meeting of the international monetary fund. This meeting is fixed for next September.
In reply to a question raised last Friday by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) as reported in Hansard at page 4791, I am happy to give assurance that the Canadian representatives who are participating in these international studies will not be open to any charge that they are dragging their feet. The Canadian government is most anxious that these studies should be pursued vigorously, and that they should lead to constructive results.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) wondered why Switzerland was not in the group of ten. The answer is that Switzerland is not, as all the other ten are, a member of the international monetary fund. Special legal complications are involved in Swiss association with the fund's general arrangement to borrow. However, legislation is now before the Swiss parliament which, if passed, would permit Swiss association with this operation.
No less than three members referred in their remarks last Friday to an article that had appeared in various newspapers during the previous 24 hours. This article stated that the representatives of the ten countries participating in studies of the international monetary system are-and I quote-"actively considering a plan for creation of some form of international currency unit". The article went on to describe a particular plan which is usually associated with the name of a Washington economist, Edward Bernstein. In doing so, the writer seemed to imply that this plan had some pride of place in the consideration of the group of ten. I am informed that, as one would expect, the work of the study group is still at a preliminary stage. All the main proposals for improving the international monetary system will no doubt come under review, including that of Mr. Bernstein. But, at this early stage, no special attention has been given to any particular proposal.
I am, therefore, in a position to reassure the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that he is, to say the least, premature in jumping to the conclusion that the next step will be the establishment of an international currency, to use the words attributed to him in Hansard at page 4792, along the lines proposed by Mr. Bernstein.
At this point, and at other points in his remarks that day, he did not distinguish between, on the one hand, the current studies I have been describing, which look towards various possibilities in the future of international monetary arrangements and, on the other hand, the action which the house is

Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act
now being invited to take in order to implement a two-year-old commitment.
The hon. member for Lapointe made some other statements which I should not allow to pass without comment. I am sure the house would not wish me to take up its time in examining the preposterous, indeed ludicrous, suggestion that the ten major countries of the free world, including Canada, are controlled by the four international banking houses which the hon. member mentions. I would, however, like to assure him, and other hon. members, that the suggestion that two large Canadian banks which recently merged were or are controlled by one of the London clearing banks is not in accord with the facts.
In speaking on the resolution to amend this act, the hon. member for Lapointe is reported in Hansard at page 4792 to have said that at the time of the amalgamation of the Imperial Bank of Canada and the Canadian Bank of Commerce, which took place in 1961, the Canada Gazette showed that the two amalgamating banks were controlled by Barclay's bank of London. This, of course, is far from the fact. I could And no reference in the Canada Gazette to the ownership of shares by Barclay's bank, London. The first annual report of shares and shareholders of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, after the amalgamation made on October 31, 1961, tabled in parliament, reported the total number of shares held by the Barclay's group of banks and companies, including those held as nominees for others, to be less than 4J per cent of the total outstanding shares of the bank at that time.
It might be of interest to add that the Barclay's group at no time held controlling share interest in either of the amalgamating banks. As a matter of interest, I have obtained figures showing foreign ownership in all Canadian banks. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that in only one case, the case of the Mercantile bank, are there more shares held outside of Canada than within Canada. Ninety-nine per cent of the shares of that particular bank are owned by foreigners, I could quote briefly the figures for the other banks: Bank of Montreal, 23 per cent foreign owned, Toronto-Dominion bank, 13 per cent; Provincial bank, 1 per cent; Commerce Imperial, 27 per cent; Royal, 27 per cent and Banque Nationale, 3 per cent.
On the basis of the totals less than 15 per cent in number of the shareholders of Canadian banks were non-residents, and on average less than 23 per cent of the shares of Canadian banks are owned outside of Canada. However, I do not want to lead the house further down these bypaths. Suffice it to say
that they have no relationship to the legislation before us, as I attempted to explain adequately and fully on November 15 last.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house appreciates the statement, in part repetition although very valuable, by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) giving the background of this matter which we now have before us. As he has said, this matter emanated over two years ago and was the subject of negotiation between my predecessor as minister of finance, then the hon. member for Eglinton, the Hon. Donald Fleming. This measure finally brings to fruition an agreement which was entered into between the government of Canada and the various other governments in the international monetary fund.
I did not follow the parliamentary secretary in all the arguments which he used a moment ago, but I think that in general I would agree with what he said in respect of the control of banking and the banking institutions of this country. I do not believe the forebodings of some hon. members in this house are justified by the facts, which are a matter of record and which the parliamentary secretary has just brought forward.
It is, of course, a matter of common knowledge that this world is getting smaller and smaller financially and economically. A few years ago the international monetary fund was something which seemed to be a long way from us, but is now very close to each and every country in the world. We, as one of the western nations, are duty-bound to assist the international monetary fund in carrying out its obligations and its duties. We have, in turn, as all hon. members know, benefited from the co-operation of the international monetary fund within the last two years. It may be, although I hope the necessity will not arise, that we may again benefit from it.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is a measure which warrants the support of all parties in the house. I shall not take the time to go into the matter further, as one could at great length if he wanted to make a political or economic speech. I simply say that, so far as we in the opposition are concerned, we give this measure full support because it is one which we originated. As I said last night, all of these matters which are coming before parliament now are ones which we originated when we were sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker. Without these measures, the country would not be enjoying the economic prosperity it is enjoying today and, as I have said, the government has been subscribing to the policies which we inaugurated. If they follow those policies in the next few months
5676	HOUSE OF
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act which they will be sitting on the right-hand side of the Speaker, they will ensure this basic prosperity which the country has today.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is relieved to be able to float into the more rarified atmosphere of the international monetary fund where no doubt auditors are appointed by a celestial agency, free of the taint of the ambiguities of party politics. I suppose one might say that the parliamentary secretary is technically correct when he states that this bill which is now before us has nothing to do with the international fund and some of the discussions which took place with regard to the question of international liquidity earlier this session.
However, I believe he will agree with me it is within that area of our international operations that this bill falls. For some time the international monetary fund had required a very conservative reputation, but fortunately that reputation seems to be ameliorating a little now. Shortly before his retirement, the late director general, Mr. Jacobsson, had some very interesting things to say. In his annual report before the last annual meeting there can be found Mr. Jacobsson's statement, or some of it, which reads:
International liquidity should be sufficient to allow these countries, the industrialized ones, to take the expansionary step needed for the benefit of their own economies, as well as to assure continued expansion of the world economy. World reserves rose by only 9 per cent in four years ending 1962, while world trade rose by 31 per cent in the same period-obviously too heavy a load for even that increase in world reserves to carry.
Undoubtedly, it is the hope of the Paris club countries, who are now taking the action we are taking here today, that this expansion of the international monetary fund will act as a stop-gap until later permanent steps may be taken.
I had occasion earlier this year at an international conference to deal with this matter of the necessity of research being undertaken into this problem of international liquidity. I pointed out at that time that while we have learned how to free ourselves from the chain of gold that strangled national economy and enabled us to emerge into an era of managed currencies, we have not been able to do that on the international scene. As a consequence, we have been placing an intolerable burden on the shoulders of our neighbour to the south, the United States of America, who gave us warning earlier this year that this burden was now becoming too heavy for them to carry. Consequently, they introduced into the


United States Congress the interest equalization measure which I believe is now about to be passed by that body.
Obviously, the United States must have some relief from the situation in which it finds itself today, otherwise the pressures to which it is now being subjected to increase the price of gold may become too heavy to be resisted. I think most people today would agree that any step towards increasing the price of gold would have a most dislocating effect throughout the world.
I was very pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say that the Canadian government's representatives at the present meetings will certainly not be dragging their feet but, if anything, will be urging our partners in the international monetary fund to go forward with the task of developing and evolving some modern method of international exchange that will be able to carry the ever increasing load created by the vast expansion of production throughout the world today, and this is equally important, enabling the industrialized countries of the world to take really effective steps in the direction of development of underdeveloped areas, and to reduce the gap which is growing wider and wider between the have and have-not nations.
I note that when this matter came up previously on November 7 some fears were expressed that this was a dark, deeply laid plot which was going to deliver us into the hands of the international money lenders and money changers. I suppose perhaps these fears arise from the feeling that the developments, which may take place after the meetings of the Paris club and the international monetary fund committee, may contain the seed from which may grow the plan of future world administration. For my part I would welcome that hope in the world today. I recollect that over 20 years ago John Maynard Keynes possibly wrecked the scheme he put forward at the time by an obiter dictum viewing it as a possible first step to world administration. Perhaps, in the light of the tremendous developments that have taken place in the last quarter century, we are today sophisticated enough to accept that prospect, not with dismay but with hope for the future.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, our criticism of the bill relates only to subclause (1) of clause 1, which permits Canada to make purchases of securities of the international monetary fund. The second part of clause 1, in our estimation, deals simply with a technical matter and no question is involved with it.
The parliamentary secretary has just stated that Switzerland it not one of these ten nations, simply because she is not a member of the

international monetary fund. That is a clear enough answer to the question I raised, but the question remains in my mind, why is she not?


