1964-06-19

POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of some questions I asked the other day relative to a suggestion in the press that the U.S.S.R. would not be buying much more Canadian wheat. I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether his attention has been directed to a statement made yesterday by Mr. Khrushchev in Odense, Denmark, as follows:
It is unlikely Moscow will make further purchases of grain from the west which has provided millions of bushels of wheat to offset poor Russian crops of 1963.
This is a matter that is very important to the economy of Canada. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say what discussions have taken place in this connection, and whether there is sound reason to fear that the U.S.S.R. will be greatly reducing, if not entirely ending, the contracts for the purchase of wheat?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a very important question; it is a question of long range significance. I will have to wait until the return of the Minister of Trade and Commerce today, and perhaps he will be in a position to make a statement on the whole matter early next week.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the uncertainty of continuing wheat sales to the U.S.S.R., if the government would expedite its policy of foreign aid in order to take up some of the slack in wheat exports later this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to look into that situation, Mr. Speaker. I was not quite sure that I heard the hon. member's question correctly, but I think it was that we should
expedite and increase foreign aid. Certain steps have already been taken in this connection, and if the situation requires it and makes it possible, more steps could be taken.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government have announced that they intend to step up foreign aid, particularly in food exports, to some-think like $40 million a year. I am asking the government now if they will take some action to implement this stated policy of theirs to take up some of the slack.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said I would be very glad to look into that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether he could not persuade the government to allow him to bring in at once legislation that will extend family allowances to students of 16 and 17 years of age while attending school, so they might make preparations for the next school term.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation along those lines at the very earliest date, and I hope it will be in early July.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could not the minister try to persuade the government to break into the flag debate in order to bring forward this very important legislation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think the government is-


An hon. Member:: In trouble.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -in an excellent position to decide on the order in which the business should be presented to the house.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the minister consider that this legislation would be far more

Inquiries of the Ministry important and beneficial to the people of this country than the flag debate?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My personal opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that we should dispose of the flag debate at the very earliest moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is that a new suggestion of closure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am under the impression that a supplementary question has been missed. Was the hon. member for Greenwood rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. Brewin:: Mine is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house if, when the bill for the refinancing of the C.N.R. is brought forward, it will be sent to the railway committee so the trucking association will have a chance to bring forward their very legitimate representations on this matter.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: It will be my intention, Mr. Speaker, if that legislation receives second reading, to ask that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which committee, I would hope, would hear not only the truckers but any other interested parties.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether this association could be called before the committee now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this is perhaps a question I ought not to answer, because the matter is before the committee. But perhaps it will save time if I just say that I understand the committee has unanimously taken the decision that the right time to hear them would be when the legislation was before the committee. They could then make representations having knowledge of what was proposed.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question which may appear repetitious but which is asked in light of the fact that we know he has been having encounters with men in the publishing field. Has he gone any further in his reconsideration of the magazine legislation which was proposed, and in particular does he intend to withdraw the presently indicated legislation from the order paper and substitute a different appoach?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have gone no further in this matter.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. In view of the urgency of change in the procedure of this house if it is to be able to conduct the business before it with reasonable dispatch, will the house leader inquire from the committee on procedure and organization and inform this house whether it may expect an early report recommending reasonable means of limiting debate without unduly restricting the rights of members?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted and I will make it a point of duty to inquire.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a telegram from the maritime retail gasoline association asking that a royal commission investigate gasoline price patterns in Canada and, if so, what are the thoughts of the minister on this?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a telegram, and I have the matter presently under consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. In view of the regional nature of the petroleum industry in the maritimes, and their pricing system, will the minister give this matter more than just a routine referral and promise some sort of report back to this house as to the disposition of the matter?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will consider this suggestion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Privy Council. Was the President of the Privy Council in the cabinet room when the film "Mr. Pearson" was being filmed, and were political matters being discussed by those present during the filming?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question twice. There was no filming of a cabinet meeting at any time by anyone. Surely that answer can stand.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think for the third time the Prime Minister has attempted to mislead this house. The first time was in the answer he gave to the hon. member for Royal on Tuesday, and then in the answer he gave me yesterday. Now, when I ask the specific question of the President of the Privy Council as to whether he was present in the cabinet room when the film called "Mr. Pearson" was being filmed, and whether political matters were being discussed, there is confusion on the front benches, and the Prime Minister interferes and says he has already answered that question. I should like my question answered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has accused me of misleading the house in answers I have given. The answers I have given on this matter are strictly and absolutely true, and I would ask the hon. member to accept the fact that there was no filming of any meeting of the cabinet or any committee of the cabinet; and I wish he would discontinue this kind of inquiry when the matter has already been dealt with.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time the Prime Minister has given an answer which he claims is the truth. On the basis of the evidence we have I say that it is not the complete truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the suggestion that the answer I gave him was not the complete truth. It was the total and complete truth.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question was simple. Was the President of the Privy Council present-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the statement that I misled the house and that I did not give the house the total and complete truth.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister has made a request, and I think the hon. member should withdraw the statement unless he has substantial facts to the contrary. There are other ways and means of making a charge instead of making a statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have said, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should withdraw the statement unless he has substantial facts to disprove my statement. I ask that this be an unqualified withdrawal.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister ran into a question that was not directed to him. The question was directed to the President of the Privy Council, who allegedly made the statement in question outside of this house. This is the basis for the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
I point out this, Mr. Speaker, when you are asking for a withdrawal. I am interested in the Prime Minister's attitude today because when a definite statement in this regard was made against me there was no withdrawal, and that was only a few days ago. The statement was made in your presence and it was an improper statement, far and beyond this statement. Nobody was asked for a withdrawal, and I am sure the Prime Minister should not be so touchy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of being touchy. It is a matter of dealing with a statement made by an hon. member opposite that I did not tell the truth in answer to a question. I claim that I have told the truth.

