1964-04-20

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in English and in French, the text of a letter which I sent last Thursday to the premiers of all the provinces. I would ask that the text be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard, if that is agreeable to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter referred to above, see appendix.]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because of the importance of the subjects dealt with in this letter I would like to make a statement summarizing the text of the letter and the government's position in regard to them.
The first subject I would like to mention, and which is dealt with in the letter in question, is our tax sharing arrangements with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, this government came into office sharing the view, which at times has been expressed very emphatically by all provincial governments, that the existing arrangements in this field are inadequate. These arrangements, it will be remembered, were made in 1961, for a five year period which ends in March, 1967.
There were, in our view, two ways in which these arrangements needed improvement. First, we felt they did not provide for a proper degree of equalization of provincial revenues from the shared fields. Such equalization is essential if all the provinces are to have not merely the right but the ability to provide a Canadian standard of services in the matters within their jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, at the conference last November it was arranged that a new equalization formula would come into effect for the current financial year. At the same time, at that conference we increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent the federal abatement of succession duties, in order to provide some increase in the share of revenues available to all the provinces.
The effect of these two charges was to cut federal revenues this year by some $87 million. We made it plain at that time that this was as large a change as we could regard as practicable during the year 1964-65. We also made it plain, however, that we recognized the increasing burden that is falling on the provinces because of the cost of the services which it is their constitutional duty to provide to their people. This is especially true of education, and we fully agree with those who say that in the disposition of public revenues as a whole the increasing needs of education merit a very high priority indeed.
At the recent conference in Quebec city, therefore we made, as already indicated to the house, a novel proposal. We suggested that the federal-provincial conference as a body-not the governments separately- should authorize a review of the tax structure in relation to the financial responsibilities of governments and the priorities given to their expenditures. I think this has been recognized as a constructive way in which to handle a most difficult problem, a problem which has faced us in one form or another ever since confederation and which, I suggest, is inherent in the federal nature of our constitution. But, of course, we all recognize that sucn a review will achieve its purpose only if it is thorough and, in particular, if it takes account of the various taxation inquiries which are already under way-and some of them are very near completion- both federally and provincially.
The provincial governments recognize-I would say all of them-the value of this inquiry, but they made it plain that they would like to know how they stand in the meantime pending the completion of this inquiry, and we agreed with that. Therefore, in the light of the discussions in Quebec, the federal cabinet reviewed this matter of tax sharing as we indicated to the conference we would do, and it was decided that we should tell the provinces now what we mean when we say we recognize their increasing needs, especially in the field of education. We mean that under the existing tax sharing arrangements, which have two more years to run after the present fiscal year, we are willing to reduce the federal personal income tax at an accelerated rate.
Arrangements at present provide that the rebate of federal taxes which, of course, creates room for provincial taxes, is 18 per

Dominion-Provincial Relations cent this year and will rise by one point to 19 per cent next year and 20 per cent in the final year. My letter to the provinces which has now been tabled announces that this acceleration will be increased to 3 points a year; that is, the rebate will rise next year not to 19 per cent but to 21 per cent, and in 1966 it will rise further to 24 per cent instead of 20 per cent. There will, of course, be a corresponding increase in equalization payments to the provinces, and these payments will be based on the formula proposed for this year; but the level of taxes to which the formula is applied will be bigger, of course, to the extent I have described. On the basis of current tax yields it is estimated that the increased rebate and higher equalization payments will mean next year a reduction of some $60 million in net federal revenue which will have to be recouped from some other source of taxation.
The detailed figures that I give now are estimates subject to some revision on which work is presently in hand. However, in round figures the extra revenue and equalization payments to individual provinces will be as follows. This is for the year in which this change takes place, the next financial year: Newfoundland, $1.5 million; Prince Edward Island, $300,000; Nova Scotia, $2.4 million; New Brunswick, $2 million; Quebec, $17.6 million; Ontario, $21.2 million; Manitoba, $3 million; Saskatchewan, $3 million; Alberta, somewhat under $4 million; and British Columbia, about $5 million.
That, Mr. Speaker, would be the effect of the extra 2 per cent next year. The further 2 per cent the following year will, of course, have a similar and further effect. I do not need to point out that this further sacrifice of federal revenue from these fields is substantial. Indeed, added to the $87 million for this year which we announced in November and which I have already mentioned, it means that by 1966-67 this government will have reduced its taxes, in favour of the provinces, by more than $200 million a year. We are making that reduction because we believe it is in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. We believe it is the way to serve the priority needs of the country, especially for education.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to another subject which is dealt with in some detail in the letter which has been tabled. It is the subject of pensions. This government came to office almost a year ago with a three point pension program. We thought that the basic old age security pension should be raised to $75 at age 70. We wanted to ensure that this pension could be


available from age 65, on a graduated basis, for those who need it before age 70. Third, we believed that there should be available, in addition to the flat rate pension, a contributory pension related to earnings and sufficient to provide a reasonable minimum of security for all Canadians, and to provide that minimum as soon as possible.
Pensions, as we know, are a field of jurisdiction shared with the provinces under our constitution. We knew as a government that we could achieve a national standard in pensions, which is obviously desirable, only with the agreement of the provinces. We also knew, however, that we could not make early progress in this matter by talking in generalities. Our predecessors, it will be remembered, had raised with the provinces the question of a further constitutional amendment which is required for a plan providing survivor benefits. The province of Quebec had replied at that time, and reasonably enough, that it would want first to know what the pension plan was; and Ontario had meantime proceeded with legislation of its own regulating private pensions. We therefore decided that the way to get progress was to provide a definite basis for discussion with the provinces. We did that last July, and public discussion of various kinds has been under way ever since.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We could, of course, have done more of the work confidentially and secretly; "in the back room", to borrow a phrase used last week in the legislature at Queen's park by the premier of Ontario. I was glad to note from these remarks of the premier of Ontario that he shared my view that more open methods are better. They enable public opinion to be better informed on the basis of specifics rather than generalities, and public opinion to be brought more fully to bear on the eventual result.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize at all for the fact that this procedure has involved several changes in the details of our proposals. The fundamentals have never changed. We have adjusted the details in a constant attempt to get the best possible pension arrangement which could work for all Canadians.


Mr. Woolliams:: Trial and error.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Better trial and error than no trial at all.


Mr. Nowlan:: This is all error and no trial.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Trial and error and eventual success is better than five years of no attempt.

When Quebec decided to set up its own plan we made some adjustments so that our proposals could operate beside Quebec's. That was in September. In subsequent discussions Ontario expressed some fear about the effect of our proposals on private plans. Accordingly, in January, to meet this and certain other preoccupations of the provinces-we had consulted the provinces about this-we revised our proposals in order to meet this fear as fully as we could without compromising the features of a public plan which we regarded as fundamental.
At the Quebec city conference the government of Quebec made known for the first time to the provinces and to ourselves the details of the plan which it had meantime been preparing. We and the provinces found that it was less different from the federal plan than had at one time seemed likely. That fact, Mr. Speaker, revived in the government the hope that after all we could devise a plan which would meet the requirements of all the provinces, especially in the matter of providing funds for provincial investments, a plan which would still be the same for all Canadians from coast to coast. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, immediately after the Quebec conference I undertook discussions with Quebec to see whether, now that the two plans were before us in detail, we could find one plan which would achieve the purposes of both, and I am very happy to report that we have succeeded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This took a good deal of work, patience, understanding and negotiation. The proposal set out in my letter to all the premiers is a proposal in which the government of Quebec concurs. It has been achieved by finding the best common ground in the only two plans before the country, the federal plan and the Quebec plan. There is no question of Quebec accepting our plan or of the federal government accepting Quebec's plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. members may laugh, but the fact is that in our negotiations we have found a common ground between the two plans, and this is how we should work at our negotiations with the provinces. We have found a common ground which takes into consideration certain views expressed by other provinces than Quebec, a common ground which we are confident will appeal to all the other provinces as well.
This means, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am very proud and happy to be able to say this in the House of Commons, that there can now be one pension plan which will be the same
Dominion-Provincial Relations in all of Canada. In Quebec, and in any other province which so wishes, the provincial government can collect the contributions, invest the funds, pay the benefits and administer the plan in that province, but they will be the same contributions and the same benefits everywhere throughout the country. The legitimate rights and interests of the provinces will be met, but the Canadian people's interest in a pension system which is the same wherever they live will be fully served.
That is the proposal that we are now able to put to all the provinces. I believe this is a real achievement which would not have been possible so soon and might not have been possible at all if we had not handled this problem in the way we have, if we had not been prepared to bring public opinion to bear on concrete proposals, not by sitting back talking privately to provinces about something that might be done in the future, which was the procedure followed by my hon. friends. And, Mr. Speaker, if this means putting forward a concrete plan for discussion and then making necessary changes as a result of that discussion to make this plan acceptable to very province in this country, I am quite happy to proceed in that direction.
I am not going to take the time now on the details of these pension proposals which are set out in the letter. I should like to express my appreciation of the co-operation there has been, and my belief that the spirit of co-operation among all the provinces will enable us to bring this matter to a conclusion that will greatly serve the whole of Canada.
May I conclude this reference to the pension plan by quoting, because it is very pertinent to this matter, some remarks made by the premier of Ontario in the legislature at Queen's park last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad my hon. friends opposite applaud the reference to the premier of Ontario in this regard because this is what he said, having been twitted in the house that he was changing his mind on these things, that he was not following a set course, that he was chopping and changing and perhaps even making somersaults. Having been twitted on that score he replied in regard to pensions:
It does not do to take rigid positions. If you do, then you destroy your chance of ever coming up with refinements and changes that in the final analysis will give us a better plan.
Two days earlier, I believe, he also had this to say in the legislature:
Events in the field of pensions have been fast moving for many months. If this latest development can bring us closer in Canada to achieving

Dominion-Provincial Relations a plan national in character, with the best possible benefits for our people containing safeguards to ensure security and a plan which can be approved by all the provinces, then the great efforts and frustrations of the last few months will have been justified.
I commend these very wise words to my hon. friends opposite.
I should like to refer briefly to three other matters that have been dealt with in our recent discussions and which are referred to in the letter which has just been tabled.
The federal government hopes to proceed shortly with legislation providing for the extension of family allowances to children who, either because they are not physically fit to work or because they attend school, remain dependant at the ages of 16 and 17. Because the province of Quebec, which in this respect is unique in our confederation, has an existing program of a similar nature covering the same age categories, these extended allowances will not be paid to Quebec residents. Instead, there will be a compensatory fiscal arrangement similar to that which exists in the case of university grants introduced by my right hon. friends opposite.
In the light of the comments made by provincial governments at the Quebec conference, the federal government intends to propose arrangements whereby guaranteed bank loans for university students would be available in each province up to a defined amount to students designated by such agency as the province authorizes. If any province prefers to rely on its own loan program, it will be able to receive equivalent compensation.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of shared cost programs, the government of Quebec has again indicated that while it wishes to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction, its constitutional right in these fields, it has no intention of dismantling the programs at present provided under cost sharing arrangements. We expect soon to enter into interim arrangements whereby Quebec or any other province-because all the provinces have the same right in this field-may carry out these programs and receive, instead of grants, an equivalent abatement of federal taxes. Longer term arrangements about the programs will be discussed later with the provinces as a whole.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say this. The government of Quebec, in its discussions with us during the past weeks, has made very clear its firm belief that the wishes of all Canadians can best be fulfilled within a federal structure. The government of Quebec has assured us it is resolutely determined that provincial rights should be exercised, not to the disruption but to the enhancement of the unity of Canada. That
[Mr. Pearson.l

is also our faith and our determination. I am sure it is the faith and determination of all members in this house, and it is shared by all provincial governments. I believe that its validity is demonstrated in what I have been able to announce today. I hope it is a faith and a determination in which we can all go forward, irrespective of political differences in matters less fundamental to the country we are all here to serve.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Prime Minister when he spoke of the unity of Canada and the contribution that the plans now offered will make to that end, I could not but conclude, as he smiled when he said certain things about the planning in the last few days, "Methinks he doth protest too much". As a matter of fact, it is difficult to recognize the views of today as expressed by the Prime Minister and those expressed during the election campaign of which he spoke last evening, when he indicated that while 60 days of decision had been promised, it was really a meaningless promise engendered by the enthusiasm of the election campaign and never meant to be carried into effect. This frank view on his part was in keeping with so many undertakings that were made by the Liberal party.
The record of the government in connection with the promises it made has been that many of these promises have been lost or have strayed. The government cannot pat itself on the back today for what it is doing, because if press reports mean anything this action on the part of the government is as voluntary as I am told shotgun marriages are. He spoke of the leadership that had been given by this government, yet having regard to what we have learned in the last few days the leadership of the Prime Minister and those associated with him consisted of telling the premiers across Canada "Wait for me, fellows; where'er you lead, I shall follow."
I am going to deal in a very general way with what has been said today. I am going to refer to the questions in the order in which the Prime Minister referred to them, first that of dominion-provincial relations. It may be of no significance, but the absence of the Minister of Finance today does not pass unnoticed by the membership of the house. We have made it clear that we will support any action that will assure the provinces of a greater share of the tax dollar so they can carry out their legislative responsibilities under the constitution.
It is well to go back over the years and recall that in 1957 when we assumed the administration of the government of this

country there was a five year agreement in effect with the provinces which provided for the provinces 10 per cent of the personal income tax, 9 per cent of the company income tax and 50 per cent of the succession duties. This agreement had five years to run, but we decided that it represented an injustice to the various provinces. While the agreement still had a lengthy period to run, we introduced legislation to increase the 10 per cent to 13 per cent. Then in 1961 a new agreement was brought into being which provided for a start at 15 per cent, which was to be increased by successive increases of 1 per cent to 20 per cent at the time of the expiry of the agreement.
It is well to review these stages, because it was the Conservative government which took the agreement in existence when we came into office and gave increases which we were in no way required to give to assure that confederation would operate through a proper discharge by the legislatures of their responsibilities.
In so far as the present plan is concerned, it represents a step forward in the direction which we took in two cases, one with an agreement already in effect and thereafter in the new agreement that is now in effect. However, it seems passing strange that all these things have come about in the course of a very few days since the federal-provincial conference, where the premiers not only did not receive hope but many of them left critical of the federal government.
Things have happened during the last few days. We read in the press that the premier of Quebec had expressed himself very definitely as to what he was going to do if the federal government defected. As a matter of interest, I seem to recall that in April 1963, on the Friday just before the general election, the premier of Quebec brought in a budget and at that time stated in effect that unless he got what he expected within a year, things would happen. He is to bring in another budget this Friday.
I would like to have heard these public discussions of which the Prime Minister has spoken in such soulful eloquence. I would like to have been present and to have heard the discussions between them. I am sure if Mr. Lesage could speak with freedom he would be able to tell us of queer sights that have not been seen at any time in the past. It is a strange thing, sir, that only two weeks ago the Prime Minister announced there was going to be an in depth examination by a committee set up by the conference; but now, before the committee has even begun its work, for some reason there is haste and change. The Prime Minister says he does not belong to that school that does not believe
Dominion-Provincial Relations in change. Certainly no one has ever charged him with that and, because of the somersaults he and those associated with him have engaged in within the last few months, nobody ever will.
So far as the fiscal arrangements are concerned, there has been no prior consultation. We have always asked for consultation, which is the essence of confederation, before action is taken. We know that the Minister of Transport, and the chief co-ordinator, visited Quebec. Again we do not know what happened there, but it would be of tremendous interest to have a blow by blow account of that meeting which was marked by so much subsequent agreement.
We shall await the legislation. The extra assistance that is being given to the provinces will naturally bring pleasure to the provinces. It is significant that it is brought in only a couple of days before a provincial election in the province of Saskatchewan. That is another coincidence.
Earlier I mentioned that the Minister of Finance is not in his place in the house. I recall the words of the Prime Minister, and I am sure he recalls them too, which he delivered in Toronto on March 14 last to the district Liberal association, when he said:
But seeing that poor Walter Gordon is going to bring in his budget on Monday, surely we can spare him just a moment ol silent prayer.
Now, sir, I pass on to the last matter, and that is the question of pensions. There has been a tremendous metamorphosis in the pensions system. I recall last July 18 when the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduced her pension plan. It was something the like of which had never been seen before. It was to be accepted as it was. It represented the quintessence of all the wisdom of all the social welfare people of the country. That was the first edition.
We in this party have stood throughout the years for a contributory, universal pension plan for Canadians. First we raised the old age pensions from the degradatory level at which they stood at $46 a month. We raised them immediately we came into office. We not only raised them, but we also had to pay the $6 which the Liberals so begrudgingly gave in the last hours of the St. Laurent administration. Having raised them to a level that at least assured the old age pensioners of some opportunity in life, we then proceeded with the next step to bring into effect a universal, contributory plan.
The Prime Minister tries to brush that aside by saying that we were not able to say what the plan was, and that therefore the province of Quebec would not consent. Well, sir, the only difference between us and them is this,

Dominion-Provincial Relations that we did not present a plan to the provinces. We took the stand that that was our responsibility, but they had a plan which they have had to change, and the one they produced today bears very little resemblance to the one introduced last July, which was subsequently withdrawn, amended and further on reintroduced.
We believe in a plan that is adequate to meet the needs of all Canadians. But what about them? The Prime Minister speaks of consistency. First of all the Minister of National Health and Welfare said all the provinces must participate. Then the Prime Minister said "Well, if Quebec does not come in, we will still go ahead." A little later he said "But if Quebec and Ontario don't come in, it will be very difficult." Then when he concluded that that was to be the case, and he was entirely mistaken so far as Ontario was concerned, he still persisted in the view that even though Ontario and Quebec did not participate we would have a Canada pension plan.
Now, sir, what has happened? Again the veil is drawn. Amidst many luminescent words one thing we have not found out is what happened during the last few days, what happened since the conference, and what discussions took place. The Prime Minister says he believes in open diplomacy. Well, open diplomacy did not apply in connection with the discussions that took place and which resulted in this.
We in the opposition believe that the Quebec plan represented a great advance over the uncertain plan introduced by the federal government. We have taken that stand throughout. It was manifestly superior in many respects, and now the Prime Minister has produced a hybrid plan through the adoption of the Quebec plan, with the necessary modification that must be made of the plan that was previously produced, and that was given to us as though it were the law of the Medes and the Persians.
All we can say of the latest move by the Prime Minister is this. It has brought about the acceptance of principles which the government denied. We said all the provinces should participate. We said it would not be a national plan without such participation. We said Canadian unity would not be served by a plan such as the government had brought in unless changes were made. In this day of the expression "opting out", I can only say that no government in history has ever opted out of more plans and views placed before parliament in this connection in the last few months. A plan is placed before the house and then when there is criticism, with all the strength and unresilience of a reed they produce another. They bend. They opt out of

what they previously declared to be essential features of a national plan. We had a plan embodied in the original bill. It was withdrawn and replaced by another; then withdrawn and replaced again. Yet the Prime Minister rises today after such an inept and bungling performance and says "Look at me." Consistency is not a jewel. But what parliament is entitled to have is a government plan, as was placed before parliament, not a series of plans dictated to it following the introduction of the first. There should have been consultation in advance and only then, after consultation, should the measure have been introduced.
As far as this plan is concerned, we have always been in favour of a national contributory plan and we shall continue to be in favour of such a plan. We think the present one, even in its latter form, is a better one than the government produced and placed before the house. We think, however, particularly as the government has said this is a much better plan than the one they previously had, that after this bill is introduced into the house it should have an early transfer to a committee of the house for further investigation, examination and improvement. That is our view. When I said "committee of the house" I meant to say a joint committee of both houses. We feel that such a committee is more necessary now than ever because we have before us a government which has already brought in one plan with fife and trumpet as if it were the greatest thing ever. Now they have retreated. They have retreated from the things they stood for, having tacitly admitted that their plans have been proven ineffective and inoperative and would have been a denial of Canadian unity.
We say that the bill now to be introduced- the summum bonum, as it were, of the collection of monstrosities which have already been before the house-should go before a committee. We shall give our support on the question of principle and we shall do our best to bring about any further changes which are necessary to ensure that Canadians in every part of the country may have the opportunity to benefit from a contributory pension in addition to a fair basic pension which has been adopted as part and parcel of the social security law of our country.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a statement to the house on four matters on each of which I should like to comment very briefly.
The first statement had to do with increased revenue to the provinces. I think that announcement will be welcomed by all members of the house and by the provinces of

Canada, because the provinces have been facing an increasing demand for services in those fields which come under their jurisdiction. This has been particularly true with reference to education and the need for hospital accommodation, health services, welfare, and municipal services in respect of which municipal governments are looking increasingly to the provincial governments, and the provincial governments have reached the point where they can no longer assist the municipalities in the absence of some further sources of revenue.
Last fall the government made its first move in this direction by allocating an additional $87 million to become effective in this fiscal year, but it should be remembered that about half of that amount was given to one province, so the balance would not amount to a great deal when scattered over the other nine provinces. The Prime Minister announced today that the provinces are to be given an additional 2 per cent in personal income tax abatement commencing January 1,	1965, and
another 2 per cent abatement commencing January 1, 1966. This will give the provinces very welcome relief in enabling them to find resources to meet their increasing responsibilities. It will certainly help. But I think we should not delude ourselves into thinking that the basic problem facing the provinces as they try to meet their legitimate responsibilities under our constitution does not still loom very large; a far more fundamental approach will have to be taken in order to solve it.
The second statement which the Prime Minister made has to do with the Canada pension plan and, as hon. members know, this is the third plan which has been outlined in this parliament. I make no mention of the plan outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 30, 1962 on a national hook-up, which I take to have been largely Liberal political window dressing not meant seriously as a plan for the people of Canada. But this is the third plan which has been before this house, and I do not quarrel with that. I still think that the plan which was submitted on July 18 last gave the participants greater benefits for the money they were to contribute than any plan which has been submitted since. However, that plan ran into difficulties. Some of the provincial premiers were concerned about the need for investment funds; and well they might, because the provinces have a serious problem in finding adequate funds both for resource development and for social capital.
Personally I do not favour looking to pension funds as a means of finding this capital. I think there are better and more equitable ways of finding investment capital. I
20,	1964
Dominion-Provincial Relations think to use pension funds for investment purposes confronts the provinces or a federal government with two problems. The first is that the burden of raising those funds falls on the lower and middle income groups and this is not the place where we ought to be levying money for investment purposes. Second, I think there is a conflict of interest between those who want to use pension funds for industrial development and those who are concerned about protecting the investment of the beneficiaries. The latter have to be cautious and careful, while those who are thinking in terms of economic expansion have to be prepared to take some risks.
This is a conflict of interest which I think would seriously hamper the free use of pension funds for industrial development. I think the answer lies in having the federal government proceed to establish a Canada development fund to supply the necessary capital to industries and to the provinces for resource development. I still express my great regret that this has been dropped into the dustbin of history. The federal government also needs to make available to the provinces large sums of money for social capital. Had these two things been done, then the premiers would not have had to think of the pension fund as a source of investment. But, Mr. Speaker, this house and the people of Canada have to concern themselves, not with the kind of pension plan we want but the kind of pension plan we can get, and the Prime Minister has now put before us a plan that it seems is generally acceptable to all the provinces of Canada.
I would like to know more about the negotiations. I was surprised that the negotiations seem to have been carried on mainly by Mr. Kent of the Prime Minister's office and the Minister of Forestry, and there seems to have been a complete disappearance of both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance, whom I thought would have been generally concerned with this problem. But whatever the discussions back of this plan, we now have a brief outline of a plan which we will have an opportunity of examining in greater detail.
We in this group have insisted all along that a contributory pension plan should have three basic principles; that it should be universal in coverage, that it should have portability, and that it should be on a pay as you go basis so that it would give the greatest possible benefits for the smallest possible contribution. In the plan which the Prime Minister has outlined the first two principles, and by far the most important principles, have been saved and an additional principle has been added; that is, that the federal government has been able to secure