Edgar John Benson: The reason she is not a member of the international monetary fund and was not able to take part in this particular arrangement, which is really an extension exchange stabilization fund on an international basis, is because of particular legislative difficulties within Switzerland, which are being corrected so that she may take part.


Robert Norman Thompson: I appreciate that further explanation because I did not quite understand his first statement.
I was struck by the further statement made by the parliamentary secretary that there is no intention here of attempting to set up an international currency. I agree there is no indication of that in the bill, because it states quite clearly that it is introduced-
-in order that Canada may participate in arrangements agreed upon by members of the international monetary fund to enable the fund in certain circumstances to supplement its resources by borrowings from member countries.
It is significant to me that just a couple of days before the announcement was made in the house regarding this legislation, a very detailed news report appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 14, actually an article originating with the New York Times news service, saying the same ten countries are making plans to set up a global currency system. To quote part of the article:
The United States and nine other leading industrial nations are actively considering a plan for creation of some form of international currency unit that would gradually lessen the burden on the dollar as the keystone of the international monetary system.
These countries are then listed, and they are the same countries involved in this particular agreement, which we are facilitating Canada to take part in, through the provisions of Bill No. C-106. The article goes on to say:
The plan is one of several related ideas now under close study, all of which have the same basic objective: to maintain world prosperity by allowing the currencies of the well-off nations of western Europe to play a greater role in the international monetary system.
There may be no direct relationship between this legislation and the article I have quoted, but it is rather significant that the same 10 countries are planning something which the parliamentary secretary has been careful to state is not intended in this bill. I think we should make very careful note of that.
Returning to the background of the whole question involved in this legislation. I would like to make a few remarks which I think are
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act of basic importance to us as we view the international field relating to exchange and problems of international settlement.
Eighteen years ago the matter of setting up the international monetary fund under the Bretton Woods Agreement Act was introduced in this house. It was vigorously opposed, not only by Social Credit members but by others as well, who realized the full implications of the new international gold standard then being set up. Many at that time rightly felt this was an attempt by the victorious United States to impose terms of unconditional economic surrender, not on the defeated enemies, Germany, Italy and Japan, but on her fellow allies in world war II, particularly Great Britain and the commonwealth.
Certainly the announcement in this house when that debate was in progress, that Great Britain had agreed to the Bretton Woods treaty upon being given a substantial gold loan by the United States, made passage of the Bretton Woods legislation a great deal easier in this house, even though the leading British negotiator, Lord Keynes, saw clearly the faults of the new arrangement and, until his death, preferred a much more realistic British scheme tied less closely to gold.
Events have, I believe, proved both the Social Crediters and Lord Keynes to be right. The international monetary fund system has not kept the world free of foreign exchange crises during the last 18 years. Britain has had them. Europe has had them. Canada has had them. Right now the United States faces a very serious exchange crisis. In fact, the threatening United States crisis is the most serious of them all because, if the United States cannot maintain the convertibility of its dollar into gold-and there is every reason to suppose the United States is not going to be able to do this in the long run, at least at present gold prices-the whole world of international commerce is threatened. At a single stroke of the pen the world's leading reserve currency, the currency in which the major part of Canada's foreign exchange reserves are also held, will no longer be suitable for that purpose, and it is this problem which caused the late President Kennedy to state only a few months before his death that one of the basic needs of the world today was a monetary reform program as it related to the mechanics of international trade and settlements.
The legislation we are now considering may appear innocent enough on the surface, but I am questioning it because I believe it reflects a major policy decision, and it is not just as simple a thing as it appears in this brief form. Are we going to continue to support the international monetary fund system
5678	HOUSE OF
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act oi international exchange, accompanied as it has been in the past with crisis after crisis; faced with crisis at the present time, and only to be saved-as systems based on the gold standard have always had to be saved-by supplementary schemes of aid to keep it in being?
When the gold standard was first adopted in Great Britain in 1844 only two years elapsed before a domestic crisis forced it to be suspended. Similarly, when this international monetary fund, gold based, international exchange machinery was set up in 1945, only the concurrent loan and Marshall aid arrangements on the part of the United States, and new arrangements of currency accounting in Europe that have now developed into the common market, made this system workable at all. Unless we have some more patching up on the same basis, it will not long continue, and in my estimation this is not good enough. Is it going to be Canada's policy in the future to continue to provide crutches on which this obsolete exchange system can continue to hobble along, rather than devise something better?
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because it is perfectly clear that a better international exchange system that does not depend upon gold can and should be devised in this modern world. That is why the gold standard today internationally, in 1963, and as we approach 1964 is in exactly the same difficulties that the gold standard was internally in 1935. It is perfectly plain also that our present system of the international monetary fund is a positive barrier to Canada's trade with nations which are her best potential markets. This is because the exchange rates set by the international monetary fund are based, not on the real worth of human labour or comparative living and production costs in different countries, but on the ability to buy and sell a single inert and commercially valueless substance which we call gold; or, even worse, credit based on gold which is no more than a confidence trick that can collapse-that is collapsing-any time its bluff is called.
May I take one simple example, Mr. Speaker. The present exchange rate between Canada and Japan makes Japan's labour costs, in terms of Canadian currency, far below comparable Canadian wage levels. What is the result? Japan urgently needs raw materials that Canada wants to sell her, but because of the difference in price levels caused by this exchange rate, if we want to export coal to Japan we have to pay a subvention to bring the price down on Crowsnest pass coal within reach of Japanese ability to pay. Similarly, Canada urgently needs to import more from Japan to replace her present