Inquiries of the Ministry totally and completely. I ask him to withdraw the insinuation and the statement that I did not.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to speak to the point of privilege raised. I am certain that this statement was based on a viewing of the film by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I also happen to have seen it; and having seen the film, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the Prime Minister can ask for a withdrawal of the statement by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle because it is based on what seems to me a legitimate point. I am speaking as one who has viewed the film. Either these ministers and the Prime Minister were appearing as actors playing a scene, some sort of facsimile, or there was a subcommittee meeting of the cabinet which a cameraman filmed and to which the producer had access.
I wanted to express this point of view to you in the light of the demand for a withdrawal; because unless we have a statement from the Prime Minister indicating that this was just a play game for camera purposes I am certainly left with the impression that this was a meeting of the subcommittee of cabinet in the Pearson film.


An hon. Member:: Let the public see the film.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was no committee of the cabinet or subcommittee of the cabinet, no meeting of the cabinet which was filmed. I am informed, but I have not seen the picture, that the particular picture appearing in the press purporting to be of a meeting of the cabinet does not even appear in the film.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On that point may I refer to the meeting which is shown in the film. It shows the Prime Minister in the chair. Then we have the Minister of Transport, who was then house leader, sitting to one side; then, ranged in order, we have the Minister of Labour, the then minister of transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They are carrying on a discussion as to how to meet the problems and difficulties in Montreal. Then they go into the question of how to manage the house business and how to meet the difficulties that may be raised by the particular character and attitude of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This certainly gives the impression of a meeting of a committee or subcommittee of cabinet discussing government
[Mr. Pearson.)
business in relation to the House of Commons. It is either that or it is a remarkable job of acting. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should keep this in mind before you ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to withdraw anything at the request of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say this seems to be my week of decision. In any event, each particular case has to be judged on its own merits and I do not think I have to deal with something that is over and, I am happy to say, finished with, I hope. However, I am faced with certain allegations. I have not seen the film. I have not even seen the picture. At this stage I do not want to. But when general allegations of this sort are made against the Prime Minister of the country and the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister says they are not true, I do not see how anyone can expect the Chair to rule on whether or not they are true. I have to take the word of hon. gentlemen in this chamber.
In view of the demand of the Prime Minister of this country and the fact that, if I understood correctly, he said the statements made were not so, were not true, it seems to me I have no alternative but to ask respectfully that the hon. member, who is making general allegations so far as I know at this stage, be kind enough to withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you have the statement of a member of this house, the hon. member for Port Arthur, who saw this thing. He saw it. Certainly his word is to be taken too. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has made certain statements, and I submit that when one hon. member is supported, as is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, by one of the audience that was privileged the other day to see this film which has been suppressed everywhere else, the Prime Minister should not be pressing for a withdrawal. Otherwise, if he presses that point I am going to ask that we have this film so we can get the truth. I am going to ask that it be produced for the benefit of the house so we can find out by actual visual inspection who is telling the truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak for anybody else but I propose to say that I was telling the truth, the total truth, and I ask the hon. gentleman to accept that. He says, in throwing doubt on my word, that two hon. members have seen this film.


John George Diefenbaker: I said one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: One hon. member has seen this film. The hon. member may have seen this film. I have not.


John George Diefenbaker: You did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not seen this film.


Mr. Churchill:: What have you seen, then?


John George Diefenbaker: What did you see, an expurgated edition of an expurgated edition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman will contain his excitement I will finish my statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Give us the truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman who says he has seen the film-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Where is the truth squad now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know hon. gentlemen do not like the truth. That is why they are interrupting.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We like the truth. That is what we want.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the hon. member for Port Arthur if he can bring in evidence to confirm that he saw in the film the particular picture in the newspaper, and that there was any picture in the film of a meeting of the cabinet; because there was not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How do you know? You never saw it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order and whether or not I should withdraw, I submit there are two or three small points that may have escaped your notice. One is that yesterday when I asked my original question I pointed out that a certain picture had appeared in a Montreal newspaper. In this picture I recognized certain things and certain people. Then I looked at the question by the hon. member for Royal on Tuesday and at the answer by the Prime Minister, and there was a discrepancy between that answer and the picture which I saw, in which I recognized certain things as a member of parliament and as an ex-member of the cabinet.
The Prime Minister yesterday repeated to me the answer he gave to the hon. member for Royal, and when I thought Your Honour was ruling future questions like this out of order I rose and put in a caveat to the effect that there were serious implications in the answer of the Prime Minister that I would 20220-286
Inquiries of the Ministry like to review in the light of fuller evidence which I am in the process of collecting.
I would like to read to you, if I may, the reasonable way I put my question yesterday:
I have in my hand a copy of the Montreal Gazette of yesterday which shows what purports to be-


Lester Bowles Pearson: "What purports to be".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: a still picture from this controversial film. It is labelled "At cabinet. This picture of Prime Minister Pearson addressing the cabinet was taken from the controversial film". I would like to ask the Prime Minister-and I am sure there is a rational explanation for this-whether he could give to the house a more rational explanation of this apparent contradiction, so that unhappy interpretations will not be placed on this apparent difference.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked yesterday, as a reasonably moderate member of the house, to have the Prime Minister give me the full explanation of what went on. Apparently one of the members of the press went to the Prime Minister's office and got a fuller explanation last night, and it appears in the Globe and Mail this morning.
The Prime Minister refused that fuller explanation to me yesterday so today, when I asked a follow up question to get at more of the facts from the President of the Privy Council, whether he was at a meeting in the cabinet room when these people were filming this film called "Mr. Pearson", and whether political matters were being discussed, I would like an answer to that question. On that answer a great deal depends as to whether or not I am willing to withdraw the remarks I have made to the Prime Minister.
Once again I repeat; the third point is that I did not say what the Prime Minister said yesterday was in the narrow sense untrue. I said in my view it was not the complete truth. The Prime Minister says it was the complete and total truth; but the hon. member for Port Arthur, who has seen the film, knows from his observations of that film, and on his word as a member of this house, says it left the impression in his mind that this was in the cabinet room and that certain things were being discussed that left the impression with the viewer of that film that this was part of the daily life of a prime minister.
I am suggesting here that when the Prime Minister made that statement yesterday it was not the complete truth. The complete truth can only be found when we see the film, so I am asking certain ministers what went