Dominion-Provincial Relations from the provinces their acceptance of a constitutional amendment which will enable the government to include in the pension plan survivor benefits.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this plan contains the best features of the Quebec plan and is a great improvement on the plan which is now before the house. I think this proposal which the Prime Minister has outlined very briefly represents a real victory for national unity and for common sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think we should waste the time of the house by trying to take credit on the one hand for all the virtues of the plan that has been evolved, or trying on the other hand to belittle the accomplishment that has been achieved. I think we should take pride in the fact that the federal and provincial governments of Canada have now taken a great step forward, and that this could be a red letter day in the history of social welfare in Canada, if it is the first step toward providing the people of Canada with a universal, portable contributory pension plan.
The Prime Minister has also outlined a proposal for extending family allowances to those in the 16 and 17 year old groups. This will apply to all parts of Canada, but in view of the fact that the province of Quebec already provides this service they will receive financial compensation for whatever outlay they make. I think this is a happy solution, in that it will give to the young people in this age group who are still attending school benefits all across Canada, will continue them in the province of Quebec, and will compensate the province of Quebec for its financial outlay.
With reference to the student loans, the Prime Minister's statement that the provinces will be allowed to administer these if they so choose and receive equivalent compensation seems to me to make sense, in that the provinces are in a good position to administer student loans because they are familiar with the students' problems. It will create some problem with regard to students moving from one part of Canada to another. Also I hope this will be kept in mind when the 10,000 scholarships are granted which the Liberal party promised before the election.
The point I want to make in closing, Mr. Speaker, is that the statements made by the Prime Minister today indicate very clearly that if we want to advance in Canada, if we want to make progress in reaching new social and economic plateaus, we will have to be flexible, we will have to recognize that experiment is the price of growth; and we will


have to adjust ourselves and develop new techniques to meet the problems of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is a price which Canada cannot afford to pay for national unity. That price is to emasculate the federal government of all the powers which it needs to promote economic growth and full employment. But, happily, today no such price is being asked, and with regard to the proposals which the Prime Minister has made, I believe that the price is one which we can afford to pay and which we should pay gladly.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest that we have followed the reports of the negotiations which have been taking place the last several days, and now to hear the Prime Minister speak as he has spoken regarding the most recent developments relating to the fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the matter of pensions. I think perhaps the outstanding aspect of the decisions and policies which have been announced this afternoon does not relate directly so much to the pension plan, nor to the fiscal arrangements, as it does to the unity of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Somehow I seem to sense that we have passed over what was shaping up to a very serious crisis. Perhaps as in the days ahead we look back at this point, we will see that this is exactly what has happened. Premier Robarts of Ontario foresaw this when he stated at the federal-provincial conference, as is referred to in the letter which the Prime Minister has sent to the provinces, that it is important to the unity of the country that our pension arrangements across the country should not set up obstacles to the movement of the people and therefore must be national in character. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Prime Minister when he says these decisions will help to unify our country.
The arrangements regarding the relinquishing by the government of further financial concessions is a recognition by the government that the provinces have not been getting their fair share of Canada's tax dollar. The acceleration of the rate of return of the income tax dollar appears to me to be founded upon the Diefenbaker-Sauve arrangements that were established in 1959, and this is good.
This being so, we must not consider it a final solution to the problem. A permanent and definite agreement must be reached for a just and all-inclusive arrangement which defines federal and provincial areas of rights

and responsibilities. This very definitely concerns provincial autonomy, and I think this can well be the second step which must be taken to further develop this point of unity which we have just mentioned.
In this regard I think it is good to note that all that comes out of Quebec is not negative. In fact there can be no doubt that if the present pension plan which has been referred to today can go forward to materialization, all the provinces are going to benefit as a result of the lead which has been taken in formulating a specific plan by the province of Quebec.
There is nothing wrong in taking a second look at a problem. I think it is commendable that we can lay down what we believe to be the correct plan at the time and then be able to adjust it as we realize more fully all the implications which are involved. I think as this pension plan and these fiscal arrangements are discussed further by the provinces, in this house and in the committee to which they will be referred, it may be necessary in some minor points to take still further looks at it. But at least we have reached at this point of the development of a national pension plan something which is certainly more hopeful than we have had thus far.
The result of last week's negotiations between the federal and provincial governments has proved without doubt that the position of the provinces is becoming stronger, and that the need for a continuing negotiation organization and consultation body is necessary between our different levels of government. I trust that this will lead very quickly to the setting up of some form of federal-provincial affairs department.
From what we have heard today the federal government is obviously pleased with the arrangements which they have been able to make, and I gather from reports that the provinces are likewise pleased. However, the person I am most concerned with is John Citizen, because during these past weeks of negotiation I do not think he has been consulted too much. Certainly this is a far different plan from what he has heard about before. The original plan was for a pay as you go plan. That plan meant that this generation supported today's senior citizens, and that when today's workers were retired they would be supported in turn by the workers of tomorrow. That would have meant that we could quickly look after one age group in immediate need at the present time, those between the ages of 65 and 70, and do so without waiting very long for the plan to get started. It would also mean that we would avoid the depressing long term effects of accumulating large reserves and plunging the whole country into debt by investing them.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
This brings me to the point that a pension plan should be intended basically to provide pensions for the people and to provide the portability which is not available to them at the present time. There is the fact that there is now being added to this pension plan a source of funded capital, although it is being left with the provincial governments for their use, which is doing something beyond which I think a pension plan perhaps should go. I sympathize with the provincial governments because we all know they need money for development, but money for development should not be confused with money for pensions. However, I do not feel that the financial needs of our provinces and of our municipal governments mix too well together in this question of pensions. I just remind the house in this regard that we have our own Bank of Canada, and there is no reason why our needs for capital development within the provinces and municipalities could not be supplied therefrom.
However, this is not the time for debate on the pension plan. I would just point out that there are many matters which will have to be discussed when the proposed legislation is referred to committee, and there will likewise be discussions between the provinces as well. It is also good to note that there are survival benefits being planned. I am a little concerned that the self employed are going to be responsible both for the employer's contribution as well as the employee's contribution. With regard to the latter remarks of the Prime Minister, it is also good to note that all our student bodies across the country will be able to benefit equally. All these matters add up to the sum total that it is our opinion that progress has been made, and we look forward to the continuation of this debate.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that having been told of the new developments at a few minutes' notice, we are unable to delve properly into the matter. Yet, at first sight I shall not hesitate to say that, even if this is not quite satisfactory, the situation as a whole is rather gratifying.
Mr. Speaker, our group has now been sitting in the federal parliament for two years, and this is the first time that we see a government, whether the present or the last one, take concrete action to promote better understanding between the provincial and federal governments, or between the two great nations which make up this country.
Mr. Speaker, I must therefore say that as there had been no action on the part of the governments for the last two years, we began to feel slightly discouraged about future developments in the house. Yet, today's gesture

Dominion-Provincial Relations will encourage us to claim twice as loud as before, since we realize that, when we raise our voices to expound what we believe to be our rights, we get some satisfaction. Consequently, we shall clamour twice as loudly, in order to obtain twice as quickly the true confederation of two nations where each will have its recognized rights and responsibilities.
The pension scheme which has been explained today is, I think, a concrete example thereof. Understanding has been reached along general lines; there has also been agreement on the percentages to be levied and on the amounts to be paid to beneficiaries.
However, nothing prevents thereafter everyone from keeping his jurisdiction, from administering and operating his own pension plan; the province of Quebec will keep on administering hers, while the nine other provinces, if they wish, will agree to leave that jurisdiction with Ottawa or they might decide to administer their own pension plan, if they so desire.
In other words, there is agreement on the terms, but everyone is the master of his own fate as far as the pension plan is concerned according to the announcement made today. That is exactly what we understand by a true confederation of two nations, where there is room for agreement, but where everyone continues to guide and work out his own destiny as he sees fit.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to income tax, I must say that it is a little less satisfactory. We asked for 25 per cent, we got 24 per cent; we are short 1 per cent. I admit that the goal has almost been reached. The Prime Minister certainly showed himself a clever diplomat in coming to terms with the premier of Quebec-within 1 per cent.


Mr. Vincent:: In two years.


Gilles Grégoire: I wanted to come to that; in two years only, whereas it should have been done before the budget was brought down in the Quebec legislature.
Of course, things will go faster because the income tax rebate granted to the provincial governments will increase by 2 per cent, then 3 per cent each year.
Mr. Speaker, some people may feel that things are not going fast enough considering that it has taken years-in fact, since the war-to get to those 24 per cent, considering also that from year to year or at least every two or three years, the rebate will be multiplied not mathematically but geometrically since it is being increased threefold today. However, I feel that this proportion of 24 instead of 25 per cent will be considered satisfactory by those who wish to find a fair solution through understanding and harmony. However, this is not a final agreement but

rather the beginning of negotiations which will end only the day that Quebec has recovered 100 per cent of personal and corporation income taxes and of the estate tax.
In my opinion, this will be possible in 1967, when the provinces will be able to put an end to the agreements and get 100 per cent of the income tax.
As for the pension plan, the federal government has deemed it advisable to change its mind; I do not think it is a mistake. There is a latin proverb which says:	Errare
humanum est, it is in the nature of man to make mistakes. Well, I believe that the federal government has at least gained a point; the provincial government wanted to increase income tax by 4 per cent for the pension plan, now it will be increased by 3 per cent only. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said a moment ago, I do not think that a pension plan should be used to accumulate savings for reinvestment in industry. In my opinion, a pension plan should serve to give bigger pensions to those who have reached retiring age. Above all, let us not forget that those who will have to subscribe to the pension plan at the rate of 3 per cent later on will borrow their own money so as to be able to develop. It might be better to leave them their money now, so that they might prosper without having to borrow later from the pension fund.
With regard to the $10 paid to students, the young people in the province of Quebec will be passed over without being able to benefit therefrom. On the allegation that they already benefit from this amount, the whole sum will be paid out to the provincial government. Now, there have been some instances in the past where things were not done in that way. For instance, when the old age pensions were increased in Alberta and British Columbia, the amount was larger than in the other provinces, because those two provinces were granting an additional amount to their senior citizens.
When old age pensions were increased, those two provinces did not tell the federal government: "Hand that money over to us, so that our old people will get neither more nor less, but certainly not less, than in the other provinces." Nobody tried to reduce what the provincial government was already paying out, so that the federal increase would be of no use to anybody.
I wonder why the premier of the province of Quebec would not rather undertake to pay those additional $10 to the young people in the province so that they would get $20 as a school allowance. They have great need thereof, as until now education in the province of Quebec has proved almost a failure,

and education is certainly not free, because taxes have increased and students have to pay still more than formerly, in order to be able to continue their studies at the university level.
In concluding I should like to refer to a sentence which went by very quickly in the statement made by the Prime Minister. He said that the federal government will have to recover that from other sources of income, in reference to the additional tax rebate of 2 per cent per year. Does this mean that the federal government intends to increase taxes or to do in Ottawa what Mr. Lesage was going to do in Quebec, namely impose double taxation? A warning must be given to this government which shares the tax yields to the benefit of the provinces, that it should not attempt to get more income out of the pockets of the taxpayers already overburdened with taxes.
One last remark, Mr. Speaker, especially as regards the province of Quebec. A year ago, the premier of that province asked for a tax rebate equivalent to $150 million and said that he would need that amount this year. In November, he received an amount of some $43 million. For next year, he will get $17 million more, that is $60 million, while Quebec requirements are of $150 million.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the crux of the statement made today. In giving back to Quebec the revenues to which it is entitled under the constitution of this country, and also because of its priority requirements, I believe that the federal government does not go far enough and I wish to warn them that if they do not go farther than they did today, there is a risk that the dissatisfaction of the province of Quebec will not die out with the crumbs it got today, but will rather become more pronounced, because Quebec, wishing to be in a position to develop itself and be the master of its own destiny, is eager to have complete restitution of its revenues.
The sentiments prevailing at the present time in the province of Quebec will not be stifled by the few crumbs that have been handed out today. To do it successfully would require the complete return of its income. It may be possible to make the province wait a while longer by gradually giving back to it part of its revenues, but I feel it will have to be done at a much faster pace than the one mentioned today.
That will have to be done, not by handing out a few crumbs now and then, but by proceeding at such a pace that, within a few years at the most, Quebec will have recovered all its sources of income.
20220-149i
Procedure Committee
Mr. Speaker, for a beginning, perhaps that is not much, but at least it is something. More must be done and at an accelerated pace. Should that be the case, confederation, renovated by the adoption of new principles, will be able to survive and good understanding will prevail between our two great nations, both living in harmony in one great country called Canada, providing we proceed right now, at as fast a pace as the rate of growth and as fast as necessary to give satisfaction to Quebec which, after all, is only claiming the rights granted to her by the constitution of 1867.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That the second report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented on April 15, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude to the special committee on procedure and organization for according me the honour of moving concurrence in that committee's second report. I am grateful, too, to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for his consent to be the seconder of the motion. Speaking both for the member for Peace River and for myself, I may say that we are doing this on behalf of the special committee on procedure and organization.
Hon. members are aware that the second report, concurrence in which we are now asking, is to be found on pages 211 to 214 of Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, April 15. Hon. members are aware also that in that report it is made clear that the two main recommendations which the committee is now making to the house are made on a trial basis. If this report is concurred in, as we hope it will be, the proposals contained in it will come into effect today and remain in effect for a period of six weeks or until the end of the month of May, at which time it will be for the house to decide whether or not these proposals are to be continued.
The report makes it clear also that although we are today presenting only two main proposals, this is only the beginning of our work. The committee hopes to bring in other changes from time to time pending a final report on behalf of the committee. I draw hon. members' attention to the fact that there are two main sections of the report now before us, concurrence in which is now being sought. The first section relates to the orders of the day question period, and the

Procedure Committee second section relates to the handling of notices of motions for the production of papers. Because the second of these proposals is the least complicated I should like to deal with these two proposals in reverse order.
With regard to notices of motions for the production of papers, we are making two suggestions. The first one we make by an amendment to a standing order, and it is to the effect that there should be a time limit on the total amount of debate that might take place on a notice of motion for the production of papers that has been transfered for debate on every second Thursday at five o'clock. We propose that when a motion under that order has been debated for a total time of two hours and thirty minutes, the debate shall be interrupted and the minister, whether or not he has already spoken, shall be given five minutes at that point and the mover of the motion five minutes, whereupon the question shall be put.
The other suggestion we make with regard to notices of motions for the production of papers has to do with the way in which they are handled in the first instance, when they are called on Wesdnesdays. We suggest that they be handled in a manner similar to that which is now employed with respect to the printed questions on the order paper. I need not go into details about this. I am sure all hon. members will realize that a good deal of time can be saved in this way and, as a matter of fact, certain annoyances we are now experiencing on Wednesday afternoon, could be avoided. I trust that the proposals we have made with respect to notices of motions for the production of papers will commend themselves to the house and that they will be accepted for this trial period between now and the end of the month of May.
I return to the first of the two main sections of our report, namely the section that has to do with the orders of the day question period. In legal or procedural terms, we have not had any such period up to the present time. There is nothing in the standing orders that provides for questions prior to orders of the day, but tradition has overridden the standing orders and it is the view of the committee that we should now regularize this procedure by a standing order and should make certain provisions regarding it.
We considered very thoroughly and very seriously, the proposals that have been made to put a time limit on the orders of the day question period. We have decided, both as a subcommittee and as a main committee, not to recommend a time limit except for the fact we do recommend trying a 30-minute time limit on Wednesdays only. The reason we do not propose a time limit on the question period

is that we feel there are too many complexities. In view of the number of parties there are in the house; in view of the questions of order and points of privilege that arise, we feel we might be asking for more trouble than we would get rid of by applying a time limit. We felt rather that we should approach this orders of the day question period from two points of view. We feel that, on the one hand, there should be some clearcut rules and directions for the orders of the day question period and, on the other hand, there should be a recourse, an escape valve or an alternative that would make it possible for Mr. Speaker with the co-operation and assistance of the house, to apply the rules and directions that we suggest for the orders of the day question period.
Having these two things in mind, we therefore recommend a standing order to regularize the orders of the day question period and to give control over that question period into the hands of Mr. Speaker. In addition to the standing order, we recommend, as our report indicates, that certain guide lines should be followed in allowing questions during this period of time. We hope that this standing order and these guide lines will enable the house, under the direction of Mr. Speaker, to improve the orders of the day question period. We hope it will shorten it, but we want to make it clear that that is not our only concern. We would like to see the period sharpened and made the effective part of our parliamentary procedure that the question period ought to be.
It is our very strong view, Mr. Speaker, that merely to impose restrictions on the orders of the day question period, by itself, would not solve the problem and would not retain the rights that are inherent in the asking of questions. We therefore propose, and members are familiar with it now, that on three nights in the week, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, there be available a possible half hour period during which there might be short submissions on three different subjects on each of these three nights.
Our proposal is that if during the question period a member feels dissatisfied with the answer he gets from the government or if he feels dissatisfied with the direction given him by Mr. Speaker not to proceed with his question, he may give notice that he wishes to raise that matter at the time of adjournment. He can give that notice orally at that moment if he wishes to do so. But whether or not he gives it orally, we direct that he give it in writing to Mr. Speaker by five o'clock and we direct that at six o'clock Mr. Speaker indicate-that is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays-what matters will be allowed for debate that evening. We lay down

certain matters that Mr. Speaker may have regard to. We hope we have covered most of the details to make this a workable operation.
One of the conditions we suggest is that consideration be given to apportioning the opportunities among the various parties in the house. We feel that when the plan is put into operation, we can shorten the time taken for the question period and yet preserve the right of members to have a chance to say something on matters that they feel are not satisfactorily dealt with in the question period.
These three possible statements or debates at night, between ten o'clock and 10.30, will be limited absolutely to a total of ten minutes each, seven minutes for the member who has been given the floor, and three minutes for the minister or parliamentary secretary who may wish to reply. We also provide that if any one of these matters takes less than ten minutes then the house gains, in the sense that it adjourns that much earlier.
As I have indicated to hon. members, the details of this arrangement are spelled out in the report which is to be found in last Wednesday's Votes and Proceedings. We feel if hon. members will give this whole proposal a fair trial and will co-operate with Mr. Speaker, we can perhaps institute a new approach, a new attitude toward the question period, from which we will all benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I make this motion on behalf of the committee. I present it to parliament as a whole on behalf of parliament as a whole, but I do crave a moment to introduce just one personal note, and I shall put it this way. Although I am doing this on behalf of the committee, it is a fact that I sit on the opposition side of the house, as I have all my parliamentary life. Thus I have a built-in desire to protect the rights of the opposition, to protect the rights of individual members in the question period, and yet it is precisely from that point of view that I want to say that I feel this new arrangement that we are proposing not only will help to shorten the question period but will protect those rights by helping to sharpen the question period and make it a more effective instrument in the course of our parliamentary procedure.
We welcome the interest shown in the report by the news coverage given to it during the last several days. We welcome the editorial support we have noted in various newspapers throughout the country. I welcome the support hon. members in all parties have indicated, in speaking to me personally about it.
Procedure Committee
I hope we can therefore adopt this on a trial basis, and that the house will support Mr. Speaker in applying the rules and suggestions we have laid down so that, all told, we can take a step forward. With respect to the rules and recommendations about the question period I would like to make this one further point. Up to this time, when Mr. Speaker has sought to apply rules and precedents about the question period he has had to rely on what former speakers have said, but these have not been dicta that came from the house itself. If the house today passes this report, Mr. Speaker will have as his authority not just statements from the Chair, statements out of the past, not just his own judgment, but he will have the direction of this very House of Commons which we will have given by supporting this report at this time.
So, Mr. Speaker, believing that this will be a useful step forward in our attempt to improve the procedures of the House of Commons, I express the hope that the house will support the motion for the adoption of this report; that it will support the letter of it, that it will support the spirit of it, and that from this day forward our question period and some of our other procedures in the house may become, even more so than they have been, an expression of the best traditions of parliamentary procedure.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, as might be thought at this time I would like to say a few words on this particular subject because I have, shall we say, a built in or vested interest. I think hon. members will realize my own interest in the question period.
In making a few brief comments I would like to say that I too share the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which I believe were fairly general in the committee. However, it must be clearly pointed out that the adjournment period that is proposed under standing order 39-A must not be deemed an opportunity for an extension of government business in that at five minutes to ten o'clock, or at ten minutes to ten in the evening it would not be suddenly put to the house: How about waiving the adjournment debate and carrying on with the government business?
We will see how this works, because in many instances I know it is in the interest of the government and in the interest of the house to continue beyond ten o'clock. Therefore it should not become a practice to intrude government business into this period, and it must be recognized that ten o'clock means the hour of adjournment. If ten o'clock is definitely understood to be the hour of adjournment, and that we will not be very

Procedure Committee
literal in the interpretation of ten o'clock, then perhaps some of the difficulties might not arise. Therefore I wish to enter that caveat.
Second, I would have thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have agreed on this point, which is one I do not want to propose as an amendment to the report, but which I hope will meet with his agreement. In paragraph 5, in the first line, I would have preferred to have seen after the word "with" the words "and subject to the limitations of standing order 39(1) as they apply to written questions and answers," so as to indicate clearly that the limitations which we have in our rules with respect to argument, opinion and so forth in regard to written questions should now apply also to oral questions.
I think Your Honour will agree with me that this is the most difficult area for the Chair in ruling as to whether questions are in the proper form and should be admissible or not. The same thing applies to answers. Standing order 39 is completely silent at present with regard to oral questions. It deals only with written questions on the order paper, but by tradition a similar right has grown up to ask oral questions and, by inference, that they should be guided by the rules which apply to written questions.
I would suggest it should be clearly set out that oral questions shall be subject to the same limitations as written questions and the same, of course, will apply to answers. I say this in order to strengthen the hand of the Chair in relying upon the precedents set by Your Honour's and my predecessors as to the nature and content of questions and answers.
The only way we can do it, and I am being legal in this, is by a reference to standing order 39(1), and if standing order 39(1) is not referred to in standing order 39(5), there could be an argument that all of these precedents and so forth had no application to oral questions. Therefore I hope it would be understood in this experimental period that the limitations in standing order 39(1) will apply to standing order 39(5).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If it is permissible at this time, Mr. Speaker, on motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a debate on a motion of which notice was given. I wonder if the hon. member has noted that in the report of which we are asking concurrence there are recommendations which will be found on page 213 of Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, April 15, and among them is one that suggests that questions asked prior to orders of the day should be governed by the provisions of

standing order 39(1), and the spirit of that will include 39(2). If within the next six weeks it does not prove satisfactory, we can word the permanent order to take care of the points which the hon. member is raising.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was fully aware of these suggestions by the committee, but I think this is a caveat with respect to the drafting of the standing order.
Perhaps I may refer to one other point, that is, the adjournment debate. It is intimated that an hon. member may give notice in writing of a question or a point which has risen during the question period and which he wishes to raise further. That is with respect to oral questions. I would point out that it is of equal importance that an hon. member should be able to raise a point in connection with the answer to a written question. Many of the difficulties which have arisen in the house have arisen out of the nature of a written reply which has led, in turn, to a question of privilege being raised, or ventilation of the subject matter under the guise of privilege. It is not really privilege, in my humble opinion. I feel this suggestion would be an improvement on the present arrangement and I commend it to hon. members. I appreciate that there is to be a six weeks trial period, but I think the house itself might be willing to accept this suggestion, that answers to written questions be included among those matters which can be discussed during the adjournment debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In rising to support the motion to adopt this report I should like to express the appreciation of the government for the work of the committee under your chairmanship, sir, the first encouraging results of which we have before us in this report, a report for which we are indebted to a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre who has introduced it.
I am sure I am speaking for all hon. members when I say we are grateful to him and to his sub-committee for what they have done, and I think we can be glad that we have among us one with so much experience in this field as the hon. gentleman who presided over the sub-committee. We all, I think, appreciate the breadth of his knowledge in this field and the value of his experience. I may say its value would be even greater, of course, if by taking the appropriate action he could acquire some experience of rules and procedures from the vantage point of a place on this side of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been trying to get there for half my life.