excessive importation of manufactured goods from the United States. Yet we keep these goods out by tariffs and quotas. Why? Because, once again, the exchange rate so undervalues Japanese labour in terms of Canadian dollars that the prices of these imports are unrealistically low by Canadian standards and constitute unfair competition. This is where the international monetary fund has brought us, and if this is the case with Japan, how much more so is it in countries with an even smaller degree of technical advance which urgently wish to trade with us in Canada and should be trading with us strategically and for other reasons as well.
I think we have the right to ask ourselves: What does the international monetary fund have for us? Let us not forget that it is hindering, as well as helping, international trade and aid to underdeveloped countries. Let us not forget the circumstances under which it was set up, that two of the most senior United States officials employed in the setting up of this fund, Dexter White and Frank Coe, were later found to have very definite communist connections. Let us remember that the U.S.S.R., instrumental in the negotiations for the fund, ultimately refused to join it. Let us take a look around the world at the Soviet trade offensive at the present time; our own tungsten mine at Flat River, for instance, put out of business through cheap communist competition, and similar unemployment caused in Turkey as the Soviets press for world monopoly in the production of chrome. And let us reflect a little on how far this Soviet trade success has been caused by the foreign exchange difficulties of western countries, difficulties that the Soviet union deliberately does not share. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) apparently thinks he has struck a gold mine in increased trade with the communist nations. I only say to him: Be cautious. All that glitters, even if it is gold, is not necessarily the wisest and best trading policy for this country.
My personal view is that the best policy for Canada is a gradual disengagement from our connection with the international monetary fund. This will not be achieved by paying good Canadian money for the paper the
I.M.F. chooses to print in return. I believe that one way of doing this is the policy presently being advocated by Belgium in the councils of the common market countries of Europe, as reported in the New York Hera Id-Tribune of September 29, 1963. This is, simply, that the developed nations should charge tariffs on imports from low wage countries and use the proceeds to lower the cost of their exports to these same countries.
DECEMBER 10, 19B3	5679
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act
The effect of such a policy is to bring exchange rates in line with labour costs between ourselves and the underdeveloped countries in the world, and so open vast trading areas in markets which present exchange policies keep closed.
Such a policy could be the beginning of a world wide revaluation of exchange rates to give a better deal to underdeveloped nations and so make them markets for our exports. This is where the tremendous trade potential of world export markets lies. We would be able to scrap the gold standard in international trade, to our great benefit, just as for 30 years now we have done very well without it in our local economy within this country. Foreign exchange policy in the present world has been made a matter of great mystery. This need not be so. Essentially it is no more than a proper accounting of the international exchange of goods, and the only basis for any solid trade pattern is the exchange of goods for goods. The greatest trading nation of the world of its day was the republic of Venice. It operated a bank for more than six centuries. That bank had no gold reserves, no exchange crises; nothing, in fact, except figures in a book which represented credits which could be transferred between depositors. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have devised nothing more practical, simple or intelligent than this system first introduced in the thirteenth century. If this nation will give the world a lead in getting back to first principles-I am speaking now of Canada-in the matter of foreign exchange, we could make Montreal the financial capital of world trade, and Canada the Venice of the twentieth century.
In summation, if we are to continue to operate under a basis as established through the Bretton Woods agreement and the international monetary fund, then some changes such as this legislation proposes are obviously necessary. This measure at this time is therefore obviously necessary. However, let me emphasize again that it is only a patch to a crutch that is already weak and rapidly deteriorating to an even greater crisis which faces us in this economic world which is narrowing down so closely to our own doorstep. On this basis, Mr. Speaker, we are not opposing this piece of legislation, because obviously we cannot continue without something being done.
Again I say I should like to see Canada not just follow along with others but take the lead in working out a basis of international exchange and settlements that will get at the very root of this problem, and deal with it in such a way as to assist the trade and development that this country needs so desperately and which the world needs as well,
because today we face the paradox of plenty on the one hand and privation and poverty on the other while at the same time we are not able to solve the basic problem of how to distribute surpluses where the needs are the greatest. That is why I could not help taking this opportunity to outline a few of these points, because we should be thinking from a positive standpoint rather than the tagalong approach which in my opinion this legislation represents as we try to patch up something that has already proved itself basically unworkable in the long run.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on November 15 last, when this resolution was introduced in the house, I stated my views on this matter. Since that time, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) saw fit to give us certain figures concerning foreign control over our banks. Actually, on November 15, I spoke about foreign control over our banks and tonight, the parliamentary secretary considered it was advisable to raise the question and, if I understood correctly, mentioned the three larger banks and quoted certain figures-if I am wrong, the parliamentary secretary might set me right-that is the following percentages: Bank of Montreal, 33 per cent of foreign control, Royal bank, 27 per cent and Imperial Bank of Commerce, 25 per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who admitted a while ago he was an accountant, must know that a corporation or financial interests controlling more than 20 per cent of the shares of a company can just take over and control the operations of that company because among the other shareholders, there are those who are not too concerned about making their views known, do not go to the meetings or do not even send their proxy to other shareholders. Within a company like that, the majority group is the one which is best organized. In fact, the group which owns 20 per cent or more of the shares is usually the best organized and controls the whole operation.
That is why I say that, as far as the percentage of shares is concerned, foreign interests can easily control the business and change its policy.
All that to say, as the parliamentary secretary said a while ago, that on November 15 last we expressed our fear that we would be faced with another problem after going through the first stage of this plan which, I feel, is well thought out and which, as it is stated in the bill, provides for the recognition of a fund which has already been established and which would enable member
5680	HOUSE OF
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act countries to supplement their resources when they have exchange difficulties.
The difficulty, as we see it, is that after having taken the first step a second one must be taken.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who told us a moment ago that it was premature to speak already of a fait accompli. I will not go as far as to suggest that the second step is a fait accompli. These ten countries have not yet adopted a common international monetary unit. However, if it is premature and if it is not a fait accompli, we should not forget that before being ripe, a fruit is premature. There cannot be any maturity without prematurity. There is an antecedent to everything. Besides, that is the term used by the parliamentary secretary. We express our fear by the word "premature", meaning not only that the fruit is not ripe yet, but that the matter is not completely settled yet and is still under consideration.
I am convinced that the ministers of finance of those ten countries mentioned as being the ten countries most interested in the bill now before us, would not be meeting in Europe or elsewhere in order to consider the advisability of establishing an international currency if they did not already intend to apply such a system sooner or later, and it might be sooner than we think.
We are not opposed to the idea of having an international currency, especially in view of the fact that nowadays there is not one of the member countries of that club that can control its monetary credit any better than the others. But when those countries come to have faith in an international currency, that will enable a group of international financiers to control jointly and severally the monetary credits of each of those countries that they are controlling today individually.
In my opinion, it will be most difficult then, for each of the ten countries concerned, to escape from the control of that group of financiers, because each would have to separate itself from the remaining nine countries, which could take retaliatory measures and even prevent Canada from withdrawing from this international credit cartel.
That is where we protest. We are not so much against the first step, for setting up a fund that could be made available to the countries which are facing monetary difficulties on account of the exchange value of their currency not being high enough, that is commendable. On the other hand, we fear that this first step will be followed by others which we would deeply regret.
We fear also that in the case of the second step the government would proceed exactly