Inquiries of the Ministry on there and whether certain things said in that film were said by them.
I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council, was he there when this film crew was in the cabinet room when certain political matters were being discussed, and when I get an answer from him I will at least know where I stand. I would be willing to withdraw if the Prime Minister feels hurt over these things, if I could get an answer to my question, but I do not want a red herring drawn across the question I asked. I want to get an answer, which is my right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member to withdraw the statement he made, and you have asked him to withdraw. He is now talking about the impression which may have been created in people's minds that this was a meeting of the cabinet. I tell him again, and the house, that I am informed this particular newspaper photograph did not appear in the film at all.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I repeat, I am informed that it did not, by those responsible for showing the film. I also repeat that there was no filming of a cabinet meeting at all, and the picture in question was not a picture of a meeting of the cabinet. It was a picture of certain cabinet ministers assembling before a cabinet meeting. There was no filming of any cabinet meeting or any committee of the cabinet, and I repeat that according to my information the particular picture in question did not appear in the film that was shown.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before an irrevocable decision is made on your part may I refer Your Honour to citation 154 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne, paragraph 5, which says:
It is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is untrue, but it is unparliamentary to say that it was untrue to the knowledge of the member addressing the house.
I think this illustrates the wisdom of the decisions laid down under this citation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One thing finally, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw my remarks if I can get an answer to the original question I asked the President of the Privy Council, without interference from the Prime Minister and any of his colleagues.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before the President of the Privy Council replies I ask you to confirm the ruling you have made.

According to the hon. member the withdrawal is now made conditional on the President of the Privy Council answering a question. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you have asked for unconditional withdrawal, and it should be given.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of the members of the house who saw that film in its entirety when it was presented by members of the press gallery down at Crawley Films. I was there from the beginning until the very end, and I can back up the Prime Minister in every detail of his statement when he states that the picture purporting to be a meeting of the cabinet, the picture that appeared in the newspaper, does not appear in the film from beginning to end. There are one or two pictures purporting to show meetings of committee of the cabinet which occupy a good portion of the film but which I consider the worst piece of motion picture t.v. programming I ever did see. I repeat that the purported picture in the newspaper did not appear in the film; only those two committee meetings.


Mr. Speaker:: This is certainly not the easiest decision to give especially when the evidence, to my poor legal brain, seems to be somewhat faulty. It seems to me allegations are made this morning on pictures which appear in newspapers and on implications drawn from the seeing of a film. On the one side that is the charge. On the other side you have the total repudiation by the Prime Minister of the country, that there was no meeting of the cabinet at this time.
Inasmuch as the right hon. Prime Minister must have been at that meeting, or at least his colleagues were, I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the people who were on the spot and not to pictures that may appear in the newspapers or to implications drawn from headings, or otherwise from the viewing of the film. Therefore in view of the complete, absolute and total denial by the Prime Minister of the implication and of the charge, it does seem to me that according to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 155:
It will be useful to give examples here of expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference. These may be classified as follows:
1.	The imputation of false or unavowed motives.
2.	The misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation.
3.	Charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood-

Therefore in the circumstances and in view of the discussion I would respectfully ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to withdraw.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think I made my conditions known. I asked quietly for an answer from the President of the Privy Council and it was not given to me. I know the Prime Minister's statement leaves aside the real issue. I am not talking about this film particularly; I am simply trying to get an answer to the question. Until I get that answer I think my rights have been infringed, and I have no recourse but to say my conditions are unchanged and I will leave the course of action up to you.


Mr. Speaker:: I know very well the hon. gentleman, whom I respect and have respected ever since I had the privilege of meeting him; and without in any way wishing to imply that I am dodging the issue-because I am not dodging the issue-in view of the statements and countercharges and allegations and questions asked yesterday and today I do think it is reasonable for the Chair to be allowed some time to examine this matter carefully. I do not wish to make a wrong decision or to render injustice to either side, but I think the Chair is taken somewhat by surprise. It is my responsibility, but I should like, over the week end, to go into this further and consider the matter carefully. Therefore I will take it under consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that one way of clearing up this particular allegation would be to have a showing of this film for members of parliament. I hope that can be arranged, and that this can be done without interfering with the C.B.C., who have custody of the film. I will take the right hon. gentleman's request to the C.B.C. and join in that request that this film be made available to members.


John George Diefenbaker: That shows the benefit of discussion, Mr. Speaker. The other day there was suppression. Now we are to get the film, possibly, if the Prime Minister can direct the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I resent the right hon. gentleman's words. There has been no suppression. I said in this house a week ago that whatever decision was made by the C.B.C. I would gladly accept it. If I had told the right hon. gentleman at that time that I would ask the C.B.C. to make this film available he would 20220-286J
Inquiries of the Ministry then have accused me of interference, as he is doing now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the floor and wish to complete my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I can only say I am very glad I do not have to attend caucus any more.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker, to complete my statement-


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, the Prime Minister may wave his hand-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister was, I believe, completing his statement, and I do not know on what ground the Leader of the Opposition is rising.