Some hon. Members:: You have made it; you are there now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, apart from that limitation of his experience he certainly is an expert in this field. I do not profess to be an expert at all, though over the years I am picking up a bit of experience with regard to rules and procedures here and there. And with another ten or 15 years in the house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -on one side or the other, I hope to be able to speak with some authority in these matters. It seems to me that the report makes some interesting recommendations which may turn out to be of considerable value. It has been pointed out that if adopted they will be in effect for a trial period only to the end of May. I think this is a sensible way to proceed, because in the light of our experience we shall be able to decide whether to retain them, alter them, or drop them.
I find it very intriguing indeed to note from the report that an effort is being made to shorten the period devoted to questions without putting any time limit on the question period. That may well work out, Mr. Speaker, in the way the committee hopes it will, but I venture to express the hope, on my part, that it will not work out to the extent of our having to sit from 10 to 10.30 every night, because if that happens, and if we have the same length of time devoted to questions in addition to the extra half hour, we shall certainly not have expedited our proceedings. I know this is not in the minds of those who have made the recommendations in this report because it is pointed out with particular emphasis in the recommendation dealing with the shortening of the question period that the proceedings will have to be conducted along the lines indicated in paragraph seven of the report, that is to say oral questions will have to be governed by the rules laid down in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 7, they should only be in respect of questions of such urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer, and so forth, and also that answers to questions shall be as brief as possible to deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.
I would point out, however, that if an answer is not to provoke debate the question should not be of such a character as to be provocative and call for that kind of answer. If one is asked, for example: "What do you think about the European common market"
Procedure Committee
or "What do you think about the situation in Viet Nam?" it is difficult to be brief and to the point and not to provoke debate. I believe we shall have to practise a good deal of self-denial on both sides of the house. However, I am encouraged to think this may work, because one of the recommendations in the report says there may be no appeal against any ruling which you make, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this subparagraph. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that this means that once you have decided that a question is not in order there can be no appeal against your decision and that there can, surely, be no points of order or questions of privilege raised in respect to that decision. I say this because unless the word "appeal" is interpreted in this way we might waste as much time dealing with points of order and questions of privilege arising out of questions which have not been accepted by you, or accepted only for discussion at ten o'clock, as we would conceivably gain in other respects. Unless we interpret the recommendations in that way we might even find we have lost time rather than gained it.
I am interested in the recommendation dealing with a new procedure for handling notices of motion for the production of papers, a recommendation which I think should save time and expedite business. I say this because this is the first time, as far as I know, that a recommendation has been put forward containing the principle of an allocation of time to specific matters. In this case we are allocating a certain amount of time to debate on a particular subject, and that, I think, is of some significance.
On the whole we think these recommendations certainly deserve the trial they are to be given, and if they operate as the subcommittee hopes they will operate, they may be the first of a long series of recommendations from a very important committee which we have set up and which may go a long way toward making our House of Commons more effective in the discharge of the nation's business.


John George Diefenbaker: I join with the Prime Minister in the expression of the views he has just placed before the house-that we should endeavour to the limit to bring about, by agreement, measures, through changes in the rules, to make more effective the operation of parliament.
I was impressed when the right hon. gentleman said he had been here for quite a while but he did not know anything about the rules, or did not know too much about them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said I was not an expert.

Procedure Committee


John George Diefenbaker: The next time he objects to something I raised in the house I want Your Honour to remember that frank admission on the part of the Prime Minister. It was delightful, that admission, and one with which I am in entire agreement. The Prime Minister has referred to the committee and its operation. We have been trying through the years to bring about worth-while changes in the rules; committees have been set up and changes have been made. Further changes will have to be made. However, I should say this: I think you, Mr. Speaker, are the third or fourth Speaker who has headed a committee in this connection and I know that the house will agree that no one has given more devotion to making this chamber effective and assuring that the prerogative rights of parliament shall be maintained, while at the same time making those necessary alterations in the rules to meet changed and changing conditions. You have made a study of this subject and you have given a fine example in the chair of trying to carry out the embodiment of your views in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to point out, however, that in any changes made we must not deny parliament the fullest right of examination through questions. Some people say too many questions are asked. I read that in some sections of the press. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to those that hold that view an examination of the British Hansard where, in place of the few thousand questions that are asked here today, some 20,000 and more, as I recall it, are asked there. There one cannot rise and embarrass the government in any way by asking an initial question; the embarrassment always takes place in the subsequent questions, the supplementary questions that are asked.
Questions have their place and there must be no unnecessary interference with the full rights of members to ask such questions as come within the rules. There are many questions which could go on the order paper. However, I find that the order paper would indicate that a degree of celerity in the answering of questions has not always been characteristic of this government. I point out that according to computations made by another there are on the order paper 75 questions at this date that have been on the order paper for more than a month. There is something wrong if these questions cannot be answered. They are simple questions. The answers to some of them may not be as favourable to the government as it would like them to be; but there are more than

75 questions that have been on the order paper for more than a month. I am not going to read them.
Even worse is the fact that there are seven starred questions, questions that should be answered immediately, on the order paper which have been there for more than a month. The purpose of a starred question is to ensure that immediate attention be given to an immediate matter-and seven, as I said a moment ago, have been on the order paper for more than a month. Twenty eight questions have been on the order paper for three weeks and less. In the United Kingdom, when you ask a question it is answered within three days. That makes for an effective parliament. I am not speaking of starred questions now; starred questions are answered at the first opportunity, almost immediately. But other questions are answered within three days. I hope the spirit of co-operation that is apparent in the committee will find its way into the hearts of the ministers of the crown and that they will bring in answers to our questions expeditiously and without that delay that has so often characterized the answering of questions.
I am glad there has been the acceptance of a suggestion that I made, that where questions are not answered in a way that, in the opinion of the questioner, gives the full facts, an opportunity shall be available, within the limitations set out in the recommendation, to carry on beyond ten o'clock. The Prime Minister was a little concerned about this. I took it from his words that he thought it would really mean the house will be sitting from 10 to 10.30. You, Mr. Speaker, have seen the operation of the British parliament. I have seen it in operation, and sometimes when these questions arise, out of the 600 and some members of the House of Commons no more than three, four or five are in the chamber when these disputations take place following the regular adjournment hours of ten o'clock.
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is one that deserves the consideration of the committee. He pointed out that written questions, too, should be placed in the same category in so far as answers are concerned, so that anyone dissatisfied with such an answer would be able to raise the question, with Your Honour's leave, at the time of the automatic adjournment.
There is one suggestion that I make. It does not come within the purview of the report as it now is, but a reading of Hansard through the years indicates that interruptions from a seated position have become increasingly evident and the custom. When I first came here there were few of those;

one who wished to ask a question rose in his place. Today there are those seated interruptions. We are all guilty of them. It spoils the appearance of Hansard. It gives to readers of Hansard the idea that, to use a vulgarism, horseplay is indulged in by members from time to time. In my opinion, and I think the rules bear me out, no interruptions excepting those that are adopted by the person having the floor should find their way into Hansard. In the United Kingdom the course followed, after their experience of years in the mother of parliaments, is that when interruptions of this kind are made Hansard shows "An interruption", and that is all. The failure of Hansard to designate the member who made the interruption has a most salutary effect on the number of those interruptions. It is perhaps just a coincidence, but it is a fact with regard to an interruption or question asked. If there is no identification of the person making that interruption, it is surprising the degree to which that fact has an ameliorating effect on the enthusiasm of the interrupter.
As one looks at Hansard today one sees it plastered with questions and interruptions both at the time of questions prior to orders of the day and in general debate. One can only conclude that the acceptance of the principle I suggest, as followed in the mother of parliaments, would be beneficial here. That of course does not mean that in committee of the whole, committee of supply and the like, interruptions like that should not take place. They there have their place. But I am referring to the interruptions that consist of gratuitous statements made for no other purpose than to cause disruption, to disseminate humour, or for some other ulterior purpose.
I think the committee has done well in the recommendations already made; I think there is much more to be done. However, all the rules in the world will not bring about an expeditious and effective parliament without the co-operation of all of us, and I am sure that each of us personally will want to advise you of his or her intention to try to the limit to carry out the spirit of this house.
When people speak of the house being disorderly, I can only say to those who have come to that view that they know not Westminster. We had a visitor recently within the last two weeks, a professor of political science from the United States. I do not know the man but he is one of the outstanding political scientists in the eastern United States. He sat here in the gallery, and he said: "I want you to know and to let your fellow members in the House of Commons know that while I read of much criticism of the operation of your House of Commons I have found it a place of great dignity as compared to another 20220-150
Procedure Committee
representative institution"-which I am not going to identify. I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, we will be able, in that spirit of co-operation which you, sir, brought to parliament, to bring about in your period of office the greatest improvements in parliamentary procedure which have been made in a lifetime.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, because I cannot make any claims to having had years of experience in this house-although I have had some experience in the way of getting things done as far as jobs which have come my way to do are concerned-and also because it is now two hours and 15 minutes since we began today's session and have not yet reached the question period, my remarks will be very brief. I commend the committee for the report they have submitted. I commend it to the house and suggest that we give it a fair trial. If we can all apply a little common sense and self-discipline I am sure that we will have a more effective House of Commons.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, personally, I have only two years' experience in parliamentary procedure. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I have yet to get the experience of those members who sit on the other side of the house, but I may have to my credit one experience more than he has.
It happened two week ends ago when the secondary school students in my riding asked me, Mr. Speaker-can you imagine that-to act as speaker in their mock parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It must have been quite a task.


Gilles Grégoire: That is exactly why I found the assignment very tough. I could not say a word during the two days that this mock parliament sat. However, it was good experience.
It also makes one realize the difficulties facing the man presiding over the proceedings of the house and what are his responsibilities.
For the suggestion made to us today to be successful, I think that first of all, the question askers should show good will, that those who have a question to ask should abide by the standing order established by the committee on procedure. That is of prime importance. The same goes for the ministers' answers.
Of course, we are doing this on a trial basis. But if all the answers given by the ministers bring about a request from the opposition to put on the agenda of the ten o'clock period the matter on which information is sought, it will not take a month before there are many more questions to discuss

Procedure Committee
during the period from ten to ten thirty on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays than all the questions or measures the government might want to introduce.
So, if the answers given by the ministers are ad hoc answers to the questions posed, there will be less disagreement on the experiment we want to try today.
But I think the greatest responsibility- and that is why at the outset of my remarks I said the Speaker had great responsibilities, for having experienced it myself-in this experiment will rest on the shoulders of the Speaker. It will be quite easy for him to rule that any question is out of order-there will be no point of order, no question of privilege. It will be the easy way.
It will be up to the Speaker also to decide which questions are urgent and which are not. In that connection, I should like to recall personal impressions in order to show that a question may seem urgent to some persons and not to others. When we first came to the house and listened to questions being asked concerning agriculture, all of them were accepted if they referred specifically to wheat; in such a case, they were urgent and important. However, if these questions referred to eastern agriculture, to the culture of potatoes, to stock breeding, to milk production or to something else, then they were ruled not urgent, and that seemed to be taken for granted by all parties in the house.
I will admit that, for a year now, hon. members seem to have taken into account the fact that certain matters which in former years did not seem to be urgent are very much so today.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that the most important point in this new experiment will be to determine which questions are urgent and important.
I should like to add a last point, mentioned earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, and it is this: questions on the order paper will have to be answered much sooner than has been the case till now. In respect of certain questions, we have had to wait a month, sometimes a month and a half, before getting an answer. That is why hon. members ask questions and request information on orders of the day instead of putting their questions on the order paper. If replies were provided sooner to questions put on the order paper, hon. members would be encouraged to use that media since such replies are more elaborate and, therefore, provide better information than those given during the question period. Indeed, that is quite understandable since the minister to whom the question is directed is then in a better position to get the necessary information and he can provide a more satisfactory reply when he has the time to prepare

himself than when a question is put to him without notice during the question period.
As far as our group is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we intend to co-operate loyally and sincerely in this new attempt, with a view to shortening the question period and expediting any legislation which might be more urgent. In fact, this constitutes the primary purpose of hon. members' work, that is to pass legislation which will serve the best interests of the Canadian people.


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


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I just take a minute briefly to refer to one or two matters which have been introduced, bearing in mind that I did second this motion. First of all, I agree with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that this house does not exist entirely for the purpose of permitting the business of government to be proceeded with; it also exists for the benefit of members of parliament to deal with grievances and matters of urgency affecting this country.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the situation in the old country. It so happens that I have before me a book entitled "Questions In Parliament" by Chester and Bowring. In order to emphasize what the Leader of the Opposition said I would point out that I find in the book that in 1945-46 there were 21,135 starred questions asked and a total of 27,313 starred and unstarred questions. In 1959-60 there were 10,161 starred questions asked and a total of 13,471 starred and unstarred questions. This indicates the extreme importance of this issue.
May I say that when the members of the subcommittee met we were as far apart as we could possibly be as to the type of amendments we should propose, and it was only by each accepting a little of the philosophy of the other and by reducing to some extent those things which we thought were essential that we were able to come up with this temporary measure which I think is going to be very effective in its operation. Finally, I should like to refer to the matters which were raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. He brought up suggestions which I placed before the subcommittee and the committee. But I put it to you this way, Mr. Speaker. If we concur in this report we will then be saying by a vote of the house, because this will be a resolution passed by the house and it will become a part of the procedure, that we are accepting the guide lines and the suggestions as to questions and answers contained

in paragraph 7 of the committee's report. We are thereby saying that this is the view of the members of the house. We are asking you Mr. Speaker, in accordance with these guide lines to interpret what are questions of urgency, to designate the questions which should be asked and, just as important, to designate the type of answer which should be given pursuant to what we have set out in paragraph 7 of our report.
So, Mr. Speaker, while it might have been desirable from the viewpoint of neatness and tidiness to have incorporated this and the reference to standing order 39 (1) as a part of the new standing order, nevertheless by adopting the report we are in effect doing precisely that. We are in effect saying to you, sir, and to all members of the house: These are the rules which we as a body are directing and requesting each individual member to observe. Under those circumstances I feel that this procedure will be just as effective as if we had proceeded in the other way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the government, through the offices of the crown assets disposal corporation, to dispose of the buildings and property at the old airport base, Upper North Sydney, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Deschatelets:: Disposal of the buildings and property at the old airport base, Upper North Sydney, N.S. through the offices of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is under study. No decision has been reached.


REGULATION RESPECTING COMMUNITY ANTENNAE
Mr. Leboe: 1.	Is there a directive or a regulation prohibiting the reception or distribution by individuals or corporations of a signal or electrical impulse by use of (a) community antennae (b) closed circuit distribution, each recipient holding an individual contract?
2.	If so (a) what are the terms of such directive or regulation (b) by whom was it issued, and (c) under what authority was the said directive or regulation promulgated?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1 and 2. Community antenna television systems operated for gain require to be licensed under the provisions of the Radio Act. This requirement does not apply to closed circuit distribution systems unless a radio link of some sort is involved. There is no directive prohibiting reception or distribution, but the Secretary of State and 20220-150J
Questions
the Minister of Transport announced on December 31, 1963 that pending a report by the board of broadcast governors and subsequent formulation of policy by the government, there would be no additional licensing of these systems under the Radio Act which would involved the bringing in of new signals from outside the country; or where more than 25 per cent ownership was outside the country.


CANADA PENSION PLAN PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 4 75-Mr. Coates:
1.	How many individuals have been recruited by the civil service commission, or by other means, in connection with the establishment of an administration for the Canada pension plan?
2.	What are the names of the individuals recruited and where are they now employed?
Mr. Lamoniagne:: Civil service commission
1.	The civil service commission has not recruited any individuals in connection with the establishment of an administration for the Canada pension plan.
2.	See answer to 1. above.
Department of National Health and Welfare
1 and 2. None. Extensive use has been made of the existing staff of the old age security division and the research and statistics divisions of the department.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Lessard (Lake St.: John):
1.	How many post office buildings did the Department of Public Works build during the fiscal year 1963-64 in the province of Ontario, and what was the total cost of those buildings?
2.	How many post office buildings did the Department of Public Works build during the fiscal year 1963-64 in the province of Quebec, and what was the total cost of those buildings?
3.	What construction is projected in this field for the fiscal year 1964-65, in the province of Quebec?
4.	What construction is projected in this field for the fiscal year 1964-65, in the province of Ontario?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Twenty one buildings at a cost of $497,998.17.
2.	Thirty eight buildings at a cost of $1,119,885.75.
3.	Chateauguay, Public building; Lachine- Ville La Salle, Postal substation; Montreal-. Cote St. Luc, Postal substation (extension and alterations); St. Lambert, Public building; Dorion-Vaudreuil, Public building (extension and alterations).
4.	Aurora, Public building; Dresden, Public building; Dryden, Public building; Elmira, Public building; Espanola, Public building; Keswick, Public building; Newcastle, Public building; Port Elgin, Public building; Schom-berg, Public building; Toronto, Postal substation "L".

Questions
Note: Ordinary post office buildings, including revenue post offices, are not included in answers 3 and 4, since the exact scope of their program is not yet determined.


* EMPLOYMENT OF OLDER WORKERS
Mr, Rynard: 1.	Under the older workers employment program whereby salaries are supplemented to a maximum of $75 monthly out of public funds, how many workers over the age of 45 have been employed under this plan to date?
2.	What is the total sum paid by the government as salary supplements under this plan to date?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. 1,811 as at March 31, 1964.
2.	$34,971.88 as at March 31, 1964.


USE OF PORT FACILITIES, MULGRAVE AND NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the names of the vessels either owned by, or under charter to the Canadian National Railways which normally operate out of the port of North Sydney but have been using the port of Mulgrave since January 1, 1964?
2.	On what dates have each of these vessels used Mulgrave instead of North Sydney and how much tonnage of freight has been handled by each vessel from Mulgrave on each trip since January 1, 1964?
3.	Since January 1, how many tons of freight have been handled (total) through the port of Mulgrave which normally would be handled through the port of North Sydney?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1,	2 and 3: M.V. Victoria Marie (chartered), Feb. 15, 289 tons; Feb. 25, 354 tons; Mar. 5, 242 tons; Mar. 14, 268 tons.
M.V. Nelson B. (chartered), Feb. 16, 163 tons; Feb. 26, 192 tons.
M.V. O.K. Service (chartered), Feb. 20, 561 tons; Feb. 29, 315 tons; Mar. 8, 498 tons; Mar. 17, 366 tons.
M.V. Southern Star (chartered), Feb. 19, 373 tons; Mar. 23, 376 tons.
M.V.	L'Oriole	(chartered),	Feb.	24,	189
tons; Mar. 3, 152 tons; Mar. 9, 317 tons; Mar. 18, 259 tons.
5.5.	Bar Haven, Feb. 20, 213 tons.
M.V. Nonia, Feb. 21, 214 tons; Feb. 24, 324
tons; Feb. 29, 316 tons; Mar. 6, 349 tons; Mar. 11, 295 tons.
M.V.	Glencoe	(chartered),	Feb.	24,	544
tons; Mar. 4, 628 tons.
5.5.	Burgeo, Feb. 23, 338 tons; Mar. 25, 339 tons.
5.5.	Cabot Strait, Feb. 22, 631 tons.
M.V. Bonavista, Feb. 26, 359 tons; Mar. 3, 269 tons.
5.5.	Northern Ranger, Feb. 27, 251 tons. M.V. Taverner, Mar. 5, 167 tons; Mar. 12,
177 tons; Mar. 19, 211 tons.
M.V.	St. Foy	(chartered),	Mar.	22,	354
tons.
5.5.	Baccalieu, Mar. 24, 354 tons.


CONTRACT FOR ESKIMO HOUSES
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for Eskimo houses, being tender No. 20526?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Mr. Laing:: 1. See appendix A (tender No. 20526-N6).
2.	The low tenderers, i.e.: Muttart Builders Limited, item 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 4; Dalite Corp. Canada Ltd., item 5; Transit Industrial Corp., item 6; Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., items 7 and 8.


PREFABRICATED HOUSES
[Stage Direction]
Tender No. 20526 N6	APPENDIX "A"
Items 1-4 F.O.B. Waterways Items 5-8 F.O.B. Montreal
Item 1 Item 1A Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8
Muttart Builders Ltd., Edmonton	 88,150.00
Dalite Corporation (Canada) Ltd	 101,446.00
Transit Industrial Corp., Willowdale, Ont	 108,673.00
Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S		-
Nelson Lumber Co. Ltd	 214,131.40
Alberta Trailer Co. (1961) Ltd., Edmonton	 131,788.98
Byrnes & Hall Construction Ltd., Edmonton	 119,124.19
Colonial Homes Ltd., West Hill, Ont	 -
The Tower Co. (1961) Ltd., Montreal	 -
Kent Component Homes, Lancaster, N.B	 -
Norbec Construction Incorp., Rimouski, Que	 146,501.00
Fekete Construction Co. Ltd., Edmonton	 143,491.00
Engineered Buildings Ltd., Calgary	 102,879.40
Western Eng. Structures Ltd., Burnaby, B.C. &
Bennett & White	 181,847.00
E. R. McMaster & Sons Ltd	
Allied Budding Supply, Ottawa	
Laminex Products Ltd., Quebec City	
M. F. Schurman Co. Ltd., Summerside, P.E.I...
MacNamara Const. Western Ltd., Edmonton	 179,654.00
Jager Holdings Ltd., Calgary	 188,700.20
Beaver Construction Co. Ltd., Vancouver	 186,319.00
Yukon Construction Co. Ltd., Edmonton	 104,430.00
Thermolite Plastics Ltd., Burnaby, B.C	 184,856.23
29,100.00	25,600.0C\	4,950.00	91,010.00	326,250.00	64,995.0030,340.00	29,920.00	6,234.00	101,955.00	271,825.00	53,661.0029,828.00	29,985.00	6,303.00	101,098.00	275,374.00	52,632.00-	-	-	-	298,215.00	55,950.0064,016.00	50,678.50	9,881.70	239,069.00	-	40,372.10	29,477.10	6,752.45	151,429.62	471,654.55	90,463.1735,098.80	27,864.70	5,875.31	133,694.26	-	--	-	-	-	332,046.56	55,643.16-	-	-	-	335,510.00	61,710.00-	-	-	-	428,910.00	62,895.00-	73,440.00	8,221.00	171,456.00	469,220.00	84,693.0047,060.00	34,385.00	7,200.00	139,650.00	-	-32,362.05	26,094.80	6,388.70	112,044.40	381,145.55	74,595.6558,570.00	43,290.00	9,153.00	201,248.00	634,810.00	127,617.00-	-	-	-	475,320.31	--	-	-	-	329,728.30	63,936.30-	-	-	-	311,327.49	65,890.47-	-	-	-	396,575.00	84,120.0052,130.00	48,725.00	10,768.00	177,840.00	-	49,366.00	44,705.00	9,541.00	215,098.00	647,072.00	126,958.5052,580.00	43,070.00	8,993.00	189,544.00	643,510.00	110,712.0035,160.00	27,385.00	5,639.00	123,044.00	-	48,758.30	40,678.00	8,095.61	166,837.28	-	-
27.125.00
22.892.00
22.416.00
51.637.00
33,406.70
27,020.72
23.705.00
26.190.00
34.620.00
28.848.00
44.975.00
32,401.15
27,970.89
40.320.00
45,315.50
41.675.00
Item	Qty	Item	Qty	1	43 One Room Eskimo Houses, Plan 370A	5	145	One room Eskimo Houses, Plan 370A1A	10 One bedroom Northern Min. Houses, Plan 395	6	21	One bedroom Northern Min. Houses, Plan 3952	5 Two bedroom Northern Min. Houses, Plan 397	7	5	Two bedroom Northern Min. Houses, Plan 3973 4	1 Three bedroom Northern Min. House, Plan 396 38 One room with Porch Eskimo Houses, Plan 418	8	11	Three bedroom Northern Min. Houses, Plan 396
57.750.00
52.770.00
51.504.00
49.109.00
78,346.18
61.983.04
52.925.00
54.274.00
74.151.00
64,254.65
104.566.00
68.628.05 65,594.07 88,000.00
105,527.50
95.700.00
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions
broadcasting stations, grand falls, nfld.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many AM broadcasting stations are in operation in Grand Falls, Newfoundland?
2.	Who operates these stations?
3.	How many T.V. broadcasting stations are in operation in Grand Falls?
4.	Who operates these stations?
5.	Did the board of broadcast governors recommend the licensing of another AM station for Grand Falls at one of its recent meetings and, if so, on what grounds was its recommendation made?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Two, CBT and CKCM.
2.	CBT, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CKCM, Colonial Broadcasting System Limited.
3.	One, CJCN-TV.
4.	Newfoundland Broadcasting Co. Limited.
5.	In June 1961, the board recommended the licensing of an AM radio station at Grand Falls, giving the following reasons: "In the opinion of the board, the applicant having made substantial commitments to provide local program service, this station would provide satisfactory service in the area, and would extend radio service in central Newfoundland."
At the same time, it recommended another application for denial. The board has not dealt with any other applications for AM radio stations in Grand Falls since that time.
older workers employed, nova SCOTIA


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Up to the present date, how many workers over the age of 45 have been placed in employment through the offices of the national employment service at (a) Sydney Mines, and (b) North Sydney, as a result of the program by which their salaries are supplemented to a maximum of $75 monthly out of public funds?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) and (b). Figures are available by provinces only. Fifty eight workers were hired under the program in the province of Nova Scotia up to March 31, 1964.


REPAIRS AND REFITS, POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What were the names, classifications and tonnage of ships repaired or refitted at the naval base at Point Edward, Nova Scotia, in each of the years 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	What was the cost of the repairs or refits to each of the ships repaired or refitted at the naval base at Point Edward in each of the years 1961, 1962 and 1963, and what was the allocation of such cost as to labour, material, administration, etc.?