as it is doing now. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance tells us that the measure now under consideration was passed two years ago, not "will be passed" but "was passed" two years ago by the ministers of finance of those ten countries. The nine other countries have already ratified that agreement a long time ago and have committed themselves through their finance ministers. As far as we are concerned, in Canada, that step was taken two years after the commitment made by our finance minister; and everything goes on as if it were an accomplished fact.
Now, at that time, they come and request parliament's approval. Why request that approval when everything is already in operation?
That is the way they proceed, Mr. Speaker, and that is the thing to which we object.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) wants to make some undertakings and have them approved by parliament, let him do it before signing those undertakings and before giving a guarantee to other countries. Otherwise, we have no voice in the matter and can only take note of the facts.
Mr. Speaker, if they proceed for the other stages contemplated by Paris club, as was done for this one, I suggest this will happen: the Canadian people will one day wake up under the yoke of an international finance trust which it will never be able to shake off and which will keep it in subservience as long as it does not get out of it through violent means, as happened in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, we condemn the method used in order to put this concept into practice, not the fact that ten countries help each other in the field of international monetary exchange; we denounce the way it was imposed upon the Canadian people.
We want the official report of the House of Commons debates to indicate that we object in advance to the establishment of an international monetary unit such as that contemplated by the ten countries which make the same undertaking we are taking today. We wish the Minister of Finance, who is supposed to discuss with the finance ministers of the other countries the creation of that international monetary unit, to know in advance he will find in this house strong opposition to that international monetary fund.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration seems to aim at setting up a monetary confederation whereas, to set up such a system between various currencies, these must be treated on the same basis.
In fact, are the currencies of those ten countries treated on the same basis?