An hon. Member:: He is annoyed.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not at all annoyed. I am, rather, amused by the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Calm him down.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us take this in sequence. First, the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Since I am going to be accused of interfering with the C.B.C. whatever I do or do not do, I agree that the C.B.C. should be asked to show the film to members of parliament. And in view of what has happened this morning I hope I shall not be accused of interfering with the affairs of the C.B.C. if I get in touch with the president of the corporation and express my own view that this film should now be exhibited publicly.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, the Prime Minister a moment ago adopted the fighting attitude of Bonnie Dundee. Well, Bonnie Dundee had some influence. The Prime Minister does not exercise the same influence. He now says, after ten days of soul searching, that he will get in touch with the C.B.C. to find out whether they might produce this film and allow members to see it. Well, we have got that far along the road. Now we want the Canadian people to see it.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is the one who stopped this being shown.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, that last statement by the right hon. gentleman is false and untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not ask for withdrawals. I do not have that thin skin which the Prime Minister showed today and which he has shown so often. I do not mind what he says. The facts tell the story, that the Prime Minister and the government interfered. Otherwise they would not have had the 12 screenings. It was not enjoyment and entertainment which kept them there watching it all those times.


Mr. Speaker:: We now seem to have reached a happy conclusion, and I am not going to admit any more supplementaries.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to ask a small supplementary question. If the Prime Minister intends to ask the C.B.C. to let members of parliament see this film, I think we would want to see the complete film before editing took place. We want to see the original film before it was censored; we want to find out why the C.B.C. refused to produce it. It is these missing parts that are of interest to us. I think the C.B.C. have been under tremendous pressure as a result of all these screenings; they have turned it down because they will not publish, under their own name, a censored film. I should like to look at the uncensored film to see what has been taken out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to ask the C.B.C. to show the hon. gentleman the missing parts of the film.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us get on with the business before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask him if he will ascertain whether the C.B.C. yesterday refused to permit the screening of a print of the film "Mr. Pearson" for a group in Ottawa last night. Did the C.B.C. take the stand that the expurgated edition which they have on hand is being held in escrow, and will the minister direct the attention of the C.B.C. to the fact that what is wanted is not the revised or expurgated edition but the entire edition before it received excision following the consideration given it by ministers of the government?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: I will, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: I want my $2 back.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I told you that you would be disappointed.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State say that no pressure through any agency has been brought to bear on any private television system which would preclude such system from showing the Bal-lentine film of the Prime Minister?


Maurice Lamontagne: I know of no pressure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State in relation to certain other matters that have happened this morning. I wondered whether he would ask the president of the C.B.C. to arrange for a public showing of the unexpurgated edition of their film on the Leader of the Opposition?


John George Diefenbaker: Sure. That would be wonderful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome that, for the edification of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State?
If the C.B.C. intends to show the film "Mr. Pearson" on the English t.v. network, will it be possible to see it also on the French network?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall pass on to the C.B.C. the hon. member's request.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: For $35,000, it is worth the trouble.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I wish to point out in the first place that if the suggestion I made a year ago, namely that the

proceedings of the House of Commons be televised, had been accepted, we would certainly have seen a good show this morning.
The question which I wish to ask to the right hon. Prime Minister is based on the official report of June 18, 1964, in the right column on page 4445, when the Prime Minister made a statement concerning the submission of a resolution to the parliament of Westminster to amend our constitution. He said the following:
The means for achieving this purpose - that is by submission of a resolution to the parliament at Westminster is of course strangely out of date and indeed inappropriate.
My question is as follows. Does the present government intend to introduce a bill or a measure to repatriate our constitution as a result of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter has, of course, been discussed, and it is before the house in connection with the resolution. If I did not deal yesterday with this particular point it was because I thought it would be out of order to do so, since the resolution provides only for an amendment to the British North America Act for a particular purpose; it does not deal with the whole process of the repatriation of our constitution. But I can assure the hon. member that in the course of the debate, if it were in order, we would be very glad indeed to take up this matter, and we do have every intention of taking steps to repatriate our constitution. As a further step in the progress which has been made we propose to put the matter on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference to be held in Charlottetown, I believe, in August.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
When hon. members on this side ask questions which are serious enough for the Prime Minister to answer them seriously and intelligently, people like the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) keep on saying they are stupid questions.
This is my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members on this side have the right to ask questions without being interrupted by people like the hon. member for Lotbiniere and without having their questions called stupid.
Inquiries of the Ministry In this connection I feel that you must call people like that to order because not only during the question period but throughout the whole day they flout the privileges of the house and do not act in a gentlemanly way in this assembly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me every member in the house owes respect to his colleagues, and I hope that it sufficient warning for the future.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and in his absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the importance of the tourist industry in the province of Nova Scotia, can the minister's parliamentary secretary tell the house what progress is being made on the Kejimkujik national park, and when can we expect development to start on this tourist attraction?


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



WATER SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
mooney's bay area On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question that affects public safety. I direct it to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether in conjunction with the Minister of Justice he is prepared to provide immediate supervision of the Mooney's bay and adjacent areas of the Rideau river for the protection of the public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was much intrigued by the suggestion of the mayor of Ottawa that I should go "canoedling" with that lady, and if I were not so frightfully busy I would like to do it. But I am going to suggest to the honourable lady that she invite the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to replace me on that occasion. Actually I think it is well known that the laws regarding offences are made by the parliament of Canada but
4496	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the primary responsibility for the enforcement of these laws rests on the provincial and local authorities. I think the mayor of Ottawa was quite right in referring the matter to the police commission of the city.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a resident of that area I noticed that last year the patrol was carried out by the R.C.M. Police. Is that not to be the case again this year? It is an urgent and serious matter. I did not mention the interesting suggestion of the mayor of Ottawa, but I am a better canoeist than my hon. friend. It is a very serious matter because of the accident that occurred there just a few days ago, and on several occasions in the past I have observed similar near accidents. I should hope that immediate action would be taken effective this week end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will have the matter looked into as soon as the orders of the day are over, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him, with regard to the flag resolution, whether when part A is disposed of, part B will be immediately debated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will announce the order of the business in due course. Naturally the order of business in the house is determined by the length of time devoted to any particular measure.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can either the Prime Minister or the government house leader tell us what the business will be for Monday and Tuesday? I ask this question not only as a supplementary but because I do not think we got the complete picture last night.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We didn't get the picture at all last night.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, to complete what I said last night, on Monday we will be taking interim supply if the debate on the constitutional amendment is completed, but we will complete the debate on the constitutional amend-