3.	After the closing of the naval base at Point Edward, where will the repair and refit work be carried out that was previously done at Point Edward?
4.	What is the proposed saving, if any, which will be effected by the closing of the naval base at Point Edward, and how is such saving estimated as to labour costs, material costs, administration, etc., in the future repair or refits of ships formerly repaired or refitted at the said naval base?
5.	Since the Minister of National Defence announced the closure of the Point Edward naval base, how many protests have been received and what are the names and addresses of individuals, groups and organizations who have made such protests against this announced closure?


Mr. Cardin:: 1 and 2. See attached lists.
3.	The work will normally be carried out by commercial shipyards.
4.	The net annual saving to the naval appropriation resulting from the close-down of the ship repair facilities at Sydney is estimated at $1,200,000 representing overhead costs and other services that cannot be allocated economically to the ship repair function performed by this naval dockyard due to the low rate of utilization of the refit capacity. The planned retirement of ships which formed the bulk of Point Edward naval base work load would have made the operation of this dockyard even less economical in the years ahead.
Excluding the abovementioned extraordinary overhead costs that are related to the ratio of refit work available compared to the refit capacity of the naval dockyard, and including normal overheads only, the average cost of refitting a frigate, whether by contract with a commercial shipyard or in the Sydney dockyard, runs between $350,000 to $500,000 depending on such variables as the condition of the ship, the extent of defect work to be undertaken, wage rates in the locality and an overhead rate tied into the over-all amount of work in the yard. Further savings beyond the $1,200,000 noted in the preceding paragraph will depend on the reduction indicated above in the number of refits to be undertaken in future rather than on the change of location of refits from dockyard to commercial shipyards.
5.	Mayor, town council, Sydney Mines, N.S.; national defence employees association, Point Edward naval base, N.S.; branch 8, Royal Canadian Legion, Sydney Mines, N.S.; branch No. 2, Royal Canadian Legion, P.O. box 41, Reserve Mines, N.S.; town council, New Waterford, N.S.; mayor, town council, North Sydney, N.S.; branch No. 12, Royal Canadian Legion, P.O. box 335, Sydney, N.S.; North Sydney board of trade, North Sydney, N.S.; Cape Breton district command, Royal Canadian Legion, Glace Bay, N.S.; branch

No. 83, Royal Canadian Legion, Florence, N.S.; town council, Glace Bay, N.S.; West-mount community council, district No. 2, Sydney, N.S.; Cape Breton firefighters fraternal association, Scotchtown, N.S.; Catholic family welfare, Sydney Mines, N.S.; district 26, united mines workers of America, Glace Bay, N.S.; East Gate lodge No. 127, RNSAF and AM, Westmount, Sydney, N.S.; Sydney presbytery, United Church of Canada, Syd-
Questions
ney, N.S.; dominion command, Royal Canadian Legion, Ottawa, Ont.; board of trade, Sydney, N.S.; town council, Louisbourg, N.S.; branch No. 3, Royal Canadian Legion, Glace Bay, N.S.; welfare officer, town of Glace Bay, N.S.; principal, Xavier junior college, P.O. box 760, Sydney, N.S.; Cape Breton county municipal council and the Cape Breton joint expenditure board, Sydney, N.S.; Sydney board of trade, Sydney, N.S.
POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE Ship Refit and Repair Costs 1961-62
Type	Ship Name	Tonnage	Repair Refit
Appendix to Question No. 550
Labour Material
Destroyer	Athabaskan	
Haida	
Iroquois	
Chaudiere	
St Croix	Frigate	Lanark	
Lauzon	
New Waterford	
Swansea	
V ictoriaville	Minesweeper	Chignecto	
Fundy	
Quinte	Gate Vessel	Porte St Louis	Bird Class	Mallard	Ocean Tug	St John	Survey Ship	Floating Derrick	
YMF 251	Yard Craft	1730	Repair	6 24,706	6 1,8892200	Repair	2200	Repair	* 281	152200	Repair	2366	Repair	2366	Repair	339	1570	Refit	227,435	32,4301570	Refit	-	241570	Refit	59,108	2,7181570	Refit	18,705	6701570	Refit	224,183	30,7831570	Refit	210,320	34,353390	Repair	145	390	Repair	'	390	Repair	390	Repair	429	Repair	182	85429	Repair	3,503	38866	Repair	66	Repair	60	462	Repair	840	Repair	188	-1085	Repair	3,289	519804	Conversion	21,324	8,001Misc.	Repair	7,362	1,918______________________________________________________________________________________________6801,130	6113,793Figures on overhead costs are not available from existing accounting records which would provide a satisfactory basis of comparison with overhead costs reported by a commercial shipyard.	'
Questions


POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE
[Stage Direction]
Appendix to Question No. 550
Ship Refit and Repair Costs 1962-63
Type	Ship Name	Tonnage	Repair/Refit	Labour	MaterialDestroyer	
Crusader	
1730	Repair	.. $21,123	$ 1,104
Cap de la Madeleine.	
1570	Refit	.. 250,241	39,040
1570	Refit	.. 220,832	23,313New Waterford	
1570	Refit	.. 173,327	21,148Outremont	
1570	Refit	.. 21,210	-Gate Vessel	
Porte St Louis	
429	Repair	.. 233	77Tug	
17	Repair	.. 1,110	287YMF 251	
804	Conversion	.. 18,176	982YMF 25S	
804	Conversion	.. 9,773	5,202$716,025	$ 91,143Ship Refit and Repair	Costs 1963-64	(To End of January, 1964)	Destroyer	
Huron	
2200	Repair	.. $ 7,921	$ 2,381
Lauzon	
1570	Repair	.. 22,226	458
1570	Refit	.. 276,797	66,173
1570	Refit	.. 228,505	29,064Victoriaville	
1570	Refit	.. 116,538	13,186
Eckville	
17	Repair	.. 1,519	327HQ S00	
NK	Repair	.. 9,726	5,458YFP SOI	
60	Repair	.. 2,854	957YMU 109	
17	Repair	.. 2,266	288YSF 209	
150	Repair	.. 442	29$668,787	$118,321
Figures on overhead costs are not available from existing accounting records which would provide a satisfactory basis of comparison with overhead costs reported by a commercial shipyard.

Mr. Thompson: 1.	Who are the senior executives of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition and what are their respective salaries and expense allowances?
2.	Have any persons been transferred from employment with the civil service of Canada to the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition?
3.	If so, what are their names, their previous salaries with the civil service, and their present salaries and expense allowances, if any, with the corporation?
4.	How many automobiles are at the present time either owned or rented by the corporation, and what is the make and purchase or rental price of each, and from whom have they been obtained?
5.	What contracts have been awarded by the corporation for the construction of buildings and other works and at what prices?
6.	Were tenders called in respect of each of these contracts?
7.	In each case, was the tender accepted the lowest one that was submitted?
8.	If not, what were the amounts of the lowest tenders submitted, and why were they not accepted?
Answer: 1. The senior executives of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition are the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general and their respective salaries and allowances are fixed

by the governor in council as follows: commissioner general, salary $22,500 per annum, allowance $7,500 per annum, representation allowance of $10,000 per annum in respect of duties to be performed by Mr. Dupuy outside of Canada as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.
Deputy commissioner general, salary $35,000.
2.	None has been transferred from employment with the civil service of Canada to the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition. Several have been seconded for duty with the corporation, having been granted leave without pay from their respective departments. These employees continue to participate in the public service superannuation plan, their contributions being based on salary before joining the corporation.
3.	The following persons have been granted leave without pay from employment with the civil service of Canada to assume duties on behalf of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition; (they are not entitled to expense allowances).
Previous Present
Name	salary	salaryAsselin, J.	$ 8,000	$12,000Baker, J. H.	10,500	15,000
Previous	Present
Name	salary	salaryBertrand, G.	9,120	15,500Bourke, B.	8,500	11,000Chaballe, F. X.	9,300	10,000Drew-Brook, A. (Miss)	4,800	5,500Kniewasser, A. G.	14,100	32,500Lamarre, R. A.	7,470	9,500Verner, P. E.	5,400	7,000Yeats, R. M.	10,300	12,0004.	The corporation rents 12 Fords at a monthly rate of $130, 10 Pontiacs, at $125, one Oldsmobile 88 at $165 and two Cadillacs at $275 from Stanley Fleet Leasing Ltd., the lowest of four bidders. Officials to whom these automobiles are assigned pay to the corporation $30 per month to cover personal use of the automobiles for which they are responsible.5.	Three contracts have been awarded by the corporation for the construction of buildings and other works, namely to Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. for alterations to the Jacques Cartier bridge ramps for an estimated price of $212,737; to Dufresne Engineering Ltd. for the construction of the substructure of a bridge to link MacKay pier to He Verte for a price of $2,362,976.40; to Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. for the construction of the superstructure of the said bridge for a price of $7,897,500.6.	Yes, with the exception of the contract for the alterations to the ramps of the Jacques Cartier bridge in which case for reasons of urgency the board of directors and the treasury board authorized the awarding of the contract to Dominion Bridge, the original builder of the bridge.7.	Yes, except in the case of the contract for the construction of the substructure of the bridge linking MacKay pier to lie Verte.8.	The amounts of two lowest tenders submitted for the construction of the substructure of the bridge linking MacKay pier to lie Verte were $1,443,955 and $1,898,720 respectively. These bids were unacceptable from an engineering standpoint and it was admitted by the tenderers that they had failed to properly assess in their bid the velocity of the river current and that their method of construction entailed a high risk. The contract in this case was awarded to the lowest valid tenderer.


NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM, N.S.    TENDERS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	What firms In Cumberland are Invited to tender for the sale of motor vehicles to the Nappan experimental farm and what dealerships do they represent?
2.	What firms in Cumberland are invited to tender on the overhaul and repair of motor vehicles owned by the Nappan experimental farm?
Questions
3.	From what firms in Cumberland does the Nappan experimental farm purchase oil and gasoline?
4.	Are any firms in Cumberland, excluded from the opportunity to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles, repair and overhaul of motor vehicles, and on the sales of oil and gasoline, for Nappan experimental farm, and, if so, what firms?


Mr. Hays:: 1. (1) Cumberland Equipment Limited, Amherst, N.S., dealers in G.M.C. trucks, Pontiac and Buick cars. (2) Tantramar Motors Limited, Amherst, N.S., dealers in Chevrolet trucks and Chevrolet and Oldsmobile cars. (3) D. A. Casey Limited, Amherst, N.S., dealers in Ford trucks and cars. (4) Rivers and Dickenson Limited, Amherst, N.S., dealers in International trucks. (5) George M. Harrison, Amherst, N.S., dealer in Fargo trucks and Plymouth and Chrysler cars. (6) Maccan Garage, Maccan, N.S., dealers in Studebaker trucks and cars. (7) Carter's Garage, Springhill, N.S., dealers in Mercury and Meteor trucks and cars. (8) Sargent's Garage, Parrsboro, N.S., dealers in Chevrolet trucks and Chevrolet and Oldsmobile cars. (9) Letcher's Garage, Springhill, N.S., dealers in Chevrolet cars and trucks and Oldsmobile cars.
2.	Most repair work is done by staff mechanics. Where tenders are necessary, the above-noted Amherst and Maccan firms and, in addition, Burke Brothers of 18 Crescent avenue, Amherst, Nova Scotia, are normally invited to tender on motor repairs.
3.	For many years the experimental farm at Nappan has purchased its gasoline and oil requirements from Imperial Oil Limited under an agreement whereby the company installed and maintained a pump. During 1963 a gasoline pump was purchased and tenders for the supply of gasoline and oil will be called from all oil companies represented in the Amherst area. These include Imperial Oil Limited, Irving Oil Limited, Texaco Oil Limited, White Rose Oil Limited, Fina Oil Limited, British-American Oil Limited.
4.	No.


*WORLD FAIR
Mr. Loney: 1.	What salaries are paid to the director and the associate director of the 1967 world exhibition?
2.	Are there other amenities and, if so, what are they?
3.	Has an amount for entertainment expenses been set for each of the officials and, if so, what amount is allowed to each of them?
4.	Who are the members of the executive?
5.	What salaries are paid to the members of the executive?
6.	How many advisory boards or committees have been set up to carry out the objects of the fair?

Questions
7.	Who is in charge of awards of building and other work contracts?
8.	Are such contracts given to the lowest bidder and, if not, under what circumstances are departures from this principle being made?
9.	How many contracts have been let to date and in what amounts?


Mr. Sharp:: 1. The salaries and allowances of the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general of the exhibition are fixed by the governor in council and are as follows:
Commissioner general, salary $22,500 per annum, allowance $7,500 per annum, representation allowance of $10,000 per annum in respect of duties to be performed by Mr. Dupuy outside of Canada as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Deputy commissioner general, salary $35,000.
2.	The other amenities consist on the other hand of pension benefits provided by the corporation for the officers and employees thereof pursuant to Section 8 of the incorporating act and on the other hand, of group life and accident insurance coverage.
3.	No specific amount for entertainment expenses has been set for any of the officials of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition. Accounts are rendered in the same manner and under the same rules as apply to all officials of the corporation.
4.	The members of the executive committee are: the commissioner general, the deputy commissioner general, Messrs. Guy Roberge, Andre Rousseau and Lucien Saulnier.
5.	The salaries of the members of the executive committee have been fixed at $6,000 per year by decision of the board of directors of the corporation, subject to the approval of the governor in council and the lieutenant governor in council as stipulated in subsection 3 of section 5 of the incorporating act.
6.	Ten advisory committees have been set up to carry out the objects of the exhibition as listed: customs committee; advisory committee on architecture; advisory committee on fine arts; advisory committee on science and medicine; advisory committee on information and promotion; advisory committee on insurance; service club advisory committee for children; women's advisory committee; performing arts advisory committee; advisory committee on taxation.
7.	Section 9 (2) of the incorporating act stipulates that the corporation shall not enter into any contract, agreement or arrangement involving any expenditure in excess of $100,000 or acquire any property, the cost of acquisition of which exceed the sum of $25,000, except with the approval of the governor in council and subject to such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Contracts which are below these limits are awarded by the corporation.

8.	All contracts are given to the lowest bidder except when the tender does not conform to the specifications or is otherwise unacceptable.
9.	Three contracts have been awarded by the corporation for the construction of buildings and other works, namely to Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. for alterations to the Jacques Cartier bridge ramps for an estimated price of $212,737; Dufresne Engineering Ltd. for the construction of the sub-structure of a bridge to link MacKay pier to lie Verte for a price of $2,362,976.40; to Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd. for the construction of the super-structure of the said bridge for a price of $7,897,500.


SALARIES AND CONTRACTS, WORLD FAIR CORPORATION
Mr. Belanger: 1.	Is the 1967 world exhibition corporation a federal government corporation?
2.	What salary does the president of this corporation receive, and how much is he allowed for travel, entertainment, and the use of a car?
3.	How much of this money is supplied by the federal government and how much by other governments?
4.	Are the president's expenses unanimously approved by the corporation and, if not, who is the member of the corporation who approves them?
5.	What salaries are paid to the other members of the board of this corporation?
6.	Do they receive a car allowance and, if so, how much do they receive?
7.	Are they allowed unlimited expense accounts for their trips?
8.	Who reviews, and decides on final acceptance or rejection of bridge and building construction contracts?
9.	Are tenders called for each contract, and are awards made to the lowest bidder, providing he has the required experience and financial qualifications?
10.	Does the act provide for a detailed audit, by government auditors, of all the corporation's expenses?
11.	Does the federal government have any way of ensuring that no patronage is engaged in by the two other governments who are members of this corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Section 7 of the organic act passed by the Canadian parliament states the corporation is, for all the purposes of the act, an agent of Her Majesty.
2.	The commissioner general of the 1967 Canadian world exhibition corporation earns the following: (1) Salary, $22,500 per annum. (2) Allowance, $7,500 per annum. (3) Representation allowance: $10,000 per annum for the functions Mr. Dupuy has to perform in foreign countries as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.
No specific amount has been set for travel or entertainment. A car is at the disposal of the commissioner general; it is also used for the trips of other officials of the corporation, when need be. The commissioner pays the

corporation $30 per month to use the car for personal purposes and he assumes the responsibility thereof.
3.	The corporation funds are paid to him by the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, in a proportion of 50 per cent, 37J per cent and 12J per cent respectively.
4.	Directions with regard to travel and travelling costs, based on general instructions applying to government departments and crown corporations, were approved by the board of directors; the president's expenses are indicated in monthly financial statements which are studied and approved by the board.
5.	The other members of the board of directors, with the exception of the assistant general commissioner, are not paid for their services, as stipulated in the second paragraph of clause 5 of the incorporating act. The assistant general commissioner receives a salary of $35,000 per year.
6.	No motor car allowance is provided.
7.	No. The directors are entitled to first class return tickets by air from and to their place of residence, plus $50 a day for each day of absence from their place of residence. That allowance is limited to three days for directors from Vancouver; two days for directors from Halifax; two days for the directors from Toronto, and one day for directors from Quebec.
8.	Tenders are revised and examined by the corporation jointly with personnel from Defence Construction (1951) Limited and to each contract is added a resolution of the board of directors and the approval of the governor in council when the contract exceeds $100,000.
9.	Tenders are called or prices asked for whenever possible, and contracts are awarded to the lowest acceptable bidder as long as the tender complies with the specifications and is acceptable in all other respects, and provided the bidder is able to fulfil the financial terms and has the required experience.
10.	Clause 17 of the incorporating act says that the financial operations of the corporation are checked by the auditor general of Canada and the auditor of the province of Quebec.
11.	The by-laws of the corporation give the board cZ directors all powers allotted to the corporation under the incorporating act, except for powers especially conferred to the general commissioner or to the assistant general commissioner by the act or the regulations. The corporation may:
(a)	Acquire by means of purchase, lease or otherwise any property for the construction, maintenance and operation of the exhibition
Questions
and own, hold, sell or manage such property or deal therewith or therein as the corporation may determine;
(b)	make contract with any person, in or outside Canada, respecting the construction of buildings or other works, the showing of exhibits, the provision of services or for the attainment of any of the purposes or the exercise of any of the powers of the corporation;
(c)	make arrangements or agreements with any person for the use of any rights, privileges or concessions that the corporation may consider' useful for the carrying out of its purposes;
(d>
expend any moneys received by the corporation by way of grant pursuant to section 11 or by way of grant from the province of Quebec or from the city of Montreal or borrowed by the corporation pursuant to section 12, or received by the corporation through the conduct of its operations or otherwise;
(e) do all other such things as the corporation may deem conducive to the attainment of any of the purposes or the exercise of any of the powers to the corporation.
Section 8 regulations of the corporation limits in the following way the powers of the board:
Except with the approval of the governor in council and subject to such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, the corporation shall not (a) enter into any contract, agreement or arrangement involving any expenditure in excess of $100,000; (b) acquire any property, the cost of acquisition of which exceed the sum of $25,000.
It is considered the rules quoted above guarantee good administrative methods. [Tea*]


*CAR RENTALS, WORLD FAIR EXECUTIVE
Mr. Loney: 1.	Have cars been rented for the world fair executive?
2.	Was the rental contract let by public tender and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of the firms which submitted tenders (b) what was the amount of each tender?
3.	What is the name and price quotation of the successful bidder?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2.	The following firms were invited to quote and the prices submitted were: Stanley Fleet Leasing Ltd., 2085 Metcalfe, Montreal:
1964	Cadillac	6 Cyl.	8 Cyl. $275.001964	Chevrolet Impala	$127.00	$130.001964	Pontiac Laurentian	$122.00	$125.001964	Ford Galaxie	$122.00	$125.00
Questions
Hertz Rent A Car, 1010 St. Catherine west, Montreal:
1964 Cadillac	$280.00
1964 Chevrolet Impala	$133.00	$136.001964 Pontiac Laurentian	$131.00	$134.001964 Ford Galaxie	$133.00	$136.00
Avis Rent A Car System of Canada, 1225 Metcalfe, Montreal:
1964 Cadillac	$280.00
1964 Chevrolet Impala	$159.00	$161.001964 Pontiac Laurentian	$149.50	$151.501964 Ford Galaxie	Do Not Lease
Metrocan Leasing Ltd., 1980 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal:
1964 Chevrolet Impala	$140.85	$144.451964 Ford Galaxie 500	$136.73	$140.401964 Plymouth Fury	$136.18	$142.293.	Being the lowest, the successful bidder was Stanley Fleet Leasing Ltd. and for the price quoted see answer 2 above.


ANCIENNE LORETTE AIRPORT CONCESSIONS
Mr. Perron: 1.	Are the restaurant, bar, newsstand at the Ancienne Lorette airport run by the Department of Transport or by concessionaires?
2.	If they are run by concessionaires (a) who are they (b) what are the concession rentals (c) how long have these concessions been operating (d) when will each of the present leases end?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The restaurant, bar and newsstand are operated as a combined concession by a concessionaire.
2.	The concessionaire is Mr. Rene Collard. He pays the department 9.5 per cent with a minimum of $9,000 per annum for rental from the sales from the restaurant and the news stand, and in addition he pays 15 per cent of liquor sales. The concession was awarded to Mr. Collard for a five year period effective October 1, 1962. The concession was awarded to him on the basis of his bid received in a tender call for the concession.


CONSTRUCTION WORK, OBEDJIWAN RESERVE, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since 1960, how many (a) public buildings, and (b) dwellings have been built in the Obedjiwan Indian reservation, in Chapleau county?
2.	What was the cost (a) of public buildings (b) dwellings?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. (a) Two; (b) Thirteen.
2. (a) $188,101; (b) $58,500.


WORKING CONDITIONS, WEATHER STATION, VANCOUVER AIRPORT
Mr. Pritiie: 1.	How many persons are employed at the Department of Transport weather station at the Vancouver international airport?

2.	How many hours per week are the employees required to work?
3.	Are some employees required to report for work at twelve o'clock midnight after having completed an eight hour shift at 4 p.m, of the same day and, if so, does this practice contravene in any way any federal hours of work legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
FOOD CONCESSION, TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Scott: 1.	What is the name of the organization which handles the food servicing at the Toronto international airport?
2.	How long has this organization been in charge of such undertakings?
3.	How many people are employed at the present time?
4.	What has been the turnover in labour during the period of time in which the said organization has conducted the food servicing at the Toronto international airport?
5.	What are the wages being paid to each classification of persons employed by the said organization?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Cara Operations Limited as a result of a public tender call.
2.	It is understood that a predecessor company has been in the transportation restaurant business for well over 20 years.
3,	4 and 5. The department merely rents space to the company which reports that it maintains a normal staff complement of 180 employees; that of the staff transferred from the old terminal to the new building there has been practically no turnover in this group, while among new employees hired for increased staff requirements, the company has had the turnover that is normally experienced under similar conditions elsewhere. The company feels that the employee turnover has become stabilized at near normal proportions, at present being about 7 per cent; and that its wages are equal to and in most categories above the average in the Toronto area.


BOMARC BASE, NORTH BAY  SERVICE PERSONNEL EMPLOYED IN BEVERAGE ROOMS
Mr. Scott: 1.	Does the government have information as to the number of service personnel from the Bomarc missile range base near North Bay who are employed in civilian capacities in the beverage rooms of the hotels in North Bay?
2.	How many such persons are so employed and how long have they been so employed?
3.	Are such persons also in receipt of income from the government of Canada?
4.	What are the regulations and instructions under which such people, if any, are permitted to accept outside employment?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. No, although it is understood that there are service personnel employed in the beverage rooms of a licensed inn which is situated in the township of Widdifield approximately six miles beyond the city limits of North Bay.
2.	Four, one for 18 months, two for six months, and one for two months. The employment is on a casual as required basis and on an average each of the individuals concerned works four evenings per month.
3.	Yes.
4.	Activities of service personnel in off duty hours is a matter of choice for the individuals concerned provided it does not reflect discredit upon the service or prove detrimental to the interest of the service.