The international bodies set up at the Bretton Woods conference in July 1944, the international monetary fund, as well as the reconstruction and development bank, put the American dollar in a privileged position. They even established the superiority of the American dollar.
Lately, one of the most famous economists of our times, Mr. Francois Perroux, came to Montreal where he stated that there was no intrinsical reason for granting superiority or priority to the American dollar.
Now, it is asked: what are, for example, those securities of the international monetary fund that Canada wants to purchase; what are the backing and the nature of those securities?
On the other hand, we should keep in mind that it is always the Canadian dollar which must be used to buy Canadian services and products. It is not an international currency which will enable us to buy services and products made by Canadians.
At the present time, gold is still used as a standard for the international currency, but we can read in the Canada Year Book for 1962, on page 1027:
-Gold may be bought or sold Internationally without any physical movements of the metal, such transactions being recognized by simply putting aside or "ear-making" the metal in the vaults of some central bank.
If really there is no physical movement of gold from one country to the other, what is the good of having a gold standard to regulate these international currencies?
The last thing I wish to point out is that the international monetary unit would give to foreigners a control power over the life of Canadians, and this constitutes a very serious danger at the present time.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wanted to make so that our country does not embark wholeheartedly in that project which, in my opinion, constitutes a real danger for our monetary system.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go very deeply into this field but I think Canada at least has an obligation to establish some independence from the United States in the manner in which we make our contributions throughout the world. It is quite true, as the parliamentary secretary said, that the international monetary fund set up after the signing of the Bretton Woods agreement indicated that a currency handled by the international monetary fund would be in terms of U.S. dollars, or gold. This raises the problem as far as Canada is concerned of the relationship between our monetized metals
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act and those of the United States. I think this matter has not been given any consideration by this government or by the previous one, or by any Canadian government, for a long time.
It has been said in this debate that the countries supporting the international monetary fund, which have grown from the original 44 to well over 70 at the present time, have become more and more dependant in their international trade relationships on gold and the U.S. dollar. I think this is not always necessarily a good thing. We in Canada have backing for the currency of the United States both in gold to back our dollar in a treasury sense and also for silver bullion which would establish Canada in relation to the United States silver certificates. I think it is unfortunate that Canada has not gone to the international monetary fund meeting echoing, not the fears of some other countries in their relationship to the United States currency, but trying to strengthen not only our own position but also that of the United States at the present time.
We are all aware of the fact that the world is terrified of the large production of gold by countries in the communist bloc. I remember an article in Reader's Digest to the effect that it would be a catastrophe to world trade if Russia suddenly failed to put her money into the currency field through international trade under terms similar to those engaged in by countries like the United States and other members of the international fund, but instead gave away to satellite countries, and any other countries who wished it, the vast quantities of gold they have. Overnight there would be a collapse of the market.
I think something is to be said for those who recommend that Canada looks at this matter from her own position; not from the position of the United States or individual countries, some of which are in the sterling area, some on the gold standard, and some operating entirely on a trade-barter system, but from the point of view from which Canadians and Canada in general can gain the most. I suggest we should be opposed to the establishment by the international monetary fund of an international currency. I believe this is a necessity. I think history will bear out that two of the factors which will form a base for an international monetary system, and the currency which may be contemplated by the international monetary fund, will be gold and silver monetized reserves.
We are aware of the fact that Canada has not been on the gold standard for some time. I do not think anyone in this country will be able to tell us what kind of standard we are on. I am sure no one in banking circles would be able to tell you, and I do
5682	HOUSE OF
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act not think they could even point to how closely we were tied to the United States system or to any other system, or to what the relationship of these systems is from day to day. Social Credit have had a field day because of the fact that no one in the country seems to know what is going on. The situation is completely confused.