ment first. Just before taking interim supply we will live up to the arrangement made among the house leaders to have a short debate on the measure respecting the Roosevelt Campobello international park.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is in reference to his announcement last night concerning the ferry to operate between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and North Sydney. Would the minister consider making a statement in order to alleviate the anxiety that exists in North Sydney and district concerning this new ferry service that is to be put into operation? Could he make a statement to the effect that freight handling will still be carried out in North Sydney, so as to continue employment there? This is a question I posed on another occasion, and I believe it was posed last night by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). I should like to know whether it is possible to get a reply of some sort, because the mayors of the towns, the boards of trade and the stevedores who will be affected are very interested in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question.


Robert Muir: I beg your pardon, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked a rather long question.


Robert Muir: Could I get a reply, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will put it on the order paper. I am sure he would get a reply.


Robert Muir: With Your Honour's permission I should like to debate this question at the first opportunity at ten o'clock.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Because it is necessary for

some students wishing to continue their education to be assured of a student loan before applying for college entrance this summer, does the Prime Minister not consider the proposed student loan legislation urgent enough to be proceeded with at once?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is very urgent and important legislation, but so is other legislation before the house. I hope this particular proposal to which my hon. friend refers will be disposed of in ample time for students to benefit from it before the beginning of the next academic year.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister based on his announcement yesterday that at one o'clock today the report of the royal commission on health services would be tabled. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will be making a statement at the time he tables that report at one o'clock, after asking that the house revert to motions, or will he be tabling any kind of summary with respect to this important document?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression, subject to checking, that at one o'clock, if the house agrees, we will be tabling volume 1 of the report. Volume 2 is merely the volume containing the supporting papers and evidence, and volume 1 is the substantive report. With it will be tabled, I believe, a summary made by the commission of the contents and recommendations of the report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the report contains some specific recommendations, will the government be acting on them as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will have to consider the recommendations first, to see whether it is the government's policy to implement them. They have to be studied. Those which are to be implemented should, I agree, be put into effect as soon as possible.



X-RAY EXAMINATION OF POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a
Inquiries of the Ministry couple of days ago the hon. member for Kootenay West posed to me the question whether a request had been received from employees of the Post Office Department in Ottawa for X-ray testing as the result of one of their members having to be hospitalized with a case of active tuberculosis. I should like to thank my hon. friend for this inquiry and to inform him that my department has arranged for chest X-rays of all the employees in that department, and we are looking into the possibility of extending this examination.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to compliment the minister for taking effective action.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In consideration of the complex problems of low water in the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway, and flood conditions in other parts of the country, has any thought been given to the establishment of a departmental division staffed by competent engineers to deal with these matters governed by properly constituted water laws?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is a very great deal of governmental machinery to deal with this very important problem that we are seeking to improve all the time. If there is any possibility of improving its co-ordination, and if hon. members from any quarter of the house or anyone else can make any suggestions for improving what is, after all, one of the greatest of all our national assets, this would be very welcome to the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell the house if he contacted the government of the province of Quebec in order to settle the problem which

Inquiries of the Ministry now exists in the Thetford Mines area, concerning the merger of two or three asbestos mines?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no communication on that subject from the Quebec government.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I answer a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding the presumed signing of an agreement between the S.I.U. and Northland Navigation Company Limited.
It is not the role of the trustees to approve or disapprove any agreements entered into by unions under trusteeship, though they are entitled under the law, as the hon. member realizes, to tender advice to bargaining committees or to designate officers to act on such committees where they do not exist.
In the particular case reported by the hon. member for Kootenay West I am advised that a memorandum of understanding has been concluded to be placed before the membership and, if ratified, an agreement between the S.I.U. and the Northland company will be signed. This is a renewal of an existing agreement. Its acceptance or rejection is up to the membership of the union itself, and naturally members of any other union will have no opportunity to determine what action the S.I.U. itself will take on this agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the information, but is this memorandum of agreement approved by the trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On that specific point, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the trustees have indicated either approval or disapproval of the memorandum itself. I realize the circumstances in which my hon. friend is interested, and I can understand the relationship which may exist between this memorandum and the negotiations undertaken by the other union. I know there is a relationship, but the membership of the S.I.U. must itself ulti-
[Mr. Langlois.l
mately determine whether the agreement is or is not a good agreement.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I undertook to try to have an answer today to the question asked by the hon. member for Chapleau concerning a meeting to be held on June 30 regarding the water level in the port of Montreal.
I believe the hon. member is referring to a meeting organized by the port council of Montreal. I understand that the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will both be present at least for part of the meeting, and that officials of a number of interested government departments will be participating.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the	Commons of Canada
in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act 1867.
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Amendment as to legislation respecting old age pensions. 30 & 31 Viet., c. 3; 9 Eliz. II, c. 2.
1. Section ninety four A of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:

Legislation respecting old age pensions and supplementary benefits.
"94A. The parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors' and disability benefits irrespective of age, but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter."
Short title and citation.
2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1964, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shortly before government business was suspended last evening for royal assent proceedings, when the house was considering a motion by the right hon. Prime Minister for the presentation of an address requesting a constitutional amendment, the hon. member for Villeneuve moved in amendment thereto the following:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier), that the following words be added to section 94A after the words "to any such matter": "but this amendment to the British North America Act does apply only to those provinces who will ask for it".
A number of hon. members were considerate, enough to offer their views on the legality of the amendment. As I pointed out last night, many of the arguments put forward either in support of or in opposition to the amendment touched on the constitutional aspect of the matter rather than on the very limited procedural aspect that must be of concern to the Chair in accepting or rejecting the motion.
The hon. member for Lapointe made a very interesting contribution to the discussion. He argued that this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Villeneuve is constitutional. He said in particular, as reported at page 4671 of the French edition of Hansard:

I say that the subamendment is constitutional and that it completes the other one because it bears no relation to the legislation which the government proposes to introduce this year concerning old age pensions.
It is a complementary amendment because it is connected with the future legislation that the federal government will wish to move as regards the Old Age Pensions Act; it will also permit the government to legislate on the supplementary benefits, including survivors and disability benefits, irrespective of age.
And further on:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that to save a principle is far more important that all the arguments put forward by representatives of the four other parties. We must save the principle that, in such fields, in provincial fields, the federal government should never be able to take action without
British North America Act the consent or the agreement of the provinces, more particularly of the province of Quebec.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe you should declare the amendment in order.
The suggestion that the amendment is constitutionally acceptable or that it deserves the support of the house as to its principle, does not, I think, mean that it is necessarily acceptable as far as standing orders are concerned.
An amendment is out of order from the procedural standpoint if it contradicts the main motion it is intended to amend. In the remarks he made last night, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) said:
-I submit that the amendment is entirely out of order, because it is contrary to the very nature of the subject matter and also because it would render meaningless the aim and object of the resolution now under consideration.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were of the same opinion.

May I refer particularly to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who said in part, as reported at page 4479 of Hansard, when speaking to this amendment:
It is not relevant in that it says that it does not apply to the provinces. Section 94A does not apply to the provinces either. This is an amendment giving the federal parliament power; and when an hon. member comes along with an amendment which says that it does not apply to the provinces unless that is asked for, our problem is that it does not seem to make any sense in English or in French.
I should like to refer hon. members to citation 203(1) of the fourth edition of Beau-chesne, page 171, which reads as follows:
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I also refer hon. members to citation 202, paragraph 12, which reads as follows:
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage-
I might say I am not too enthusiastic about the word "verbiage". It seems to have a rather strong connotation which I would not like to apply to the amendment proposed by the hon. member.
-is out of order.
Then, paragraph 15 reads as follows:
An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order. On the

Division
20 October, 1932, the prime minister moved that the house approve a trade agreement entered into between Canada and the United Kingdom. An amendment was moved that the house welcomed certain terms of the agreement and condemned several features of it. The Speaker ruled it out because (a) the portion of the amendment which approved the agreement was useless as it suggested no change in the main motion, and also, (b) an amendment to disapprove what the main motion approves is nothing but an expanded negative.

That is why I must reluctantly rule out of order the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house has heard the Speaker's ruling which was appealed by the hon. member for Lapointe.
All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.

All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from the ruling of the Chair which is as follows:


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair ruled the proposed amendment out of order in that it was in effect an expanded negative and also that what it proposed was foreign to and in contradiction of the proposal in the main motion.
Whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from a decision of the Chair.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I declare the decision of the Chair confirmed.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Musltoka):: Mr. Speaker, other hon. members who have preceded me dwelt on the very unhappy situation relating to amendments to our constitution. I do not intend to speak along those lines, but rather to apply myself directly to the nature of the address itself and to the amendment to the British North America Act which is being proposed.
The purpose of the motion is to permit survivor and disability benefits to be included in the pension legislation which the government has proposed. I cannot quarrel with this purpose. In fact, when I made a critical analysis of the plan during the throne speech debate this was one of the major matters I discussed, and in the past other hon. members have spoken of some of the shortcomings in the Canada pension plan. Therefore, in principle I am in agreement with the need for an amendment to permit survivor and disability benefits to be included.
However, the mere fact that this proposal is now before the house puts very severe doubt on the sincerity of certain members of the government and certain other members in stating that there were survivorship benefits in the former plan. Time and again we raised the criticism that there were no survivor benefits but government speakers rose to say that there were.
The first thing I would point out is that the title of Bill C-75 describes the bill as "an act to establish a comprehensive program
British North America Act of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors and survivors." To say the least I think that was misleading, because it was well known there were no survivorship benefits for people who did not come within the old age category.
I would also like to refer to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, recorded at page 449 of Hansard for March 2, in which he stated there were survivorship benefits. I do not intend to belabour this point but I think this is an appropriate time to draw these remarks to the attention of the house. The hon. member said:
Thus there are benefits for survivors under the Canada pension plan.
A little further down the right hand column he said:
Surely these facts, which are on record, completely debunk any suggestion that there is no survivor benefit under this plan.
I believe, Mr. Speaker that in the anxiety of the government to sell what was obviously a deficient plan to the people of Canada its members were insincere, and I would go so far as to say were misleading the general public.


Mr. Munro:: On a point of privilege, the hon. member referred to my speech when I said there were survivorship benefits under the Canada pension plan. I would point out I went into a little further detail than he has mentioned. Surely, before he makes accusations of insincerity, he must have studied the plans and white papers which showed there were always aging survivor benefits under the Canada pension plan. This was always so, and I am sure the hon. member was aware of it. There was never any doubt that a constitutional amendment would be required for survivorship benefits to people who were not aged; I think the hon. member should be more careful when casting slurs on people's characters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To my mind there is no point of order in what the hon. member for Hamilton East has said. He is simply debating the issue, and he will have an opportunity later to rectify any statements made.