GRANT TO HEALTH LEAGUE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 658
Mr. Scott:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the directors of the health league of Canada for an increased grant to this organization from the dominion government?
2.	When was such request made?
3.	What has been the response, if any, of the government to the said request?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Yes.
2.	June, 1963.
3.	The main estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for 1964-65 include no provision for an increase in this grant.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the government received from the province of Prince Edward Island an offer of land, known as the Horgan property, adjacent to the Stanhope section of the Prince Edward Island national park and, if so, has the government replied to this offer?
2.	What is the nature of the reply?
3.	What are the government's plans for extending the boundaries of the park?
4.	What is the total number of visitors to the Prince Edward Island park for the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, for development as a golf course; yes.
Questions
2.	The offer was declined because other capital projects in national parks must take priority over the establishment of a second golf course in this park for the foreseeable future.
3.	Certain key extensions to facilitate park development are under discussion with the provincial government.
Fiscal Year	Number
1957-58	200,748
1958-59	206,245
1959-60	224,781
1960-61	412,463
1961-62	775,583
1962-63	1,009,021
1963-64	1,019,104


COST OF FILL, WORLD FAIR SITE
Mr. Langlois: 1.	What will be the cost of filling the site for the 1967 world fair?
2.	How many tenders for the filling contract were submitted?
3.	What was the amount of each bid?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	What company or companies are handling the publicity for the 1967 world fair and in respect of each (a) what is the location of the head office (b) is the ownership Canadian (c) how many of the companies are non-Canadian?
Answer: 1. The preparation of the site of the exhibition is the financial responsibility of the city of Montreal. This includes filling operations that are being performed on lie Verte, lie Ronde, and lie Notre Dame. In addition, improvements are being made to the Mackay pier in the Montreal harbour by the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition acting as agent for the national harbours board. Tenders were called for this work as explained in answer to question No. 2.
2.	As agent for the national harbours board, the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition called for tenders for the improvement of Mackay pier. For stage 1 four tenders were received and for stage 2 eight tenders were received.
3.	For stage 1 bids were as follows: Beaudry Limitee, $1,305,000.00; Chas. Duranceau Ltee., $1,484,600.00; Mt. Dual Mixed Concrete Limited, $1,756,400.00; Miron Co. Ltd., $1,895,400.00.
For stage 2 bids were as follows: Royal Mount Const. Ltd., $1,217,500.00; Compagnie Miron Ltee., $1,682,750.00; Beauval Inc. De-sourdy Const. Ltd., $1,704,500.00; Pine Beach Sand Limited, $1,783,125.00; Beaudry Ltee., $1,865,000.00; Montreal Dual Mixed Concrete, $1,951,250.00; Charles Duranceau Ltee., $1,959,250.00; A. Billet Ltee., $1,971,250.00.
4.	Contract for stage 1 has been awarded to Beaudry Ltee. Montreal, Quebec, being the lowest tender, and contract for stage 2 has not been awarded yet.

Questions
5.	(a) the following companies are handling the publicity for the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition:
Companies Cockfield Brown Company Ltd.
Publicite Services Ltd.
Agence Canadienne de Publicity
McKim Advertising Ltd.
James Lovick Company Ltd.
McConnel, Eastman Company Ltd.
Publicitex
Des Roches, Inkel, Poirier Assc. Inc.
Monty Berger Company Inc.
Public Industrial Relations Ltd.
Mathers Public Relations Ltd.
(For United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland)	London, England
(b) and (c)
The firms having their head office in Canada are Canadian.


JASPER NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	Has the Department of Northern Affairs and
National Resources evolved a long term plan for the Jasper national park and, if so, when will it be available?
2.	What is the government's intention in so far as the development and expenditure for Jasper national park over the next two years?
3.	Will Jasper secure the same treatment in development and expansion as Banff national park?
4.	When is it expected that the east-west highway through the Jasper park will be completed?


Arthur Laing: 1. Long term planning for all the national parks is a continuing process. In Jasper national park, priority is being given to development of a comprehensive plan for the Maligne lake area which is one of the most outstanding areas in the national park system. This plan is expected to be completed next fall.
2. Major developments planned for the next two years include continuation of work on the Jasper-Edmonton highway, the Banff-Jasper highway and the Medicine-Maligne lake road, together with development work on the Maligne lake visitor area and the Whistlers camp ground. Planned capital expenditures in Jasper in 1964-65 including the trunk highway program are expected to be of the order of $2,000,000. Firm plans have not, of course, been completed for 1965-66. 
3.	Yes, since the objective is to serve the best interests of the nation by developing each park according to its potentialities as a national park, and thus to build up a first class system of national parks.
4.	Completion of the reconstruction of the section of the highway east of Jasper is scheduled for 1967. Scheduling of the section west of Jasper will depend upon the reconstruction of the connecting provincial highway.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY STANDARDS
Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-: Carleton):
1.	Does the trans-Canada highway agreement with the provinces contain a clause allowing a reduction in width and/or visibility from the usual standard if deemed advisable through thickly-populated areas in order to avoid serious dislocation and also to make possible the construction of the highway by the most desirable route?
2.	If so, is it necessary that provincial governments request such a variation in the standard?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. The general specifications covering the construction of the trans-Canada highway, as covered by schedule "B" of the trans-Canada highway agreement, provides as follows: "The minimum width of the right of way shall be 100 feet. Where the highway runs through densely populated areas thus involving heavy expenditures, a minimum width of 66 feet will be acceptable.''
The specifications also provide for a minimum horizontal sight distance and a minimum vertical sight distance of 600 feet.
2. No, unless the variation requested results in a width less than 66 feet or in a sight distance less than 600 feet.


* SALES TAX REDUCTIONS, REBATES ETC.
Mr. Prittie: Are any reductions, discounts, allowances, rebates, etc., being given to the sales tax provided for in section 30 of the Excise Tax Act and, if so (a) by what authority are such reductions, discounts, allowances, rebates, etc., granted (b) to whom have such reductions, discounts, allowances, rebates, etc., been granted?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. (a)
However, since the inception of the act in 1924 under what are now sections 31, 37 and 38, the minister has been empowered to determine the value for tax and make regulations to remove discrimination arising between manufacturers selling similar taxable products to purchasers at different levels in the marketing process, (b) Such adjustments or determination of taxable value are granted to all manufacturers in such circumstances.
Head Office
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Toronto
Vancouver
London, Ontario Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Toronto


ADVERTISING RESPECTING 1963 INCOME TAX RETURNS
Mr. Coales: Did the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, request public service radio announcements from radio stations across Canada related to the filing of 1963 income tax returns, while at the same time placing paid advertisements with newspapers in Canada with the same objective in mind?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Yes, the taxation division did request radio stations, as a public service, to utilize prepared announcements relating to the filing of 1963 income tax returns.
No, newspaper advertising was not used for this purpose but to publicize a particular aspect not suitable to radio communication; a single display advertisement was placed in the four rotogravures: Canadian Weekly/La Presse, issue of March 21 and Weekend/Per-spectives, issue of March 28.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION COMMITTEE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	When did the prairie farm rehabilitation committee meet last?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to hold further meetings with this important group?
3.	What is the present membership of the group?
Categories Years of Experience	B	1	20	3,600	4,200	4,5601	3,840	4,440	4,8302	4,080	4,680	5,1003	4,320	4,920	5,3704	4,560	5,160	5,6405	4,800	5,400	5,9106	5,040	5,640	6,1807	-	5,880	6,4508	-	6,120	6,7209	-	6,360	6,99010	-	
-
11	-	-	-12	-	-	-13	-	-	-14	-	-	-
2. Isolation allowances ranging from $684 to $2,100 per annum. The amount of isolation allowance paid will depend upon the individual's marital status and upon the location to which he or she is posted.


AIR CONDITIONING IN CENTRE BLOCK, PARLIAMENT BUILDING
Mr. McBain: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to instal air conditioning in the centre block
Questions


Harry William Hays: 1. December 7, 1962.
2.	At the present time there are no definite plans for the holding of a meeting during 1964.
3.	Mr. Norman Roebuck, 63 Haultain, York-ton, Saskatchewan; Mr. Roy Clark, 117, 20th Street, Brandon, Manitoba; Mr. Fred Croy, Stonewall, Manitoba; Mr. Harry Shearer, Elm Creek, Manitoba; Mr. James Cameron, Youngstown, Alberta; Mr. Arnold F. Christie, Grande Prairie, Alberta; Mr. Deane Holroyd (deceased), 1737, 15th Avenue, South Lethbridge, Alberta; Mr. Boyd Anderson, Fir Mountain, Saskatchewan; Mr. W. H. Hollier, 1618, 100th Street, North Battleford, Saskatchewan; Mr. Ed. Wright, Eastend, Saskatchewan; Mr. H. J. Collison, Star City, Saskatchewan.


FAR NORTH TEACHERS' SALARY SCALE
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What will be the 1964 salary scale for grade 1 to 12 teachers in the far north?
2.	What additional compensation will they receive in 1964 for working in these isolated areas?


Arthur Laing: 1. The salary scale, which is divided into seven categories and applicable to all teachers on the basis of experience and certificate held, will be as follows effective September 1, 1964.
3	4	5	65,040	6,120	6,600	7,0805,310	6,420	6,900	7,3805,580	6,720	7,200	7,6805,850	7,020	7,500	7,9806,120	7,320	7,800	8,2806,390	7,620	8,100	8,5806,660	7,920	8,400	8,8806,930	8,220	8,700	9,1807,200	8,520	9,000	9,4807,470	8,820	9,300	9,7807,740	9,120	9,600	10,080-	9,420	9,900	10,380-	9,720	10,200	10,680-	10,020	10,500	10,980-	-	10,800	11,280
of the parliament buildings and, if so, when will installation commence and what is the date of expected completion?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: At the present time a preliminary engineering study is being undertaken to ascertain the most satisfactory means of providing air conditioning in the centre block. Until this study has been completed and the engineering principles established it is not possible to say when the work can be commenced and completed.

Questions


ADVERTISING REVENUE, STATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Cowan: What was the division of the advertising revenue of radio station CJBC, Toronto, in the month of March, 1964, between advertising in the French language and advertising in the English language?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that all advertising revenue of station CJBC for the month of March 1964 was from advertising in the English language.


TAXES ON BOATS
Mr. Howard: What specific taxes are levied against and applicable to boats which are built for or materials which go into boats which are built for (a) purposes of fishing, and (b) purposes other than fishing?


George James McIlraith: Under the Excise Tax Act the consumption or sales tax of 11 per cent applies on the sale price of boats or materials which go into boats, that are produced or manufactured in Canada, or in the case of imported boats or materials, on the duty paid value thereof.
Schedule III of the act provides for exemption from sales tax of (a) boats bona fide purchased by fishermen for use in the fisheries, and articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture, equipment or repair of such boats: (b) ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade; (c) materials for use in the equipment and repair of ships to be used exclusively for commercial purposes.


SUGAR REFINING COMPANIES
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many sugar refining companies are there in Canada?
2.	What was the total capitalization of these companies in 1961, 1962 and 1963?
Answer: 1. At the present time there are five separate enterprises refining sugar in Canada encompassing a total of seven companies. Of the five separate enterprises, two are public corporations, and the remainder are operating under private charters. One of these private companies is owned by the province of Quebec.
I understand a new sugar refining enterprise is planning to begin operations later this year.
2. Financial statements of public companies are available from public records but those of private companies are not made public.
Because of the limited number of private companies reporting, the dominion bureau of statistics under the secrecy clause of the Statistics Act is obliged to withhold information on the financial operations of the sugar industry as a whole.
[Mr. Deschatelets.l


COMPLETION OP BREAKWATER, CAPE JOHN, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Does the completion of the breakwater not quite completed last year at Cape John, Nova Scotia, include the raising of a part of the breakwater which has settled?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, it includes raising of the outer 100 feet of the breakwater.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN NEW YORK WORLD FAIR
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Is Canada participating in the New York world fair and, if so, in what manner?
2.	What Canadian companies have informed the government that they wish to exhibit at this fair?
3.	How much has the government spent, or how much does it intend to spend on construction, displays, publicity, personnel expenses, etc. in connection with this fair?
4.	If no money has been spent or is to be spent, what is the reason for the lack of government participation?
5.	Has the government received an official invitation from Mr. Robert Moses, who is in charge of the fair and, if so, has any response yet been made?
6.	What are the names of Canadian officials at this fair, and who is responsible to the government for them?
Answer: 1. No.
2.	None.
3.	Nil.
4.	Canada is a signatory to the 1928 convention of the international bureau of expositions. The bureau does not recognize the New York world fair and Canada is therefore precluded from participating.
5.	The government received an official invitation through the normal diplomatic channels and on behalf of the principals of the fair. The government's response was made through these same channels.
6.	N/A.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


WINTER OLYMPICS


Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What members of the government and other officials went to Innsbruck, Austria, since January 1964, in connection with the winter Olympic games,
there?
2.	What was the means of transportation?
3.	What was the amount of the expenditures paid by or charged to the government of Canada for each of the said persons?
4.	If a government aircraft was used, what is the estimated cost of operating such aircraft, excluding depreciation?
Return tabled.



WORLD FAIR CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What is the number of the employees of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation?
2.	What are the names, duties, salaries, qualifications and date of employment of each of these employees?
Return tabled.



PURCHASES OF FLAGS

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958 has the government or any agency or department thereof purchased any flags and, if so, were any of the said flags imported from other countries?
2.	If any such flags were so imported what was, in each year, by designation of the flags, the number and value of each such designated flag so imported shown by the name of the country from which they were so imported?
Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to make a short statement at this point. It is now five o'clock and so far as the Chair knows or its advisers, this is the first time it has happened that we are still on starred questions. The rules and standing orders are quite definite, it seems to us, and without unanimous consent of the house we must proceed to private members business at this time. If the house would grant me one minute, I should like to put on the record my reason for reaching this conclusion.
Our procedures at five o'clock are governed by a standing order which cannot be varied except by unanimous consent. Section (3) of standing order 15 provides that private members notices of motion must be taken on Mondays at five o'clock. On the other hand, section (4) of the same standing order provides that when a debate on a supply motion is in progress at five o'clock, the order for private members business would be suspended. The principal purpose of standing order 56 in my opinion is that it limits to two days a supply motion, while at the same time, ensuring, if possible, that no other proceedings shall intercept or impose themselves on the proceeding of a supply motion. However, it must be considered that the general ruling governing the proceeding at five o'clock is section (3) of standing order 15, and that section (4) of the standing order provides for a specific exception thereto which, in my opinion, must be so interpreted. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that unless unanimous consent is granted, the house must proceed with private members business at this time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to proceeding with the ordinary business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the statement the Prime Minister made this afternoon, I should like to ask him whether or not, in view of the changed nature of the pension plan, the new pension plan to which he referred today will, in the ordinary course, be submitted to a joint committee of both houses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the intention of the government, to submit the legislation to a joint committee of both houses.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: May I ask a
supplementary question? I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister if he can give us any indication as to when a new resolution and bill will be available?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend will realize that we now have the consent of the provinces, including Quebec, to the constitutional amendment which will make it possible to include provision in the act for survivor's benefits. We are proceeding to secure that constitutional amendment with the least possible delay, and I hope when the legislation is submitted it may be amended to include this important provision.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: May I ask a supplementary question? Is it still the intention of the government to have the plan effective on January 1, 1965?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will depend; my own view is that it will not be possible to put this plan in effect on the original date, which is the date mentioned by my hon. friend, but it will be in effect, it is hoped, some time in the following year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister tabled the letter to the provincial premiers, and can he indicate if he has had replies from all of them signifying approval?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not all of them, but some of them, and the replies received have been in accordance with the changes suggested.
2364	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house why the Ottawa Citizen, on Saturday, published substantial excerpts from the lengthy telegram or letter he sent to the provincial premiers, when the house was not aware of its contents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot accept that; so far as I know no newspaper man had a copy of that telegram.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I had
intended to put my question to the Minister of Finance, but perhaps in his absence the parliamentary secretary can answer. In view of the chaos that is presently reigning on the stock exchange in Toronto, which the president has described as dangerous, with enthusiasm becoming hysteria and with only one out of ten speculators likely to win, can the minister give us some indication of the government's attitude toward this problem? I think it is a very serious situation.


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: I believe that a statement in this regard should come from the Minister of Finance himself. In his absence I should like to take the question as notice and refer it to him on his return.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: This was going to be an original question, but the hon. member took the words out of my mouth, so to speak. I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider convening a federal-provincial conference, the objective of which would be to work out a formula for joint policing of stock exchange transactions, based on the securities exchange legislation in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: This gives me my opportunity to apply the rules which the house has accepted. I am going to ask for the full co-operation of all hon. members because I am going to be as strict as possible from this time forward.
It seems to me that while the question is very important, there is no pressing urgency. Furthermore, under subsection (f), it raises a matter of policy rather too large to be dealt with in answering a question at this time.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Also in accordance with the rules, I am delighted to be part of a precedent and I should like to give notice now that I will ask for this question to be transferred and dealt with in debate tonight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is after five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with a strict interpretation of the rules, notice should be received by five o'clock.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of which I sent him notice this morning. Are the federal authorities making an investigation of certain imports into Canada that endangered the lives of the purchasers and almost brought death to two boys? I refer to the 600 bed sheets that were brought to Vancouver from Belgium which were found to be contaminated with a highly toxic insecticide known as parathion?


Mitchell William Sharp: When the hon. gentleman sent this notice to me, I referred it around to the government departments and found it should be answered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary to the minister would give the answer now.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes. If I may, on behalf of the minister, I would say the reply is as follows: This sort of thing usually is dealt with under provincial law. It does not come squarely under any legislation administered by the department. When an incident like this occurs, it is up to provincial authorities to deal with it in the first instance. If there is any evidence of widespread distribution, we assist by getting in touch with health authorities in other provinces. We are looking into the present case at this moment.



EFFORTS TO REDUCE CANCER DEATHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question notice of which I had given to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In her absence perhaps her parliamentary secretary might consider answering it. It relates to the Canadian cancer fund campaign presently in progress across the dominion. Considering the very heavy death toll taken by cancer, and more

particularly attributable to lung cancer, much of which is attributed to excessive cigarette smoking, which toll now runs at about 500 lives a week, could the parliamentary secretary bring us up to date on the efforts of the Department of National Health and Welfare to reduce the toll, and especially with reference to new steps which are to be undertaken?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a perfect example for the order paper.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Barry Mather: -that I entirely agree with the rule.



REPORTED HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DRUG PARNATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Welfare or, in her absence, her parliamentary secretary, has there been any report on the drug parnate, used in the treatment of mental illness, from the committee which was appointed some weeks ago?


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the great importance, but surely this is a question for the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise the house whether negotiations are taking place to arrive at a disposition of the premises leased by the R.C.A.F. from the city of Vancouver in 1941 for the R.C.A.F. supply depot at Jericho beach, Vancouver, and if negotiations are taking place can the minister indicate when a solution will be announced?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member wishes to be the first speaker this evening, but in spite of its importance I do not feel his question is so urgent that it should be answered now.



NEGOTIATIONS TO WITHDRAW FROM NUCLEAR STRIKE ROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could he inform the house
Inquiries of the Ministry whether any negotiations are under way with Canada's NATO allies to negotiate out of the nuclear strike role?


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



REVISION OF GRADING SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of importance to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to news emanating from trading circles a re-examination of the grading system for grain is about to take place for the purpose of bringing it into line with grading methods throughout the world. Can the minister inform the house whether such a revision is contemplated or is already in operation?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put this question on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and I make it a question of privilege.
Last Monday, as reported on page 2085 of Hansard, I asked the minister whether he had received representations from the province of Quebec in order that the winter works period be extended after April 30. He answered that he had received no official request to that effect. Last Friday I asked the Prime Minister whether he had received a request to that effect from the premier of Quebec. He also answered that he did not know.
During the week end we learned that consultations had taken place between the minister of municipal affairs of the province of Quebec and the federal Minister of Labour in order to extend the winter works program beyond April 30. I read those reports in the press and I should like to know from the Minister of Labour when we were misled, if we have been.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had no conversations with the minister of municipal affairs for the province of Quebec.

Inquiries of the Ministry
AIRPORTS	EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE



TIMMINS-PLANS FOR EXPANSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and having just returned from the area I can assure the house it is of national importance and of almost frantic urgency. In view of the fact that the airport in Timmins is completely surrounded by private planes and helicopters, could the minister inform the house whether any immediate planes are in effect to expand this airport in order to ensure the normal flights of T.C.A. aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. This is a question for the order paper, in spite of the potential danger.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that a young child had both its legs crushed by a Canadian National train in the east end of Montreal, specifically between Moreau station and Viau street, does the department intend to remove these rail tracks from Moreau station to Viau street, in order to protect the people living in that part of the city of Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This falls under paragraph 7, which says that questions should "not be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer". May I suggest that the hon. member place it on the order paper.


Mr. Langlois:: On a point of order, I think it is of importance-


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member for Megantic that there is no point of order at this time.


Raymond Langlois: I believe there is, Mr. Speaker. According to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member would read the report of the committee as it appears at page 211 of last Wednesday's Votes and Proceedings, in French and English, he would see to what the Chair is referring.
[Mr. MacEachen.l



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of northern affairs, and ask whether he has yet received any request from the government of British Columbia for financial assistance to the victims of flooding in the Alberni valley?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have received no report so far.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made today in connection with the student loan fund. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether the province of Quebec has now renounced its intention to test this legislation in the courts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec has announced its intention of accepting the proposal that I gave to the house this afternoon.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he has anything to report today as to whether a directive has gone out as yet to regional unemployment insurance offices in relation to the confusion which was apparent regarding the compulsion of teachers to fill in social insurance cards?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest this should be placed on the order paper unless-


Lester Bowles Pearson: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member asked this question before the new regulations were in effect, and I said I would take it up with the Minister of Labour and that the Minister of Labour would reply.


Some hon. Members:: You are breaking the rules.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand I am out of
order in raising this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the general interest in this subject and since we had a great many questions on it last week, if the Minister of Labour is prepared to reply it might dispose of the matter now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my hon. friend that on April 15 all local office managers of the unemployment insurance commission were instructed to write local school boards and boards of education to the effect that the requirements concerning the renewal of unemployment insurance books do not apply to teachers, since they are not covered by unemployment insurance. Moreover, the registration for social insurance numbers is being carried out on a purely voluntary basis so far as teachers are concerned. These regulations were sent out last week.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I hope it is in order.
Does the Department of Justice intend to intervene with the authorities concerned so that the false certificates trial, which is always being postponed, may be held soon, in view of the fact that the attorney general of the province of Quebec seems to be deliberately delaying that trial?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I really think this question is one that bears on a subject matter completely beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER AT NEW YORK FAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he inform the house whether he has been officially invited to the opening of the New York world fair Wednesday as the representative of the Canadian government? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: One might almost say that this question is an urgent one in view of the date of the opening. But it is, really, a question for the order paper.


Guy Favreau: that the house go into committee of supply.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer



VETERANS AFFAIRS-TRANSFER OF HOSPITALS FROM FEDERAL CONTROL

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: This is the first supply motion in a series of six allowed by the rules for this session and we welcome the opportunity to draw some matters to the attention of the government and of the public. May I express the hope that the succeeding supply motions will be spaced out over the session as was the normal practice for many years in this house until last fall when five of them were crowded together for five successive weeks which, in effect, destroyed the value of supply motions to a certain extent.
The opposition is not suffering from any dearth of subjects to bring forward on supply motions, because when you have a government in retreat for a full year there are plenty of questions which need to be discussed, and discussed openly here in the House of Commons. I was impressed by the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) today when he advocated more open methods as being, to use his words, much better than the back room style of carrying on discussions and when he suggested that it is useful for public opinion to be brought more fully to bear on public matters. Here we have an opportunity on a supply motion to have an open discussion and in particular to bring to bear on important questions the weight of public opinion. My hope is that after this debate today and tomorrow the government will again retreat from the position it has taken.
I do not intend to adopt, as the Prime Minister used to do when he was leader of the opposition, a shotgun approach to a supply motion, that is to say, ramble all over the field and then, finally, under pressure, come down to one specific subject. I intend to announce within a few seconds, the subject matter that I have for discussion-a specific problem which I think should be dealt with by the House of Commons. And if the press of the country and the other news media adopt the suggestion of the Minister of Transport recommending analytic reporting of parliamentary proceedings we shall get across to the public of Canada this very important subject, and we shall have their opinion to reinforce the opinions of members of the House of Commons.
In order to relieve members of the cabinet from their worry-each one of them is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Trembling?