An hon. Member:: You don't know either.


William Arnold Peters: I make no apologies; I am in exactly the same category. I do not know anything about it either, and do not profess to. But there is a relationship between the two monetized metals, gold and silver; and because of the Bretton Woods agreement both gold and the U.S. dollar are the backing of the currency of the international monetary fund. Silver used to be, as well, because the U.S. currency reintroduced in 1933 silver certificates backed by silver stocks.
I make no apology for my interest in this matter because I represent a major portion of the silver producing industry in Canada, and the producers of some of the other base metals. The people in these operations are interested in this question. If you look, Mr. Speaker, at the Baxter international research bureau report for September 27 of this year you will note that it refers to the fact that the U.S. government has increased the price of silver against their reserves from 91 cents to $1.29. They pointed out that since the beginning of May there has been an outflow of 69 million ounces of silver. Of this amount, 24 million ounces came from the cartwheels- I presume that is silver dollars-and 45 million ounces came from the monetized silver bullion account. Another report, made in October, points out that silver output falls far short of use but that treasury sales should fill the gap. Global use of silver this year is estimated at 380 million ounces, which is about 170 million ounces more than new production. Our government will draw on its own stocks for about 95 million ounces needed for coinage and defence work. Most of the remaining deficit, the report goes on, will be made up by sales of speculative holdings, a reduction of consumer inventories and demonetization of coins abroad.
This is an indication of what is happening, though many people in Canada and, even, a number of those in government, have failed to establish any relationship in this field. If this government wishes to make a contribution to the international monetary fund I believe it is time we should add the word "silver" wherever the word "gold" appears in the bill. It should be remembered that we produce this metal, and its production should not be related to requirements of another currency but rather to the productivity of


our own nation and the value of the metal in establishing our Canadian dollar. There is a relationship between these things, and it is one which could be established more closely if we had a government which was prepared to make full use of our own natural resources.
I strongly urge that Canada, along with many of the other nations of the world, should establish its own relationship with the currencies of the world and take steps to do this in the manner which would be most advantageous to Canada.
For a government which has said on a number of occasions that it wishes to cut loose some of the strings which binds us in an economic way with the United States, there would be no better way of achieving this end than by cutting some of these monetary strings in relation to our currency. We have been buying some of our currency from our neighbour to the south at a price which they themselves determine-a price which has no relation to the forces of supply and demand in this nation. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary should give some consideration to establishing Canadian independence in this field. The Minister of Finance has himself declared that this is his intention. He wrote a book called "The Economic Future of Canada" telling us that this is what we needed to do. We in the mining industry can certainly find no better place to start than with the monetized metals which we use as the basis of our internal economy.