John Carr Munro: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was not observing the rules of propriety when he said there was insincerity. He is very well aware of what I was referring to when I mentioned survivorship benefits.
4502	HOUSE OF
British North America Act Mr. Aiken: May I say, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been unparliamentary, the expression I used would have been much more severe. The term "insincerity" was the least offensive word I could think of using under the circumstances. In fact the hon. member has proven the very point I was trying to make. The government was trying to tell the people of Canada that there were survivorship benefits in this plan when in fact there were no benefits for anyone under the old age criterion of 65 years, and to read that into the bill was not a proper approach.
I do not withdraw my remarks. The government attempted to sell this plan across the country, stating there were survivorship benefits in it. Various people wrote to me saying "You say there are no survivorship benefits and the government says there are. Which is right"? I am merely trying to point out that there were no survivorship benefits, that this was an incomplete plan, and that now we are coming to the truth of the matter.
I want to direct my next remarks to the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre who sits to my left. I see he is in the house. I would think he also finds himself in a difficult position in this situation, because during the course of the debate on the original plan the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose in the house on several occasions-and I have the quotations here-and told those who would listen to him or read his remarks that this was a wonderful plan, that we must get along with it and have it approved. I do not doubt his sincerity in thinking so, but surely he was wrong. He now finds the government has pulled the rug from under him by saying, in effect, "This great plan you were so proud of a couple of months ago really was not any good; we are having to bring in these amendments to the constitution".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not like to quote accurately what I said, which was to the effect that I thought the other plans were good but that the new one is better? What is wrong with an improvement?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Unfortunately we did not have a statement of that sort at the time. If the hon. member wishes me to quote him, I will quote the concluding sentence of his speech as it appears on page 1186 of Hansard, the second paragraph:
As far as the Canada pension plan itself is concerned, the principle is good and it is our responsibility to the Canadian people to try to get it into effect at the earliest possible date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I say that the principle was not good. The principle was bad. The principle was to proceed with the Canada pension plan without any survivors or disability benefits. That was a matter of principle.


Mr. Francis:: The hon. member says there was no provision for survivors benefits. I ask him whether provision was not made for dependant widows, who are of course survivors.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If it were so good, what are we doing today?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are improving it. What is
wrong with that?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I merely say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must find himself in an embarrassing position, and I will leave it at that. I think the government has left him holding a big empty bag.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May it not be because of the criticisms made from this side of the house that the government was put in the position of having to improve its own legislation?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I did not hear any criticism coming from the hon. member. I heard nothing but praise.
Having battered about a little, I should like now to get down to the meat of my speech, because I think there are some serious discrepancies in the plan. I think it is right to say that amendments should have been made in the first place. I believe that we are proceeding now in the right direction. The question I wish to raise is this; whether all the loose ends of the plan can be pulled together to make a cohesive and successful national plan. My fear, and it is a real one, is that with the various new starts, changes and alterations, white papers and bills which are now lying around, these innumerable letters and votes that I tried to pull together myself in my limited way in order to find out whether they had any connection with the Canada pension plan-and I am afraid I was just unable to do so-


John Carr Munro: That is obvious.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member for Hamilton East is trying to get his own back. He can make a little speech of his own, perhaps, and I hope it is better than the last one he made.
The first thing I should like to do is to look at the physical condition of the plan, by which I mean the papers.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Are we discussing the pension plan or the amendment to the constitution?
If we are discussing the amendment to the constitution, I would ask the hon. member to stop talking about the pension plan, and if we have a right to speak about that, please let us know.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If I may be so bold as to say so, I feel I am speaking to the question before the house. The point which the hon. member's leader raised had nothing to do with the amendment; it concerned the general question of what we should do about amending the constitution. That is not what we are discussing at all. We are discussing an application to the United Kingdom to amend section 94A with reference to survivors and disability pensions. In fact I think I am the first speaker who has been on the point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Marcoux: May I also point out to the hon. member that, to my knowledge, my leader has never talked about any amendment to the constitution.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the hon. member asks his question, I should like to say that looking at the matter before the house at the moment and reading the marginal note, I would think the essence of this matter is legislation respecting old age pensions and supplementary benefits. So I would think that as long as members talk about old age pensions and supplementary benefits they are in order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I tell the hon. member for York-Scarborough that I only have about 12 minutes left before one o'clock and I should like to finish my speech before that time. If he would withhold his question, he might be fortunate enough to have a member of his own party begin after the noon adjournment. I am trying to set out the approach I take to this amendment and the reasons we should, or should not, apply for it.
I should like to consider the bits and pieces of this plan which are now before us. The first is Bill No. C-75, which is on the order
British North America Act paper. I am sure this will have to be withdrawn and a new one presented, because the form of the plan has been radically changed. The second is the resolution on the order paper to set up a committee. It is not properly worded to suit the new plan, and I assume it will have to be withdrawn, or amended, or that some other action will have to be taken. In any case it does give the government the chance to proceed with a reference to a committee.
I wonder whether the intentions of the government are still the same as they were before it was decided to seek these amendments. At first, perhaps, the government was anxious for the committee to bail it out of its difficulties; the Prime Minister consented to the committee having the broadest terms of reference so as to be able to make reports on questions of principle. I believe he had in mind a vague hope that the committee would throw the bill back and say "No, we must have these disability and survivors' benefits". Now that the course has changed, I wonder whether the government still wishes the committee to have such broad terms of reference. We do not know, because we are in a completely new situation.
The third difficulty arises from the innumerable exchanges of letters between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces. I have examined the parliamentary records and find there are a great number of returns in connection with the Canada pension plan. There are many letters. There is sessional paper No. 202-J, filed on June 10, which is the most recent. There are others which contain copies of letters written by the Prime Minister to private individuals and to provincial premiers. There have been two white papers filed, in addition to the bill, and we wonder which of these documents and letters are applicable to the proposed new plan, which of these undertakings we can now consider to be live. In addition, I wonder what other letters, documents or statements are still outstanding, papers which no one has been wise enough to ask for, or which have not yet been made public.
I think the Canada pension plan is in a state of disarray as far as the papers are concerned. I believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare must have nightmares about the undertakings which may come back to haunt them when the plan is finally brought before the house.
Not only is the plan itself, the physical condition of the plan, in disarray; so is its