Gordon Minto Churchill: -bothered by his conscience, I suppose, by something which has been going on in his department, something which he does not wish to have disclosed-in order to

Veterans Hospitals Transfer relieve those worried faces across this chamber I will say that the subject matter with which I am about to deal has to do with veterans affairs.
I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) who must have been anticipating I would raise this subject will be pleased to have the support of his colleagues, because collective responsibility is laid upon the members of the cabinet. I am sure all members of the cabinet from the Prime Minister down will give their close attention to this particular subject. Why has this subject come up for discussion? It has come up for discussion because over a period of almost three months we have been asking questions from this side of the house, attempting to get answers on this subject. Unfortunately, those answers have been ambiguous. They have obscured the issue and they have failed to give us the information which we sought. At least 18 questions have been asked on orders of the day in this chamber having to do with this problem, and when that number of questions is asked-and they were questions of urgency which would have been allowed even under the new rule we have adopted- the subject is one which obviously requires the attention of the government. That attention has not been given in a satisfactory way to this problem of veterans affairs.
Let us first consider the situation as far as veterans are concerned so that we may have some of the facts in front of us. I would refer to the committee report for 1962-63 which on page 79 indicates that there are in this country 150,724 disability pensioners-slightly over 40,000 from the first world war and some 106,000 from the second world war. The others are from Korea and the regular forces. So this is not a small problem from the standpoint of the disability pensioners, and the disability pensioners in 99 per cent of the cases are men who have been wounded. There are 150,000 of them in Canada.
Veterans of the first world war number about 40,000 and the disability pensioners are dying off at the rate of 2,000 a year. They belong to a vanishing race and the problem as far as they are concerned will disappear. The 100,000 from the second world war are now in middle age and we hope they will be with us for a good many years to come. Even if there are no more wars, and that is what we hope, the problem of Canada's war veterans is not one to be lightly brushed aside. I have given the house these figures so that hon. members may have an idea of the number of veterans who are being looked after by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Many of these disability pensioners, men with war wounds, are admitted to our veterans hospitals month after month and year after year.


Their cases come up for re-examination. As the years go by, deterioration sets in and a serious injury suffered in wartime many years ago, apparently healed, comes back to trouble the pensioner in later life.
In addition to those who are suffering from war wounds there are those who are on the war veterans allowance roll, and page 94 of the report indicates that there were 79,820 such people at the end of the fiscal year 196263. These are people, generally over 60 years of age, who are entitled to hospital treatment under the Department of Veterans Affairs. So that you have over 200,000 veterans of the first and second world wars and the Korean war who are entitled to treatment under the Department of Veterans Affairs, largely in the veterans hospitals. Some of them are looked after in other hospitals, but not very many.
There has been quite a bit of misinformation scattered here and there across the country as to the situation of the veterans hospitals. They are 11 in number. The beds available are roughly between 8,000 and 9,000; I believe 8,623 is the figure given in the departmental report. The occupancy figure is 80 per cent generally across the country, which I have been told is a reasonable occupancy figure. The admissions, people coming in, staying for a while and going out, for the fiscal year 1962-63 reached the total of 75,860, which gives you some idea of the tremendous load that is placed upon our veterans hospitals and the medical staffs which look after them. The average length of stay of those who come and go is slightly over 21 days. Then you have to consider how these people are divided up. In the report of the veterans affairs committee which sat last session, on page 372 you have the statement of the director of medical services for the department, who indicated in the first instance that there had been a decline in the number of hospital beds for our veterans. In 1945 there were 12,000; now it is down to roughly 8,600. So there has been a steady decline there. He divides into four categories, those people who are making use of the hospitals and are using the accommodation in the hospitals; those who are suffering from war wounds-the disability pensioner-15 per cent; those who are in the hospitals because of their entitlement under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 20 per cent. With regard to those who are in the hospitals because they need domiciliary care, I might just read what he says:
Fifty per cent of our hospital population is made up of people under section 29, this means people who are receiving domiciliary care.

He goes on to say:
I think that "domiciliary care" is a most unfortunate term because the fact is that these people in our hospitals are sick. They all have some degree of medical reason for being in the hospital and many of them have a very great degree of medical reason. They are bedridden, they need a great deal of chronic nursing care.
The balance of 15 per cent is made up of 6 per cent from the armed forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 1 per cent patients receiving care at the request of other federal departments, and the rest are veterans who, although not entitled under the act to receive treatment in veterans hospitals, have been admitted and are paying their way for that treatment.
That gives you an idea of the problem which the Department of Veterans Affairs faces. I will not go into detail with regard to the history of our veterans hospitals, but it is a long and honourable history. It dates right back to the end of the first world war, and Canada has become accustomed now for 40 years to having our veterans looked after in separate institutions. Although at times there is here and there an individual who has some complaint with regard to his treatment in a veterans hospital, by and large the work in those veterans hospitals has been of a very, very high standard and has been satisfactory. Men who have been wounded, men who are on war veterans allowance, the aged and the infirm have been looked after in our veterans hospitals, and their relatives and friends have been very grateful for that assistance.
How has it come about that at this time we are facing an attack on our veterans hospitals? There are people who say, "Oh, well, we do not need to pay so much attention to our veterans". I will deal with this a little later on. There are those who are saying, "Well, some of the veterans should not be in those hospitals". Others say, "There are wards vacant, and they should be filled". This is all part of the general problem of hospital care for our population, and it is rather distressing if anywhere in the country there are wards in hospitals not utilized for the general population. One of the problems that the Department of Veterans Affairs faces, and has faced now for a number of years, is to get adequate staff in order to man completely the hospitals for which it is responsible. If the present Minister of Veterans Affairs can solve that problem, he has my good wishes, because I was faced with it during the time I held that portfolio. I refer to the problem of getting staff in order that no wards remain vacant in any veterans' hospital. But this is not an easy task and 1 am sure the department is working hard at that job right now.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer However, the general public looking at the situation, sometimes getting reports that are not completely factual, has gained the impression in some areas that the veterans do not require the care that they are now getting in the veterans hospitals, so that there is vacant space which should be made available to other members of the population, or something like that. I think any reasonable person would say that as our veteran population declines and vacant space becomes available in the present veterans hospitals, that space of course should be made available to others in the community who require medical attention. I think no one objects to that point of view. Contrary to an editorial in one newspaper, there is no "dog in the manger" attitude on the part of any veteran with regard to the veterans hospitals. As space becomes available, it should be placed at the disposal of others within the community who require hospitalization.
I have pointed out the burden which still weighs upon Canada for her present veteran population, and this cannot just be brushed aside easily. There are 200,000 veterans entitled under the act to receive treatment in our veterans hospitals. We cannot overlook the fact that the second world war veterans now approaching middle age will find increasing difficulties as the years go by. It is unfortunately true that as the years go by you do not just naturally recover from all the problems that affected you in your youth. On page 63 of the annual report there are some paragraphs worthy of note. The paragraph headed "Disabled veterans" reads:
There is a continuing need for special services to disabled veterans. Eighteen years of experience-
-this is since the second world war-
-have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that the war disabled can meet the challenge of normal peacetime living and make a substantial contribution to the economy of the country. Unfortunately, with the passing of the years, many wartime disabilities are being aggravated by the hazards and stress of modem living... As a result of these situations, there is a small but steady stream of veterans seeking advice and assistance with their problems of health and employment.
Then it goes on to say that during the last year 300 new disabled cases were registered for service. In the same period another 400 closed cases were reopened for service in specific areas of need. So it is not the type of work that can be called to a halt at any given moment.
Then at the bottom of the page there is a paragraph with regard to the older veterans: Any consideration of the welfare of older veterans invariably involves the services provided for the rehabilitation of the disabled and for this reason the branch has decided that its programs for assisting disabled and older veterans should be combined in one operational division. As world

Veterans Hospitals Transfer war II veterans are now of an average age of 45 years, it becomes apparent that all veterans may soon be classed as older veterans and the incidental demands for health and support due to age are bound to increase.
Everyone, of course, knows this.
Unfortunately, the process of ageing brings on many diseases and crippling conditions which force older veterans to retire from the employment market.
The point I am making is that it is a continuing problem. The number of veterans in this country is very large. As they get older the problem does not disappear. The first world war veterans will vanish, they will fade away; but the second world war veterans are here for years to come. Under these circumstances, what do you do with the veterans hospitals? When we had the opportunity of forming the government we asked the Glassco commission, in the midst of its manifold duties, to report on the veterans hospitals. This the Glassco commission did. I will not read at length what they reported, but they did look into the problem and make five recommendations, and I think that these five recommendations should be set out now, because I am laying the groundwork for subsequent speeches by my colleagues who will fill in other aspects of this problem. These are the five recommendations, which appear on page 195 of volume 3.
1.	No further hospitals be constructed by the government as active treatment hospitals for war veterans.
2.	Progressively, the treatment of veterans with pensionable disabilities be transferred to public hospitals, with the cost borne by the federal government.
3.	Veterans with major pensionable disabilities, who require chronic or domiciliary care, continue to be a federal responsibility.
4.	Veterans without major pensionable disabilities now receiving chronic and domiciliary care at public expense be progressively transferred to community facilities under such financial arrangements as may be expedient.
5.	Active treatment hospitals now operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, when cleared, be sold and converted into community hospitals under transfer agreements providing preferential admission rights for veterans with pensionable disabilities.
That volume of the report was first brought to our attention in January, 1963. Immediately the prime minister of that day, the present Leader of the Opposition, was asked about it. The Montreal Gazette reports on January 9, 1963 his reaction to that report as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker said pointedly yesterday that he "disagreed" with some features of report No. 3 released on Monday night.
Mr. Diefenbaker singled out the veterans hospitals proposal as one which was "rather more sweeping than I think the government would give acceptance to".

"I don't know how my colleagues feel but I would not agree with that recommendation," he said-
I was in Winnipeg when I was asked for my reaction, which is quoted in the same paper. I was not in consultation with the then prime minister but I issued a statement which is reported in the Gazette as follows:
"No steps will be taken at this time to change in any way the present care and treatment of our veterans", veterans affairs minister Churchill said in Winnipeg.
"Newspaper accounts appear to me to have exaggerated some of the recommendations of the report", Mr. Churchill said.
"I want to assure all veterans in our hospitals, and all others who are interested, that no steps will be taken to change in any way the present care and treatment of our veterans at the present time".
"The distinction between active treatment and chronic care treatment is very well known to the department and has been the subject of very intense study by the department and myself during the last two years. Plans for chronic care and treatment to release active treatment beds are very far advanced, and decisions thereon were deferred pending the report of the Glassco commission.
"The suggestion that a $200,000,000 expenditure on hospital construction has been contemplated for the future is without any foundation to my knowledge".
"The care and treatment of Canada's veterans is a major obligation of this country which has been, and will continue to be, thankfully borne by Canada because of the sacrifices made by Canadian servicemen in wartime, and so long as I am minister of veterans affairs or have any government responsibility for veterans affairs, there will be no change in the care and treatment of our veterans unless it is clearly and unmistakably for their benefit".
In the same issue of the Montreal Gazette Judge C. C. Sparling, president of the Royal Canadian Legion, is reported as follows:
In Winnipeg, Judge C. C. Sparling, president of the Royal Canadian Legion, had described the recommendation that veterans hospitals be closed down as "shocking". He said that he was convinced that the Glassco commission's call for a revision of this and other services offered to Canadian veterans would be received with "grave misgivings" by the nation's 1,500,000 war veterans.
That was our response to the Glassco commission report. We went further than that and said: "Hands off the veterans hospitals". That has been our stand ever since and there has been no interference with the veterans hospitals. Repeatedly I have said to those who have asked me about it that there is no haste in this matter. The problem is very great at the present time. Several years will have to elapse before the burden of looking after war veterans has decreased; and I have given you the figures as of today where there are over 200,000 entitled to treatment in our hospitals, with thousands who may require treatment as the years go by-because there were one million people in uniform in the second world war.

In my opinion the Glassco commission report failed to appreciate the problem of veterans hospitals, although a great part of the report, which was voluminous and comprehensive and extended over five volumes, was acceptable and is being put into effect by the government. But so far as veterans hospitals are concerned I think the Glassco report was wrong. 1 think those who wrote that particular section of it failed to understand the problem.
I have set these facts before the house and I now want to deal with the attitude of the present government. I have given our stand concerning veterans hospitals and we have not changed our stand. We appreciate the problem. I appreciated it when I was minister of veterans affairs. We were waiting for the Glassco commission report before a final decision was made and it was just after the report was made that I was transferred to another department. Then the government changed and consequently there has perhaps been some delay.
We were quite aware of the fact that our veterans hospitals contain a number of veterans who do not require active treatment. We did not have in mind the building of new and expensive hospitals and running up a bill of $200 million. That is simply ridiculous. I have no idea where the Glassco commission got that figure. We had no such idea at all. One or two hospitals needed renovating. There may perhaps be one new building required but the enlarging of the number of active treatment veterans hospitals was not in contemplation.
We were considering what to do with those people who do not require active treatment accommodation but rather care somewhat similar to what can be had in a nursing home. In that regard there are examples of satisfactory operations which are going on under the Department of Veterans Affairs in Vancouver, Saskatoon and Ottawa where older people who are still mobile are looked after because they require a certain amount of medical supervision and nursing care.
All this information is available to the department. We took the stand that we were not going to swallow the Glassco commission report, hook, line and sinker, without a thorough study of it. I had hoped that the present government would do the same. However, that is not the case. We heard rumours about changes being made and a whole series of questions was put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs earlier in the session. After considerable delay he finally produced a statement on March 16. He wanted to smuggle it into Hansard. He was not going to read it. He wanted it printed as an appendix. But the Leader of the Opposition 20220-151
Veterans Hospitals Transfer (Mr. Diefenbaker) very properly asked him to read it and so it is recorded on page 929 and subsequent pages of Hansard. His statement sets out the policy of the government with regard to veterans hospitals. As found on page 930 he said:
Consequently the only practical solution to the very real problem we face is to enter into agreements with suitable agencies to take over the operational control of veterans hospitals. These would then become general community hospitals, in which the department could purchase the service it must provide.
As found on page 931 he summed up the matter in these words:
It is therefore the view of this government that the operational control of veterans hospitals should be transferred to non-federal agencies at times, in places, and under conditions which will best protect the standards of care to which veterans are entitled.
On March 26 I sought an assurance from the minister. As found on page 1497 of Hansard I said:
Will the minister give an assurance to this house that no hospital under the control of the veterans affairs department will be transferred to other authorities until the matter has been discussed and approved by parliament?
The minister thought that was a very involved question and, after an exchange of questions and answers, he went on to say:
-as to submitting the matter and debating it before parliament in each instance, I think the hon. gentleman will realize this is an impossible thing to do because it would require or may require 11 or 12 different submissions to cover each instance.
In other words, he was contemplating the transfer of the 11 hospitals. Then I said:
I take it we now have the assurance of the minister that he intends to transfer the veterans hospitals to other authorities. Is that correct?
The minister replied:
The statement I made in the house the other day was, I think, quite clear-
The statement made the other day was, I presume, his statement of March 16, the operative sections of which I have just read. Not content with that, in addition to questions asked by other members the hon. member for Middlesex West asked the Prime Minister a question supplementary to one I had asked on March 30 last. As found on page 1544 of Hansard the hon. member used these words:
Can the Prime Minister assure the house that if arrangements are made to let other interests use some of the hospital beds now under the control of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the actual control of these hospitals will be left with the Department of Veterans Affairs?
The Prime Minister replied:
I think it would be the intention, Mr. Speaker, that the hospitals be left in the control of the department.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer
I suggest that we pause there to reflect on what those words meant. I took them to mean that in the mind of the Prime Minister there would be no transfer of the hospitals from the control of the department, if words carry the clear meaning that seems to be contained in those words. I subsequently asked him if he had not given a different answer to me than he gave to the hon. member for Middlesex West, but he said I was not using quite the same words I had used in my earlier question.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I will continue at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Minto Churchill: At six o'clock I was drawing attention to the statements which were made in the house by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) which were contrary one to the other. I quoted from Hansard of March 16 where the minister made a statement; March 26, when I tried to get assurances from him that there would be no transfer of veterans hospitals; March 30, when the Prime Minister said he thought it would be the intention that the hospitals remain in control of the department. I would have thought when that was said by the Prime Minister the issue would have been settled and the Minister of Veterans Affairs would have immediately informed the house that no change would be made. He remained unconvinced by the Prime Minister's statement and this is what makes it so difficult in this house. Where do we place our reliance? We get one answer from a minister and a different answer from the Prime Minister. Which one do we believe?
Well, for the time being, I guess we have to rely on the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because after that statement by the Prime Minister the Minister of Veterans Affairs was out in Winnipeg during the first week of April. The Winnipeg Tribune of April 4 reports in part as follows:
He-
This is referring to the Minister of Vet-rans Affairs.
-admitted there would be some uncertainty and difficulties during the transition period when the hospitals changed control.
Obviously, he had in his mind that the hospitals would change control, and that is the impression that he left with the people of Winnipeg. This is what I have heard with


regard to his meeting out there and his interview on CJOB, as well as his interview with the press. On April 8, after his return, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh), as recorded at page 1915 of Hansard, asked this question:
Is it the intention of this government to turn over the veterans hospitals to the provincial authorities?
The minister answered as follows:
-if we can be satisfied that we shall be given the necessary safeguards and guarantees so that veterans' rights will definitely be protected, it is our intention to proceed with it.
So there you have the story up to April 8, and the intention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs is to turn over the veterans hospitals to other authorities, either provincial or municipal. He mentioned certain safeguards which should be established. He says that this must be done in order to assure that the standard of treatment is maintained, and various things like that. Obviously, however, he is determined on his course. It has been impossible for the House of Commons to get a clear answer from the government in view of the somewhat evasive statement of the minister himself and in view of the statement of the Prime Minister which was the opposite to that made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the stand of veterans organizations on this question? The Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations have been attempting to get a satisfactory answer from the minister, but have had no success. The standing committee on veterans affairs, when it met last session made the following recommendation, which is recorded on page 430 of the committee minutes, and I quote:
Your committee is aware that a point has been reached where a decision must be made regarding treatment services in both areas of responsibility and administration. Your committee recommends that fullest consultation be carried out with veterans organizations before any changes are made.
On March 16, when the minister made his statement to the house, he met with representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion afterwards, and not before. The Royal Canadian Legion issued a release the following day from which I will quote two paragraphs:
"The Royal Canadian Legion is opposed to any change in the D.V.A. treatment arrangements that will alter the present provisions for treatment of veterans under any of the classifications of the veterans treatment regulations" said Fred O'Brecht dominion 1st vice president.
Mr. O'Brecht was commenting on the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs which outlined the proposed turnover of D.V.A. hospitals to municipalities or provincial governments.
After the representatives of the Legion had met with the minister, they wrote him a letter

dated March 20 and they issued a press release so that everybody would know the result of their meeting with the minister. In part, this press release reads as follows:
The Royal Canadian Legion is not satisfied with answers given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to its questions on the proposed handover of D.V.A. hospitals. It today urged that action on the handover cease immediately and that the entire matter be reviewed.
The Legion has had no greater success than members of this house. We have not been able to get satisfactory answers. We have asked the minister to cease and desist from his activities, to call a halt to these proposed transfers and changes, which he apparently declines to do. Hence we have this debate.
I do not intend to go into all the details because other hon. members want to speak and I wish to give them the opportunity. In view of the facts I put on the record this afternoon, the situation with regard to the D.V.A. hospitals will be made quite clear to anyone who reads that record. As time goes on, if there is no further war, it is quite obvious the situation will change and the veterans hospitals will have vacant wards available for other purposes, but that time has not yet come.
1 drew attention to the report of the Glassco commission, but when I did I omitted to indicate what the director of medical services had reported to the Glassco commission when it was making its investigation in 1962, when I was minister of veterans affairs. As recorded at page 434 of the report of the proceedings in the standing committee on veterans affairs, Dr. Crawford told the committee about the Glassco commission. He said:
I was interviewed, as were members of my head office staff and, as I was directed to do, I gave them all the information pertinent to their study including a copy of the paper which I had prepared for the minister. When the Glassco commission report appeared it was evident that they had discarded the recommendation I had made in that paper; that is, that we carry on as we were at least for the time being, and had adopted the second proposal I had made; that is, buying care from community hospitals and turning over veterans hospitals.


Mr. Teillel:: The hon. gentleman gave the page, but will he give the date of that report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The page is 434 of the evidence taken on Tuesday, December 10, 1963. Dr. Crawford had advised the Glassco commission to let things stay as they were for the time being. When I was talking to him, before he presented that report to the Glassco commission. I said, "Let things stay as they are for some considerable time; it may be 10 years, it may be 15, and in the interval let us see what we can do to correct some of
20220-151J
Veterans Hospitals Transfer the problems you have raised with me, the care of the chronic patients and the aged, and those occupying active treatment beds which should be released for more urgent cases."
We were looking into alternative methods of dealing with those problems, but never at any time did Dr. Crawford and I consider together the turning over of veterans hospitals to other authorities. But as a dutiful public servant and a man held in the highest regard, he was under the obligation to put alternative plans before that commission, which he did, and the commission rejected his first submission out of hand and seized upon the alternative. That is how the Glassco commission arrived at the findings I read out this afternoon.
As I see it, the solution is to let things remain as they are, with such modifications in the care and treatment of our veterans as are acceptable to our medical advisers, to the veterans themselves and to the veterans organizations. If this means making provision for those who do not require active treatment right in the D.V.A. hospitals, then let us make that provision; but to seize on this other course of handing these hospitals over to other control is repugnant to me, and is certainly repugnant to the veterans organizations.
This method that we in Canada have of looking after our veterans has been built up over a lifetime of effort. The people who now are hastily devising some new means to look after our veterans do not know the history of our veterans organizations from the time of the first world war. If they knew that history they would make none of their present decisions.
The minister's attention has been drawn to this by the president of the Royal Canadian Legion, who has made public a letter which he wrote to the minister on April 9. He wrote this letter because of the concern of the Legion and other veterans organizations as to the apparent obvious policy of the government, and in the letter he points out some of the difficulties veterans organizations had over the last 40 years in building up the veterans charter and getting recognition of veterans problems.
Throughout those 40 years-and I have said this before, in this house and elsewhere -the veterans of Canada have not made extravagant demands upon the government of the country. Any demands they have made have been on behalf of their comrades who have suffered all their lives as a result of their war experiences. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this attitude of the Royal Canadian Legion should be recognized.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer This is what the president of the Legion said, on page 4 of his letter:
This issue-
He is referring to the veterans hospital issue.
-may be the crossroads for the Legion and the veteran. To some extent the purpose for which we exist is at stake. If cities and municipalities have been shortsighted in providing facilities for their people, and the shortage of hospital beds requires it, I am very sure the veteran will gladly accede to the use in his hospitals by the public of such beds and space as may be free and available.
This is the stand of the executive of the Legion and I am very sure it is also the stand of most of the other veterans organizations.
I thoroughly believe that that is what is in the minds of the veterans of this country. To me this episode indicates an attitude of mind which I find very disturbing, an attitude of mind on the part of the government with regard to the veteran population of the country, and particularly with regard to the veteran who is in need of hospital and medical care.
I confess I am astonished that this matter should ever have drifted on the way it has.
I am astonished that, in the almost three months which have elapsed since questions were asked in the house, a definitive statement has not been made and the problem has not been closed. I am astonished that the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, are showing a careless attitude towards this problem. I suggest it is a careless attitude because this matter has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister.
Not so long ago I saw a letter from a Canadian citizen-I will not divulge his name -in which he said, "In my opinion the debt to the veterans of Canada has been paid." Is that the attitude of mind of the present government or may I dismiss that as just the opinion of some crank? The debt to the veteran of this country has of course not yet been paid. How can you pay that debt when the man has been injured in war?


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. "X".


Mr. MacEwan:: Make your speech and we will listen to you. Get up and show us what you know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will end my remarks by drawing attention again to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on March 30 as recorded on page 1544 of Hansard in answer to a question by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas). The question was, in effect: Will the actual control of these hospitals be left to the Department of Veterans Affairs? And the Prime Minister replied: I think it would be the intention, Mr. Speaker, that the hospitals be left in the control of the department.