[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-Sale of gold, currency, etc. [Translation]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say only a few words on section 1 of the bill which is before us. I wish to point out that Bill No. C-106 is a direct outcome of the agreements which were signed in 1947-1948 at Bretton Woods, while in this house we were warning the government against this attempt on the part of high finance to get hold of an international money control of some sort.
Now we are asked, under the provisions of this bill, to endorse the setting-up of a $200,000,000 fund, together with other countries on the pretence that we will assist countries which could need it.
We must remember that, last year, the government had to resort to the international monetary fund to secure an amount of over a billion dollars in order to discharge their obligations and their dues to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Social Credit and all the members of our group, I say that, in such circumstances, the government should not rely upon the international monetary fund but on a national monetary fund which should be set up by the Bank of Canada since our country has the required materials, products and services to back its currency.
Now, if we produce things which have a certain value, why should we not issue tokens which would be backed by those products? That would enable us to keep control of our money and credit.
If we can afford to assist foreign countries by giving them $200 million, half a billion or a billion dollars, let us go ahead and do it but let us use our own money and not capital which has been borrowed on foreign markets.
When we borrowed something like $1,500 million from the international monetary fund, we had to pay interest at a rate two and a half times higher than what we get when we lend Canadian funds or give a line of credit to the fund.
Consequently, we, in this corner of the house, cannot on behalf of Social Credit accept such an international control of our monetary system and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to record our opposition to all the sections of the bill since we have the right to express our disapproval.


Guy Marcoux: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. The hon. member for Villeneuve has just said he was sitting in this house in 1947-48 when the Bretton Woods agreement was approved by the Canadian parliament. I thought that this agreement was signed in July 1944. Would the secretary tell me if it was 1944 or 1947?


Edgar John Benson: If I recall it, and I stand to be corrected, the Bretton Woods conference was in 1947. I will check and ascertain the correct information for the hon. member.
I am informed it was 1944.


Maurice Côté: According to the great economist Albert Despaux, the Bretton Woods agreement was signed in July 1944.


An hon. Member:: There were two conferences.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, two meetings were held in Bretton Woods, I clearly remember that. If my hon. friend for Chicoutimi refers to Hansard for 1946-47, he will find that the Bretton Woods agreement was introduced in the House of Commons at that time, and that the staunchest opponent of this agreement was the then hon. member
Business of the House
for Lethbridge, Mr. John Blackmore, who firmly disagreed with it in 1947-48.


Edgar John Benson: I would be pleased to act as arbitrator here and ascertain the facts as to exactly when the meetings were held, and when the information was presented to parliament. Then, I shall supply it to the hon. members.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: I should like to move an amendment to subsection 3 of clause 1, to add, after the word "gold", the word "silver" in line 15 and also in line 20 to add the word "silver" after the word "gold".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe the amendment is acceptable. I should like Your Honour to put the question.


Gilles Grégoire: Perhaps 1 should present a subamendment. Since gold is very rare in all countries, as is silver, I should like to suggest that iron ore be substituted therefor. We would have plenty of it for our external trade, or perhaps we could suggest the use of wheat.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 1; nays, 71.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


David Réal Caouette: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


David Réal Caouette: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: The house seems to be in such a co-operative mood I was wondering if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would like to complete his speech on the centennial bill.


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should the Secretary of State not ask whether anyone else wants to hear it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think he should make it at a more opportune time.

Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think so, too, because the subject is one of considerable importance and the hour is rather late.
May I ask the house leader what estimates we will be taking tomorrow and Thursday, and if there is any proposed change in the hours for tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did suggest last evening, sir, taking the last question first, that tomorrow we might agree to sit until 7 p.m. I had hoped there might be some disposition to sit in the evening but there are very good reasons why many hon. members would prefer not to do that. It would be a great convenience to the government if we could sit until 7 p.m.
The estimates we would take tomorrow would be privy council, followed by post office. On Thursday, we would take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, followed again by post office if there are any items of that department not disposed of tomorrow. I believe I would prefer to make my forecast for the rest of the week after I see what progress we make tomorrow and in the early part of Thursday. I should like to have some consultations with hon. gentlemen opposite.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are prepared to sit until 7 p.m. tomorrow night, or later. May I ask the house leader if on Thursday the Department of Agriculture estimates will be taken with or without the minister?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the minister will be here and I am quite sure that if the minister is here, he will have something to say.


Mr. Patterson:: So far as this group is concerned, we would be prepared to sit until seven or later. We would sit until ten o'clock if it would be of any help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think progress towards this goal might be achieved if we had a discussion about it in the morning. The Secretary of State indicated there were reasons hon. members would not sit until ten o'clock, and perhaps we could discuss whether to sit until then, or beyond six.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to sit till seven o'clock tomorrow night, in compliance with the suggestion made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house will sit until ten o'clock tomorrow evening?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to its being discussed further, but on that basis I would say no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and see if we can reach some understanding that could be agreed to at the opening tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being twelve minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 11, 1963