Yet we have these repeated statements by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) that it is his intention to proceed with the transfer of these hospitals to provincial or municipal control. This is not good enough.
I think we must have from the government now a clear, concise and accurate answer to this question. They have caused disturbance, dismay and confusion among the veterans of this country, among the veterans who are in our hospitals and among their relatives, as well as those who for years have been visiting our veterans hospitals, the auxiliary organizations and all the people who are interested in the welfare of the disabled veterans of this country.
I shall not dwell upon the services that these veterans have rendered. I am simply asking this government to correct immediately the uncertainty concerning this particular matter. The stand our party takes is: Hands off the veterans hospitals; leave them in the control of the Department of Veterans Affairs and make the necessary adjustments which may have to be made as the years pass in order to maintain the standards of treatment, in order to maintain protection for the veterans who require hospitalization, and so on. If and when the hospitals, or part of them, are no longer required for veterans they should, of course, be made available for other purposes. That is our stand. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting therefor:
This house deplores the announced decision of the government to abandon its responsibilities for the administration of veterans hospitals by assigning and transferring certain veterans hospitals to provincial or municipal control, and further deplores the failure of the government to accept the request of the Royal Canadian Legion and other national veterans organizations that the administration and control of the veterans hospitals remain with the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay V/est):: I rise to support the principle of this amendment because though the wording is somewhat different from the wording and approach we would have used had we introduced such an amendment, I believe it is designed with the best intentions to protect the rights and to meet the needs of veterans in Canada.
Throughout the years, when we are dealing with a problem of this type, we have been able in the veterans affairs committee to meet such matters as this in a non-partisan spirit and I trust there will be enough of our colleagues on the government side of the house to make certain that the fears of veterans organizations at the present time are not justified. This question has been one of great

concern to veterans organizations generally in Canada at dominion, provincial and branch level. I have heard this matter discussed on a number of occasions. It is of concern to veterans generally and to their dependants, and I think it is of concern to a very large number of Canadians who recognize we have a particular responsibility toward the veterans of this country who defended it in two world wars and in other wars.
This is a subject which is very dear to my heart, personally, as I have a lot of friends among the veteran population in my own constituency and in other parts of Canada. I speak tonight as a member of this house after 19 years of experience on the veterans affairs committee, as the president of the 54th Kootenay battalion C.E.F., which was one of the finest battalions in the Canadian expeditionary force. As a man with a knowledge of veterans needs as a result of long association with them, and with a knowledge of their attitude toward veterans hospitals and their recognition of the services rendered by them to veterans since their inception. Generally speaking, veterans appreciate the high standard of service which has been given by veterans affairs hospitals. There is a certain possessiveness among veterans with regard to these hospitals throughout Canada; they feel they are their own hospitals, and when, unfortunately, they have to enter these hospitals as they grow on in years they meet comrades who, perhaps, fought in the same wars they did, sometimes in the same regiment, or brigade, or division. So there is a lot of sentiment attached to these hospitals as far as the veterans are concerned.
A debate like this revives memories, and when you get to be an old man like me you cannot help living in the past on occasion. When I discuss a subject like this I think of some of the men I knew. I think of the unusual characters. I remember a certain little chap who drove a baker's wagon at Nelson, and that chap had such poor sight that when we were in the front line at Ypres he could not see the rum jars coming over-those were mortar shells. He used to say: "Tell me when to run." But that did not stop him joining up. I think, too, of Herbert Richardson, a Cockney and a half, with a wry sense of humour. On one occasion we had been practically blown out of the Regina trench. I said: "What about it Herbie", and he said it would not have been so bad, if they had started two hours later because he would have had his socks darned by then.
I shall never forget the last time I saw him. I travelled some miles through the woods to visit him in a log cabin. He was very glad to see me, and said, "I have always had a
Veterans Hospitals Transfer great respect for you. However, I never thought you would sink so low as to become a member of parliament". Then only last week I received a letter from Hon. Howard Green, the former secretary of state for external affairs. I know that members of all parties in this house wish he were still here; many of us miss him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He told me that he had attended the funeral of a veteran who was in our company that I had written to just two or three weeks before. This veteran had died in Shaughnessy. Howard Green had managed to round up four or five of the men of our battalion to act as pallbearers, and pay their last respects to him. His last days were made more comfortable in Shaughnessy hospital. Only a couple of weeks ago one of my best friends died, a veteran who had just been in Shaughnessy. He used to write me and say how much he appreciated the care he received. He was over 80. That type of care is not provided in many hospitals in this country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when I read the letters from veterans who have been in our veterans hospitals, and talk to them after their return and realize how much these hospitals mean to them, I realize that we have more than ever a great responsibility in this connection.
Veterans hospitals are democratic institutions. I appreciate the veterans hospitals. They have done a bit of mending in my case. I shall never forget the last time I was in Shaughnessy. The chap in the next bed said to me, "Have you done any time?" I said, "No". "Well", he said, "you are almost the double of a chap that was in the next cell to me in the pen for over two years". So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that in democratic institutions there is a spirit of fraternity because of service in war which I wish was more frequently evident in times of peace. I mention this instance to indicate the rather unusual atmosphere and sentiment that surrounds the question of veterans hospitals in this country, and I know a good many other members of this house understand that as well.
In the opinion of this party the veterans of Canada have a particular claim to consideration with respect to this question. I say that without any hesitation whatsoever. There was a strong reaction throughout the country as the result of the recommendations of the Glassco commission. That reaction was not only among veterans, but also among people who realized that we have this responsibility for the care of veterans in Canada. This question was discussed last year in the standing

Veterans Hospitals Transfer committee on veterans affairs, and we heard from Dr. Crawford, who is a veteran himself with war experience in Hong Kong. He is one of the finest chief medical officers of any group of institutions in Canada. He dealt with the whole question from a medical point of view and reviewed it with regard to efficiency. He told us of the probabilities of the future, and so on.
Then we heard representations from various veterans organizations. We did not hear much on this subject because the matter had not been crystallized, as it were. Then as the result of listening to Dr. Crawford, whom we all respect, and listening to some representations from veterans organizations, the committee in its report to the house recommended:
Your committee is aware that a point has been reached where a decision must be made regarding treatment services in both areas of responsibility and administration. Your committee recommends that fullest consultation be carried out with veterans organizations before any changes are made.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that was the unanimous opinion of the committee; everyone agreed to the recommendations contained in the report made to this house. We expected to hear of some policy with regard to consultation with veterans organizations on the dominion, on the provincial and on the branch level. I must say that a number of us in this house, veterans organizations and a good many others throughout the country, were rather shocked when the minister announced government policy with regard to these veterans hospitals some time ago. We did think it would have been understood-and this is what we hoped-that the policy would be devised as the result of the closest possible consultation with all the veterans organizations and then, possibly, further reference to the committee with, later, a co-operative drafting of policy to meet the needs of the present and protect the rights of veterans in this country. More than that, the surprising thing was that the veterans organizations were not consulted before the minister made his announcement in the house. Mind you, the minister is quite a likeable person, but we are trying to get him back on the rails again on this question. The very afternoon that he made this announcement there were representatives of veterans organizations in the galleries listening to him, and he met the representatives of these organizations later in the afternoon. We think that the minister certainly should have listened to the representations of these representatives of veterans organizations before making any announcement in the house. In fact it is indicated that this matter is so complicated and surrounded with so many

problems that to arrive at a satisfactory solution it is going to require a very thorough consultation with veterans organizations with regard to the circumstances surrounding every one of the large veterans hospitals in Canada.
The minister's announcement created an immediate reaction from veterans organizations. I am certainly not going to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-but let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have heard from the commissioned ranks and now you are hearing from the other ranks, as it were. This is a very democratic section of the house.
There was a strong reaction from veterans organizations; members received letters from these organizations and, in some cases, resolutions. There was also a strong reaction from the ladies auxiliaries. I have always been very fond of ladies auxiliaries of veterans organizations; they have always been very kind to me; I have always been able, so far as ladies auxiliaries are concerned, to arouse their fraternal and maternal instincts. They have me at their meetings and tell me what they think about this and other veterans problems. When you attend these branch meetings of veterans organizations, of Legions in my constituency in southeastern British Columbia, and the ladies auxiliaries meetings, you get a very good idea what the ordinary veteran is thinking on these questions.
Other organizations were concerned also; I received resolutions and letters from them. There were also a good many people concerned. It was quite a topic of conversation shortly after the minister's announcement. It created quite a lot of interest across this country, and since then we have received letters from veterans organizations, from other organizations and from individuals. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have had a long association with veterans organizations and a long association with a large number of veterans. These organizations and these veterans are responsible; they have proven they are responsible throughout the years. The very veterans legislation that we have on the statute books of this country, known as the veterans charter, is the result of the representations made by veterans organizations, consideration by committees and consideration by governments. I am sure that as far as Canada is concerned there have been none of the excesses that have been experienced in the United States on some occasions.
I think throughout the years they can be credited with being very responsible indeed, because they are good Canadians. They have a sensible approach to many of these problems. Throughout the years we have had

quite unusual and unexpected problems develop with respect to veterans legislation owing to changing circumstances, changing needs, changing times and all the rest. These problems have all been met in a very sound and satisfactory manner. We found that amendments were necessary from time to time in the principles of legislation, the amounts of pensions, war veterans allowances and so on, and governments have responded to these representations because they knew they were valid.
Our first duty, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the veterans in this respect. Therefore, we insist, first of all, that the service to veterans must be maintained at the present high standard of service, both to veterans suffering from acute illness or from chronic illness. Mind you, we have the veterans of the first world war, many of whom are getting on in years, and in many cases they require treatment for chronic conditions. A few are acute cases. Then we have the veterans of the second world war, and possibly the acute cases will start to rise for some time now and later we will have to provide further care for those who become chronic cases. Then we have the veterans who served in the Korean war, who are few in number but are entitled to the same consideration and treatment; there are those who served in the Congo and Middle East; and now the veterans who are serving in Cyprus.
We urge, in the second place, that the Department of Veterans Affairs keep the ownership and control of the buildings and plant now in its possession. We suggest that where there are empty beds and it is possible to meet local requirements, arrangements be made with local authorities to lease wings or floors of these hospitals which are available so as to provide for such local need. That is an aspect of the subject which warrants consideration by the department, by veterans organizations and by the provincial or municipal authorities particularly interested. Therefore, in the third place, I think that this whole question should be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs so that once again, in view of recent developments, we can hear the opinions of veterans organizations on this question.
Then, fourth, after the committee has met and has made its recommendations we suggest that there should be close consultation between the dominion command of veterans organizations and the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to the whole problem. Then we will be able to lay down a general policy for the whole of Canada. Then, the department can meet with provincial or local branches to deal with any particular problem related to the area in which the
Veterans Hospitals Transfer branch is established. I have some experience, Mr. Speaker, of dealing with men in representing my community in various negotiations and so on, and I have found that if a problem is faced frankly and both sides express their opinions a sound, constructive and lasting solution can be produced.
And, last, after consultation between the veterans organizations and the Department of Veterans Affairs and agreement in principle is reached at the federal level with the veterans organizations, and agreement in greater local detail is reached at the provincial level, I am confident that if this question is tackled in the spirit in which we have been conducting the standing committee on veterans affairs throughout the years we can devise a policy, by agreement between the department and the veterans organizations, which will solve this question, protect the rights of veterans, and meet the needs of the future and the needs of changing times and circumstances. It is in that spirit that I appeal to the minister, and I am sure we will all look forward to his reply on a subject which I know concerns everyone in this house.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I will only say a few words about the organization of veterans' hospitals in Canada and about the government's decision not to relinquish its responsibilities but to entrust to others the duty of providing treatment to veterans.
We have much respect for veterans because most of them fought overseas. They served in the Canadian army and, personally, I remember that at the beginning and during the last war, Canadians were told: "Enlist in the Canadian army, fight for your country and you will never have any more trouble, and the conditions which led to this war will never recur. The government will look after you, your security and your family".
I knew various veterans who, when they came back from overseas or elsewhere, were bitterly disappointed to find out that the war once ended, the government, after having succeeded in obtaining an adequate fighting force, did not seem too interested in their welfare and in their security. Such attitude entailed much hardship for some who wanted to find employment. Indeed, I personally know able veterans who tried to find work in various government departments after the war. Of course, they were ready to give them a priority at the time, as it is still done today. But, on the other hand, the positions offered

Veterans Hospitals Transfer were so "non-specific", if you will, and the salaries so inadequate, that veterans had practically no protection at all from the federal government.
Therefore, those veterans had to find employment elsewhere and later to launch another campaign, not of a military character, but an economic and industrial campaign to earn their living.
And little by little, physical troubles resulting from action on the battlefields or from their military service began to show, and the veterans who thought that they were in good health realized one day that they were suffering from ailments which they attributed to their military service.
It is quite possible, I admit, that those discomforts might have been caused by their military service or that their ills were aggravated by their participation in combat, or still that this physical condition went unnoticed when they enrolled for military service. But, the result was that veterans started to insist on getting medical care in veterans hospitals because they were unable to have their degree of disability recognized and because the pension they received was not high enough. That is why there are so many veterans hospitals today. As a matter of fact, there was a rather sharp increase in such hospitals after the war because a great number of veterans required medical treatment.
While in theory those veterans could get an increased pension which would enable them to keep staying at home, to use their family life to rehabilitate themselves or even make a greater contribution to civilian life, because of those various reasons they feel they must go to those veterans hospitals to have at least free medical services provided by the government.
That deplorable situation is the result of a system which developed out of various economic and political conditions, so that those veterans have to take advantage of the services offered to them by veterans hospitals.
I do not think the government is justified in maintaining such a large and expensive qualified personnel to take care of a number of veterans which may not be large enough. And personally, I see no objection to the government entrusting someone else with the hospital and medical function, providing it has the assurance that the veterans will lose absolutely nothing in terms of hospital efficiency.
On that score, I should like to quote from the release issued last month by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet). That statement made by the minister indicates very clearly the conditions which will have to be accepted before the federal government

gradually withdraws from the administration of veterans' hospitals. Here is what the minister said, and I quote:

At this point I would like to make it unequivocally and emphatically clear that no such agreements will be entered into by the government unless certain sine qua non conditions are met. These conditions, three in number, are as follows: First, accommodation for the treatment of service connected disabilities among veterans must be immediately available at all times, and treatment must be provided in accordance with standards prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Second, community institutions of acceptable standards must be available to look after the work load created by other classes of veterans, which means that such veterans will be able to obtain treatment in their own communities, near their own friends and families. Finally, satisfactory arrangements must be made for the continued employment of professional and other staffs now serving in our institutions.

What do we read, Mr. Speaker, in this statement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs? The veterans themselves, members of medical and hospital staff will not be prejudiced, because the department will make sure that this personnel will be sent where its services will be required. On the other hand, I think that the federal budget, for a definite period, will be relieved accordingly, since it is clear that there is at present a duplication of services which could be supplied somewhere else.
As I said, we must respect the rights of veterans to receive medical services. Also, we should not suggest that the staff was not efficient, on the contrary: the medical, hospital and nursing personnel in veterans hospitals is excellent; diagnostic and research facilities are excellent. However, there is a duplication of functions in most cases.
In my own riding there is a veterans hospital, l'Hopital des anciens combattants de Sainte-Foy, and in addition there is a hospital section coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence so that we have the hospital services of the Canadian Army and those of the veterans administration. In both hospitals, or at least in one, university teaching is carried out, which means that this is an important hospital, fully equipped to render the services expected from it. This means also that the medical students of the area can take advantage of its services. However, I do not think that it is because of the fact that there are veterans in that hospital that students can receive such teaching; it is rather on account of its good organization, good maintenance and because the department heads are qualified.
However, since in the majority of cases we are dealing with chronic patients, or at least with patients requiring indefinite treatment,

it turns out, in the long run, even at the teaching level, that the cases found there have lost a lot of their importance for the students and the medical faculty.
That is why as long as the requirements set out by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the government are met in the hospitals, I am personally convinced that the veterans in my constituency will be well looked after and that they will get in a very short space of time and without delay the same treatment as before.
I am convinced also that the members of the medical, hospital, social welfare nursing staff will be able to keep on practising in other fields which will have been accepted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Personally, I am satisfied with such conditions and I believe that we should accept, in order to ensure greater efficiency, the new policy adopted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would not object either if it were submitted to the veterans affairs committee since that group was set up to study that department's problems. Everyone should have the opportunity to express his views, including members of national veterans' organizations and the Canadian Legion, for which we have great respect.
I feel that the main thing is to convince those who have contributed to the defence of our country and others that they can rest assured that we remember them and that, as we promised them before they joined up, we will never forsake them.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have just read the amendment moved by the Conservatives concerning the resolution under consideration.
_ In rny opinion, the Conservatives who were in office not so long ago could have implemented then the measure they are now claiming for veterans.
We know that in the past, soldiers were given numerous tokens of appreciation when they were on the battlefields. We also know that on occasion promises, fairly often astounding, were made to them concerning the treatment they would receive on their return to Canada.
I remember that when members of the Canadian cabinet went to visit European battlefields 20 years ago, they told our soldiers: "Gentlemen, fight bravely. When you come home you will never again go through economic crises, you will never suffer from want in times of prosperity, never again will there be hardship in Canada. When you come back you will get adequate pensions and you will be given special treatment because you 20220-152
Veterans Hospitals Transfer are now defending democratic freedom, you are fighting to preserve that freedom."
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have come home but a large number of them, not to say practically all of them, write to us to protest against the treatment they get in Canada.
I would now like to ask the government to recognize veterans better than they have been since their return to Canada many years ago.
The official opposition moved this amendment, which I quote:

This house deplores the announced decision of the government to abandon its responsibilities for the administration of veterans hospitals by assigning and transferring certain veterans hospitals to provincial or municipal control, and further deplores the failure of the government to accept the request of the Royal Canadian Legion and other national veterans organizations that the administration and control of the veterans hospitals remain with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I believe that if the government decides to decentralize the veterans hospitals' administration, it is understood that it will assist the municipalities or provinces in providing the required treatments to veterans who need them.
In my opinion, veterans who live in a municipality of some kind find it easier to come to some agreement, to be heard, in short to make themselves understood by the authorities that are closer to them than by those which are too remote, such as the central government.
I think that it is right to favour veterans access to hospitals and that these hospitals be assisted by the municipalities as well as by the provinces which will be able at the same time to help the veterans.
Therefore, we agree that this is an excellent initiative on the part of the government, that it will benefit the veterans who, from now on, will get better treatment.
Should abuses be committed, should the veterans feel they are being ill-treated or molested in any way, either by provincial or municipal authorities, the federal government can always intervene through the Department of Veterans Affairs to see that our veterans are respected and are given all facilities for receiving proper treatment whenever the need arises.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it has always been the tradition of this parliament to deal with veterans problems and matters affecting the welfare of veterans in a non-partisan manner. Certainly, during

Veterans Hospitals Transfer the 15 years I have been a member of this house I have never known any want of confidence motion seeking to divide the house on any matter pertaining to the welfare of veterans. I must confess that I am a little disappointed at the departure involved in the amendment which we have before us this evening. I am sure all hon. members subscribe to the philosophy that human beings are the most important things in this world. When we come to that particular class of human beings who have served their country, have fought, bled and sacrificed their limbs, I am sure we all feel that they should be placed in a preferred class. Next to them in preference would be their widows, orphans and dependants.
The objective of policy pertaining to veterans affairs over the years has been to find what is the very best that can be done for the veterans. This has been the objective of policy no matter what party has been in power. I feel sure that that objective remains today the very same as it has been down through the years.
When the first great war produced casualties Canada, as a grateful nation, assumed certain obligations toward her veterans. One of those obligations was treatment services. Those treatment services were, first, to repair as much as possible the ravages of war and, second, to provide medical treatment to the veterans for their disabilities resulting from service as long as they lived. This treatment commitment was written into the law for two specific groups of veterans. One group, of course, was the disability pensioner; the other group was the war veterans allowance recipient.
Now, some may hold the opinion that the disability pensioner has a stronger claim or perhaps a greater entitlement than the war veterans allowance recipient. Today, when we have more advanced knowledge of the effects of stress and tension, that theory may not stand up too well. But be that as it may, under the law both have the same entitlement. The law applies equally to each and imposes the same obligation on the government to provide treatment to each group of veterans.
In discharging these commitments this or any government is faced with certain problems. At present, and looking to the future, the chief problem appears to be the ability to maintain an adequate standard of treatment service. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who moved the amendment, admitted that this problem exists, so there is no reason why time should be used in belabouring that point.
However, in seeking for a solution to this particular problem we must face certain basic factors as they present themselves to us at present. These factors may change over the

years, but at present we must deal with them as we find them and as they are presented to us by our experts. The first of these basic factors is the shortage of doctors. I do not think there will be very much disagreement on that point. There is hardly any province that has an adequate supply of doctors. In fact in my own province the shortage is so great we have to try and induce medical men to come over from Great Britain and European countries.
The second basic factor that cannot be ignored is the class of patients who have to be treated. At present, and for some time past, 70 per cent of the patients being treated in veterans hospitals are war veterans allowance recipients. This situation will continue for a good many years, and the longer it continues the longer it will carry with it another problem, namely the increasing number of veterans requiring chronic care.
The third factor that must be considered is our constitutional position, because health services are really a provincial responsibility, and we know from experience that many provinces do not take kindly to the federal government encroaching on provincial prerogatives. We cannot ignore these three basic factors, and any solution we may find must take them into account.
I know veterans may say, "Why don't we open the doors of our veterans hospitals to civilian patients?" I think most veterans would be happy if that solution could be adopted, but we have advice that it is not quite that easy, and therefore we cannot brush off this constitutional position in which we find ourselves.
These factors I have mentioned vary in different parts of Canada and, not only do they vary, but there are other factors which vary as well. Consequently, as the minister has pointed out on many occasions in the house, there can be no over-all solution. We must take each problem, each situation separately, and work out a separate solution in the light of what can be accomplished under the prevailing circumstances.
The minister has made it clear that in seeking solutions certain guide lines will be followed and certain principles adopted to safeguard the interests of the veterans. He will be dealing with this tomorrow in more detail, and there is no need for me to take time now to develop this particular point.
There seems to be an idea abroad, and it is implied in the amendment before us, that the government intends to turn over all of its hospitals, in a wholesale manner, to non-D.V.A. agencies. Certainly that is not the situation as I understand it. On many occasions the minister has said that we would

have to deal with each case on its merits and at no time, to my knowledge, has anyone said that all the hospitals are going to be turned over to non-D.V.A. agencies.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the parliamentary secretary permit a question? Will he name the hospitals that are going to be turned over?


Chesley William Carter: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do that. The minister has told the house on several occasions that we have only one specific case before us at the moment, and that agreement on it has not yet been finalized.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to the recommendations of the Glassco commission and stated that he did not like the approach which the commission took to this problem. I think we can agree with him there because, fundamentally, the Glassco commission was set up to investigate ways of effecting economies in government departments.
There is no doubt that they approached this problem from that point of view. I began by saying that according to my philosophy human beings are the most important things in the world, and to effect economies at the expense of human beings is repugnant to my personal feelings as it is, I am sure, to other hon. members, particularly when those concerned are veterans. Still, we must face the fact' that the problem still remains. We have two possible courses to follow. One is to do nothing about the situation and let it deteriorate to the point where we cannot get the doctors we require to provide the standard of service which we are obliged to provide for veterans-to let things go until it is too late to find an effective remedy. The other alternative is to explore possible solutions in the light of the circumstances and of the various factors which have to be taken into account.
The amendment deplores what it calls the announced decision of the government to abandon its responsibilities in this regard. That is the key phrase of the amendment. I think it should be very clear that, far from abandoning its responsibilities, the government is doing the very opposite. The government has the responsibility, by law, as I pointed out, of providing the best possible service for veterans, disability pensioners and W.V.A. recipients. That is what the government intends to continue to do. It cannot provide that standard of service if it cannot get the doctors who are needed to carry it out. This is what most people tend to overlook today. There is a great tendency to concentrate on the shortage of hospital beds and to think of the solution in terms of providing more and more hospital beds. But 20220-1S2J
Veterans Hospitals Transfer hospital beds alone provide no solution; they are of very little use if we cannot get the professional men to provide the required treatment, and that is all the government is trying to do-it is trying to find some means of making sure that the veterans will always get the best standard of treatment available. This is the very opposite of what the amendment implies.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made a very strange remark. He said he agreed in principle with this amendment. But he did not say he agreed with the substance of the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I said that if we had worded it, we would have worded it somewhat differently.


Chesley William Carter: I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the fact that the hon. member said he accepted it in principle.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Quite.


Chesley William Carter: I find it very difficult to make a distinction. You cannot separate the principle from the wording of this amendment. You cannot isolate the principle, and agree with that, without agreeing with the rest of what the amendment says.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The principle of the best possible care for veterans.


Chesley William Carter: We all agree about that. There is no disagreement as to the necessity of providing the best possible care for veterans. If the hon. member is in favour of that, he will vote with the government.
One solution to this problem which seems worth exploring is to work out agreements with non-D.V.A. agencies, and the minister has made it clear on several occasions that such agreements will be worked out only when necessary and that they will only be put into effect if it is certain that the interests of the veterans have been adequately safeguarded. That is an important limitation and it certainly destroys any statement or implication in the amendment that the government is abandoning its responsibilities. In fact, the government is seeking to find ways and means of discharging its responsibilities, and of doing so the best way possible.
I think we realize that this is a highly emotional subject as all matters pertaining to people must be, particularly when they affect the welfare of a group of people such as veterans. I submit that it is not in the best interests of the veterans themselves to make this a matter of partisan controversy,


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not do that.


Chesley William Carter: No, I am not blaming the hon. member. But that is what the amendment

Veterans Hospitals Transfer does. We are not serving the best interests of the veterans when we take a rigid position, dig in our heels and try to defend it at all costs. Rather, I feel we should seek out together the best solution to this problem, taking into account all the factors that must be considered. I am sure that if the official opposition or any of the veterans organizations could suggest a better solution in the light of all the facts, their representations would not go unheeded.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: rise to support the amendment, representing as I do the constituency of Bow River which embraces part of Calgary. I do so mainly on the grounds of the situation with respect to the Colonel Belcher hospital. May I say I feel certain that a very distinguished soldier who also represents a Calgary riding, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) will probably have something to say with reference to this matter because he, along with myself and others, is among those who have put questions to the minister from time to time without getting information.
I should like first of all to mention something which was said by the previous speaker. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) said it was regrettable that we had moved such an amendment, because we had put the veterans into the realm of politics. I say to him that never before has a government put the veterans in such a position as they now find themselves. We had to put them into the realm of politics. I invite the minister to read the telegrams which I have received on this subject from various Legion branches and their members, asking that we speak up for them on this occasion. They come from Banff, Acme, Bowness, Bassano, Calgary, North Calgary, Calgary west end branch, Calgary Ogden, Calgary T.V.S. branch, Canmore, Carbon, Carstairs, Cochrane, Cremona, Crossfield, Didsbury, and Drumheller. Most of those places are in the constituency of Bow River, although some of the Calgary Legions mentioned are in the constituency of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). You only have to look at the telegrams to see how seriously worried and concerned the veterans are with regard to the decision about to be made by the government in this regard.
I think the first question to ask is, why is this decision being made? The last speaker referred to the Glassco commission. In various debates many hon. members have referred to the Glassco commission, and I think we should clarify one point now. It is that all royal commissions are set up to investigate the facts. Once the facts as

presented by a royal commission are before the house governments make decisions from those facts and we are able to obtain the proper facts in a debate of this nature. When the Glassco commission was set up there was no thought that everything Mr. Glassco and his commission said in the three or four volumes prepared by them would be adopted by the Conservative government or any other government. There have been some wonderful recommendations, but some recommendations would not be adopted by any government. This is one recommendation that we say should not have been adopted. Immediately report No. 3 came out the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) outlined the stand our leader took at that time. He stated categorically that was one recommendation that would not be adopted, that there would be no interference with the administration or control of the veterans hospitals. Of course, this also concerned the Colonel Belcher hospital. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was minister of veterans affairs at that time. So the veterans at that time, immediately the report was prepared and filed in the House of Commons and became a public document, knew where they stood as far as the Conservative government was concerned. Now they are not too sure where they stand with the present government. This is the very reason the matter is now before the house in this debate.
After all, Mr. Speaker, we have only to look at the telegrams to see that the veterans are confused. We have continually asked questions of the minister, "What are you going to do. What negotiations are being made? Are you negotiating? Are you negotiating with the government of Alberta? Are you negotiating with the city of Calgary?" The house will see that the answers are far from clear, and I will read them shortly. The answer was always, "Well, if anything happens we will let you know about it". The Prime Minister today made the statement that they now believe in the system of open diplomacy. If this is open diplomacy, it is a strange kind of open diplomacy because everything so far has been done behind closed doors. Perhaps we will get a statement in the future. This is what the veterans are concerned about. If in this connection the doors are closed in the future and they cannot raise their voices in this regard, it will then be too late to speak up. That is the reason we have this debate this evening, and it will go on tomorrow.
The next question is, why has this situation arisen as far as the Colonel Belcher hospital is concerned? Press reports leave the impression that there are empty beds in the Colonel

Belcher hospital and it is not serving its purpose. But this is the real story in the province of Alberta. We have to face it, and I am very happy to see the hon. member for Calgary North in his place tonight, because he has been so interested throughout in this matter, as I have; but I am disappointed to see that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Hays) has failed to say a word on this matter and is not in his place, and probably will not be in his place for the whole of this debate. I am sorry he has not shown an interest in this matter, because it affects the city of Calgary and particularly his own riding.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the situation? There is definitely a shortage of beds in the hospitals in the province of Alberta. Let us look at what has happened in the last few years. We heard a great deal today about increasing the amounts of money to the provinces. In fact, that discussion went on for two and a half hours today. Let us look at what the Conservative government did in this regard. I hope the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) is listening to this. In 1958-59 the federal government contributed to the hospitals in Alberta $8,774,575; in 1959-60 that jumped to $15,698,000; in 1960-61 it jumped to $16,905,000; in 1961-62 it jumped to $25,784,000. In other words, the grants to the hospitals in the province of Alberta, under the Conservative government, jumped from $8,700,000 to $25,700,000. You might say we tripled the amount of grants. What took place in that time? Let us look at the contributions in reference to construction during those years. In 1958 the federal government contributed to the province of Alberta $4 million. I shall read these items. This was in reference to crippled children, professional training, hospital construction, mental health, tuberculosis control, general public health, cancer control, laboratory and radiological services, medical rehabilitation, child and maternal health. This all added up to $4 million. In 1959-60 this amount increased to practically $4,200,000. The most important and the largest figure in that regard was in construction, which figure was $1,640,000. So you have there the contributions made in 1960, 1961, and 1962.
What took place? I represent part of the city of Calgary, and part of the problem that faces Calgary in this connection is a shortage of beds. During that time, in order to measure up to its responsibility, the Conservative government in the five or six years it was in office tripled the contributions to the hospitals in Alberta. But I must say, and I say this in a critical way, that the hospital facilities did not triple in that regard. I say this, with
Veterans Hospitals Transfer respect, to the hon. member for Calgary South. We come from the same city. He was mayor of the city of Calgary; he knew the problems at that time, and certain recommendations were made at the time he was mayor. This is why he should be here tonight, because he failed to heed those recommendations. Therefore in the city of Calgary you have a very chronic situation as far as the shortage of beds is concerned. And with that situation, the pressure goes on. Where does the pressure go on? It has gone on the Minister of Veterans Affairs; he has succumbed to the pressure and it would seem now that they are going to transfer the Colonel Belcher hospital over to the provincial government either in an administrative way, or control all the way, or to the city of Calgary.
Yet when we rise in our place to ask questions or debate the situation, what kind of answers do we get? I will read some of these questions and the answers we received. The questions go back to February 20, 1964, and to this date, two months later, we do not know what the situation is. I say to the minister that it is up to him, in his capacity as minister of this department, and not through one of his members, to get up and clearly state what is the situation; how far the negotiations have gone; what went on behind closed doors; what offer has been made; what is going to happen to the veterans of southern Alberta; what consideration has been given to the representations made in the 20 or so telegrams I have received from Legions in southern Alberta. This is his responsibility. We would not be having this debate in the House of Commons at this time if answers had been given to these questions. I doubt whether we will receive answers to them even now, when we place these facts before the minister and ask for answers to our questions.
Let us see what has happened. Let us look at the wishy-washy answers that have been given to the direct questions we have asked in this regard? One of these questions was, "Is this matter going to be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs?" What did the minister say in answering that question? He said, "Before any decision is made, before the final negotiations are concluded' the committee will have a chance to look into this matter '. Is he going to break his word to the members of the House of Commons; is he going to break his word to the committee? This is another case where they have open diplomacy behind closed doors; and when they want to get a big press, they bring it out and call it diplomacy in front of the doors. This is the problem.
Here is the question put by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae).
2384	HOUSE OF
Veterans Hospitals Transfer Mr. Teillei: Would the hon. gentleman give me the page?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; page 40, February 20, 1964. This question was asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is based on statements made yesterday by his deputy minister and also his assistant deputy minister, concerning veterans hospitals. Would the minister advise the house, and especially the one million veterans of this country, the intention of the government regarding the transfer of the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals from federal to provincial or local control?
Now, this is the kind of answer we got:
Mr. Speaker, because of the general shortage of hospital beds throughout the country we have had several proposals from a number of authorities, provincial, municipal and university, to assist in the solution of this problem. I think all hon. members will realize the inherent difficulties in these proposals.
We know the difficulties; we want the facts. Then the minister goes on with the same wish-washy statement. I think we might as well come to grips with the problem. Let us not mess around with the situation. Then I asked the question:
Does this policy apply to the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary?
I asked that question because I had been home to Calgary and had been told that negotiations were going on. But we could not find that out in the House of Commons; we had to find it out on Eighth avenue in Calgary.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Read the whole thing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I will read it, and the more I read the worse it gets and the worse you will feel. I continued:
There were some press reports that a decision had already been reached in regard to that hospital.
That is another point. The press had said that a decision had already been taken. This is the minister's answer; it is very clear:
I can assure the hon. member that no decision has been taken. However, we are examining a proposal received from the city of Calgary.
Then the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) asked this question:
In dealing with this question is the minister taking into account the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee that before any decisions are made in this respect the veterans organizations should be consulted?
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what I like about this answer of the minister; for once he was definite. His answer was "Yes".
Therefore, my first questions to the minister in this debate are: Is he going to refer this matter to the standing committee on veterans affairs before the decision is reached? Is the committee going to be told 

about the negotiations which have taken place? Is the committee going to be let in on those negotiations? Are the veterans going to know the facts before the minister comes outside the door and says that this is open diplomacy, after we have had the diplomacy behind the closed doors?
Now I move on, Mr. Speaker, to page 625 of Hansard for March 6. This question was put very clearly by the distinguished member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). He said:
I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before any change in policy in regard to the operation of the veterans affairs hospitals is decided upon, will the minister, as I requested some two weeks ago, submit this whole question to the veterans affairs committee of the house for examination and advice?
The reply of the minister was:
Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that into consideration-[DOT]
He had begun to waffle and wiffle-
-before I can answer my hon. friend.
That reply was given on March 6; but back on February 20, before he started to waffle and wiffle and had had a discussion with some of his colleagues as to what was going to happen, he had replied "Yes, Mr. Speaker". He had given an undertaking at that time to place the matter before the committee. Why did he waffle and wiffle on March 6, 1964?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker-I am sure my hon. friend does not want to mislead. If the hon. member will read these questions carefully he will find that they deal with two separate matters; one, the veterans organizations, and the other the veterans affairs committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will re-read page 625; it will take me a little longer but we might as well have the facts. The minister was asked whether the whole question would be referred to the committee before any change in policy in regard to the operation of the veterans affairs hospitals is decided upon, and to me his answer was very clear. The Colonel Belcher hospital is a veterans affairs hospital. The minister answered yes to the question in February, and I say that on March 6 he wiffled and waffled. If he has not, then I hope he will let us into the inner sanctum and let us know what went on in Calgary and what negotiations are going on.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: There is no mystery whatever.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us see what the minister said, as reported on page 933, March 16, 1964. Again the hon. member for Calgary North asked this.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: What page is this?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Page 933. I have all the questions and answers and I will send the minister a memorandum when I am through. The hon. member for Calgary North asked:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman now answer the question I have asked him two or three times over the past several weeks? Will the government refer the whole question of the operation of veterans hospitals to the veterans affairs committee for an examination by that body and a report on the change of policy?
Now here is the minister's answer; let us now decide whether he wiffled and waffled on this occasion:
Mr. Speaker, this question was considered by the veterans affairs committee. It made a recommendation which I have adopted and followed. There is difficulty in making a statement in general terms at this time, because we will have to deal with each hospital according to its own circumstances, and some of them we may have to retain. I am not at all certain it will be possible to submit each case to the committee. There is one thing I have undertaken to do according to the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee, and that is to engage in consultation with the veterans organizations involved.
Now he has gone one step further. First of all he said that he would submit the question to the committee. On this occasion he says, speaking in general terms, that each hospital must stand on its own feet. He does not know whether he can do it; but one thing he will not do is to make a decision without consulting all the veterans organizations in the country. From the file which I have built up in the last month it is clear he has certainly not consulted any organizations in the city of Calgary or any in southern Alberta.


Mr. Winkler:: Or anywhere in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, that is absolutely correct. Then the hon. member for Calgary North, as reported at the same page, asked this question:
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, In connection with Colonel Belcher hospital. Is the minister aware that when the matter was referred to the veterans bodies in Calgary they were universally hostile to the idea?
This is the reply of the minister:
Mr. Speaker, my information is that they were not universally hostile to it.
I have not time to read all of this, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned the 20 telegrams I have received, and if that is not hostility which the minister is receiving, I do not know what is. As far as the veterans are concerned, I would say that they are opposed to this transfer of the control of the Belcher hospital to the province or the city of Calgary, and they are against losing their rights to use that hospital when the need arises.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer
Let me come back to where I started. The fact that we are short of beds in Alberta is not any fault of the veterans. Neither is it the fault of the former Conservative federal government. It is the fault of the provincial government in the province of Alberta or the fault of the city of Calgary, because their grants were so substantial that they should have had enough beds per thousand of population to serve the people in the province. For this reason I expect a little wiffling and waffling from members at the other end of the chamber, because they realize the problem in Alberta is the responsibility of the provincial government; and I say tonight that they have not measured up to that responsibility.
Now let us see what was said on March 26 last, as reported at page 1497 of Hansard. I am missing quite a bit in between and just referring to the highlights-what I would call the tidbits. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) asked the minister this question:
I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he has now given an answer to the Royal Canadian Legion, who requested that he discontinue immediately all action on the proposed handover of D.V.A. treatment facilities to other levels of government.
What is the minister's answer?
I have not yet replied to the letter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre goes on:
Will the minister give an assurance to this house that no hospital under the control of the veterans affairs department will be transferred to other authorities until the matter has been discussed and approved by parliament?
Then the minister started to talk about things being involved. He said:
This is quite an involved question.
Of course it is involved. I will tell you why it is involved. It is involved because the government is afraid to say to the veterans at this time and was particularly afraid to do so on March 26 that they have already made a deal as far as Colonel Belcher hospital is concerned. They wanted to delay it until a time when they could say: We now have the doors open for this open diplomacy policy, after they were 30 days behind the doors. In the last 24 hours they come out and say: Now we are disclosing it; we have had open discussions.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Crocodile tears.


An hon. Member:: The same as the pension plan.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is the same as the pension plan. I was thinking of that. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Read the answer now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This was the question:
Will the minister give an assurance to this house that no hospital under the control of the veterans affairs department will be transferred to other authorities until the matter has been discussed and approved by parliament?
The minister replied:
This is quite an involved question. I do not know that I can reply to that directly.
Of course he could not. He was afraid to reply because he had had his officials in Calgary and he himself had been in Calgary and he knew what was going on. The ink was not quite dry. They had not tidied up some of the little points. That is why it was difficult. Why did he not take the House of Commons into his confidence and say: We are trying to make a deal as far as this hospital is concerned; we intend to transfer it to the province or we intend to transfer it to the city of Calgary but we have not closed the deal. Then the veterans would have known where they stood. The big problem today is that they live in fear. They do not know where they stand. I say to the minister: If this debate does nothing else but smoke him out it will have served its purpose.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Read Hansard further.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Page 1544 on March 30 is interesting. This was when the Prime Minister came into the picture and he certainly wiffled and waffled. He certainly cut down the words of the minister and I suppose that may be a part of the reason why the minister is a little nervous and concerned and finds the question very involved and difficult to answer. He said that a deal had been made, but the Prime Minister said there was no deal made. We do not know what the facts are to this date.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Where did he say that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am going to read from page 1544. This again is a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether radio reports are correct that the government is now in full retreat from its announced intention to transfer the veterans affairs hospitals to other levels of government.
Now the Prime Minister comes into the picture. For three months or more this diplomacy was going on behind doors, but when they want to get a little publicity and make headlines they come out in front of the doors. The Prime Minister said: "No, Mr. Speaker". Then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said: "Just partially". Then the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) said:

I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to that of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that if arrangements are made to let other interests use some of the hospital beds now under the control of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the actual control of these hospitals will be left with the Department of Veterans Affairs?
The Prime Minister replied:
I think it would be the intention, Mr. Speaker-
He does not say it will be the intention; he thinks it would be.
-that the hospitals be left in the control of the department.
I do not know whether the veterans are so concerned about that proposition. If control remains in the Department of Veterans Affairs, but the use of the hospitals for treatment purposes is made available to the provinces, I do not think the veterans are concerned about the word "control" in that sense. They want to retain control of this hospital for the use of veterans in southern Alberta and in the city of Calgary, not control in the sense that the department has title only to the hospital but has leased it to the province for the use of other people for the next 25 years.
There is the confusion, Mr. Speaker. There is the reason that the veterans are sending telegrams to all members of parliament asking them to try to smoke out the minister, find out what he meant by his statement, whether the Prime Minister meant what he said or whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs has contradicted the Prime Minister. We do not know what the policy is; it is so mixed up. The minister will come out with a statement wrapped up in beautiful language. That is what they call open diplomacy.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is one thing I always like, a good chorus to a well played tune. The Prime Minister said:
I think it would be the intention, Mr. Speaker, that the hospitals be left in the control of the department.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to clarify two conflicting answers he has given this afternoon. He indicated to me that the veterans hospitals would be transferred to other authorities, and he indicated to the hon. member for Middlesex West that it was not the intention of the government to do so. What is the situation?
Now he has smoked out the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has misinterpreted my answer to him, as I think he will find out when he reads Hansard.

I have read Hansard, Mr. Speaker; I have read it aloud in the House of Commons and I challenge anybody to say from that answer of the Prime Minister or from his answers on other occasions what the situation is. What is the policy? Is it to sublease these hospitals, to transfer them to the provinces or, in the case of Calgary, to transfer the hospital to the city of Calgary? The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Hays) should be in his place and should be concerned about the veterans of Calgary tonight. He should be the man to speak for that section of his constituency where the Colonel Belcher hospital is situated.
This is the situation. We have the Prime Minister saying one thing and the Minister of Veterans Affairs saying another thing. The Prime Minister says he does not think we are really going to transfer these hospitals and give title to the provinces. I take it from the answers of the Minister of Veterans Affairs which I have read that, not only are they going to give control to the provinces, but they are going to have the right to use them. What is the situation? This amendment has been moved because we have been asking for answers to our questions and have not received them.
Business of the House
I think the federal government should say to the province of Alberta: If you are in difficulty, like other provinces, with regard to a shortage of beds then it is your responsibility because since 1958 you have received $86 million from the federal government by way of assistance with regard to one category or another of hospitalization. If there is a shortage of beds it is the responsibility of the province. It is particularly their responsibility to complete University hospital in Calgary, where the steel structure has been standing unfinished for several years. Let us exert some pressure on the province to build that hospital. Then the province will not have to take over the veterans hospital.
I see it is now ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we be told by the acting house leader what the business will be on Wednesday?


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, I think that could be made known tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Ontario, 16 April, 1964 CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Premier,
Since the conference in Quebec city at the beginning of the month my colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the problems that were discussed there.
At the conference I reaffirmed what I had said at our previous meeting in November: the federal government fully recognises the increasing burden of provincial responsibilities. This is especially true, as many premiers have emphasized, of education. We all agree that, with our increasing population and with the effect of advancing technology in requiring higher levels of knowledge and skill in more and more jobs, the improvement of educational facilities is a priority need of the country. Our taxation arrangements should recognise such priorities. This means, as I have said, that in order to meet the needs of the people as effectively and economically as possible, the range of tax resources available to the provinces should be increased.
It was in this spirit that, at the November conference, the federal government undertook to make changes in the fiscal arrangements which would otherwise have operated in the current fiscal year, 1964-65. These arrangements resulted in increased revenues to the provinces of $87 millions.
In the same spirit, in spite of our own financial needs, the present government agrees that the arrangements for the following years, which were made in 1961, are inadequate.
I therefore proposed at the Quebec conference that we should jointly undertake a review of the nature and extent of federal and provincial taxes in relation to the financial responsibilities which nowadays have to be carried by Canada and the provinces. This is intended to be a thorough review, which must take into account the findings of the various royal commissions and other inquiries into taxation which are under way at present. It therefore cannot be hurried.
On the other hand, as we said in the communique of the Quebec conference, the tax structure review should not prejudice the early solution of financial problems. After reviewing what was said at the conference,
the federal government has come to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of the country to wait for the results of the joint review, or for the end of the present five year fiscal arrangement, before indicating to provincial governments the scale of the additional tax abatements and equalization payments which we are prepared to place at the disposal of the provinces in future years.
The scale which the government is prepared to recommend to parliament, in due course, is equivalent to an additional abatement of the federal personal income tax of 2 per cent commencing in January 1965 and a further 2 per cent commencing in January 1966, in addition to the increases at those dates already provided in our law.
The other major topic discussed at the federal-provincial conference was pensions. Two features of this discussion seemed to me especially important.
One was that the Quebec plan, as outlined to the conference and since made public, was in most respects not greatly dissimilar from the federal plan.
The second feature of the discussion was the general sense, expressed particularly clearly by the premier of Ontario, that it is important to the unity of our country that our pension arrangements across the country should not set up obstacles to the movement of people, and therefore should be national in character.
It therefore seemed to me that I would be acting in the spirit of the conference if I explored to the fullest extent whether the two plans which have now been framed- the federal plan and the Quebec plan-could be brought together.
I am very happy to report that discussions with the government of Quebec during the past two weeks have shown that this is possible.
Under the proposal which I now wish to put before you, and in which the government of Quebec concurs, the federal government would propose to parliament legislation which would establish a Canada pension plan and provide that any province which so wishes may take full responsibility for applying the plan to everyone employed in that province. Such a province would pass its own legislation to enable its government to administer

the plan in every way, collecting the contributions, investing the funds and paying the benefits.
Alternatively, in provinces wishing the federal government to administer the plan, the legislation would provide that the funds arising from the pension plan should be available to the provincial governments for investment. They would be divided among provinces in ratio to the pension contributions from residents of each province. The provincial government would be required to guarantee to the pension fund a rate of interest at least equal to the rate on long term federal securities.
As part of this plan, the government of Quebec would be willing to support a constitutional amendment, to which other provincial governments have already agreed in principle, enabling the federal plan to provide benefits to widows, irrespective of age, to orphans and to disabled contributors.
The federal proposal, concurred in by Quebec, would provide that pensions should be 25 per cent of earnings up to $5000 a year. This limit would be adjusted, as would the earnings on which benefits are based, in accordance with changes in average earnings averaged over a fairly long period. Benefits in payment would be adjusted to changes in the cost of living, subject to a maximum increase of 2 per cent in any year.
The transition period proposed, before pensions reach their full rate, would be ten years.
Pensions would be paid on retirement from age 65, but up to age 70 would be subject to reduction if earnings exceed specified levels.
Contribution rates would be designed so that the average rate is 1£ per cent each, for employer and employee, at the average level of earnings. This might be achieved by providing that there would be no contribution in respect of earnings up to $600 a year, and a rate of approximately 1.8 per cent would be paid on earnings above that level, up to the $5,000 maximum.
The contribution rate for self employed people would be the combined employer-employee rate.
Coverage would be compulsory for employees with salaries exceeding $600 a year and for self employed people with earnings exceeding $1,000 a year. Self employed people earning between $600 and $1,000 might participate voluntarily.
I believe that these proposals are a satisfactory combination of the two plans which have been worked out in detail. I therefore put them forward for your comment. The federal legislation will then be prepared in the light of the views expressed by you and the other provincial premiers. We are concerned to do this as soon as possible.
The federal government hopes to proceed shortly with legislation providing for the extension of family allowances to children who, either because they are not physically fit to work or because they attend school, remain dependant at the ages of 16 and 17.
Because the province of Quebec has an existing program of a similar nature, these extended allowances will not be paid to Quebec residents. Instead, there will be a compensatory fiscal arrangement similar to that which exists in the case of university grants.
In the light of the comments made by provincial governments at the Quebec conference, the federal government intends to propose arrangements whereby guaranteed bank loans for university students would be available in each province up to a defined amount to students designated by such agency as the province authorizes. If any province prefers to rely on its own loan program, it will be able to receive equivalent compensation.
The various proposals in this letter are made by the federal government in the belief that they will help to unify the country. I know that all provincial governments share my belief that the wishes of all Canadians can best be fulfilled within a federal structure, so that the rights of the provinces are exercised not to the disruption but to the enhancement of the unity of Canada. In that spirit, I hope you will consider these proposals sympathetically and let me have your views at an early date.
L. B. Pearson
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 21, 1964