British North America Act application. The first thing I would like to point out is that the provinces now have four alternatives if the present proposal is put into effect. First, they can permit the Canada pension plan to be operated by the federal government within the province. Second, the province itself can operate the Canada pension plan within the province and administer the funds and the plan. Third, the province can operate its own plan on a basis that would make it portable with the Canada pension plan; that is, making its minimum provisions approximately the same so that a person may go from province to province and have some portability of pension. Finally, a province can ignore the Canada pension plan and operate completely outside it.
This latter point is confirmed, mainly in principle, by the vote we had this morning on the amendment. I do not wish to say anything more about that, but the fact is that even the amendment for which we are asking does not exclude a province either now or in the future from bringing in its own plan having no relationship whatsoever to the Canada pension plan.
This is the ludicrous position the Canada pension plan is now in. There are four alternatives for the provinces to adopt. Which one, or which combinations of plans, will each of the provinces adopt? I would hope -and I am not saying these things for the purpose of causing trouble-that when this is all sorted out the provinces can be persuaded to implement something which will constitute a national plan. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing of that type in evidence now.
Just to illustrate my point let me say this. Having got Quebec into this whole deal, Quebec is now out. The plan that Quebec proposed has been, in substance, accepted by the federal government, although I know that in the provincial legislature there is some difference of opinion between Mr. Lesage and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Lesage says that Ottawa followed his plan and Mr. Johnson says that Mr. Lesage followed Ottawa's plan. Kegard-less of which of these allegations may be true, there is still some time in which to consider these two plans. We have to ascertain whether the Quebec plan will be portable with the plans which other provinces now have in readiness. I think particularly of Ontario, and of the province of Saskatchewan. Will these plans be portable?

Then what about private plans, Mr. Speaker? This is the most recent difficulty that has arisen. We have heard that the province of Quebec intends to take over the registration and control of private plans that will operate outside the Canada pension plan. I am not sure how far this will go, but it does point up the difficulty that we are going to encounter in the need to tie in private plans with the Canada pension plan. Where are these plans going to be tied in? We have no direction on this whatsoever. In addition to the four alternatives the provinces have with regard to public plans, they have just as many alternatives with regard to private plans. Ontario has in readiness a plan for portability; it should come into effect at the beginning of next year.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might interject on a question of privilege upon which I would like a ruling. I am sorry to make it necessary for the hon. member to continue his speech at 2.30.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That's all right; I shall be here.


John Carr Munro: I should like to quote from the hon. member's speech as reported at page 321 of Hansard, the speech to which the hon. member referred, and my speech in reply. The hon. member said, as is reported in the first column on page 321:
In the third place, wives and children of breadwinners need not wait anxiously for the implementation of the Canada pension plan. There is nothing in it for them. There are no survivorship or dependency benefits in the Canada pension plan.
Then he referred to my speech, but to only one part, unfortunately, and I should like to read where I commented on this statement that there were no survivorship benefits in the Canada pension plan. I refer to page 449 of Hansard, the first column, where I am reported as having said:
The hon. member talked-I think this should be on the record-about the wives and children of breadwinners who would not be covered because there was no survivorship or dependency of benefits. I would point out that the hon. member says a man could pay into the Canada pension plan for 40 years-I think these were his words-and at age 64 neither he, his wife nor his children would receive any benefit from the plan.
I was quoting the hon. member. Then I went on:
He is wrong when he says that. I think this can be pointed out by all the literature that has already been distributed on the plan, and these are the facts. If a contributor such as the hon. member spoke of dies at the age of 65, his widow will be able to receive at age 65 a pension of

60 per cent of the benefit he would have received. If he is over age 65 at the date of death and is receiving benefit, she will be entitled to receive 60 per cent of his benefit, provided she is over age 65. Thus there are benefits for survivors under the Canada pension plan.
When it was claimed that there were survivorship benefits under the Canada pension plan, I specifically spelled out on the record what kind they were. I did this in answer to the hon. member who was saying there were no survivorship benefits under the plan. At no time did I claim-and that is why I went into detail-that there were survivorship benefits for widows under 65. At that time there were not, because there was not a constitutional amendment.
In view of the fact that this has been explained in detail, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should withdraw his remarks and should be reprimanded, because all he did was quote one blanket statement that I made without quoting in detail the explanation I gave for the purpose of the record. I was indeed accurate in what I said, and I think the hon. member was certainly out of order in saying I was insincere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I can only repeat what I said a moment ago, namely that I do not think there is a question of privilege here. The hon. member claims that he has been misquoted. It is his privilege to say so, but he has the opportunity to take part in the debate and try to rectify the record as he thinks it should be rectified. I certainly do not think it is unparliamentary for an hon. member to say that he suspects another hon. member of insincerity. I do not believe precedent would show that the use of this particular expression is unparliamentary. I would therefore have to rule that there is no question of privilege.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the privilege of calling it one o'clock, so that I may continue my remarks after the adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as agreed, and in the name of the Prime Minister I would like to table-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Revert to motions.
British North America Act


Guy Favreau: I thought there was agreement. I ask for leave to revert to motions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: In the name of the Prime Minister I now wish to table in English and in French, the report of the royal commission on health services, together with summaries in English and in French prepared by the commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is volume 1, is it?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is volume 1. Volume 1 is the report and volume 2, which is to come, contains the annexes to it.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the	 Commons of Canada
in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Amendment as to legislation respecting old age pensions. 30 & 31 Viet., c. 3; 9 Eliz. II, c. 2.
1. Section ninety four A of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
[Stage Direction]
British North America Act
Legislation respecting old age pensions and supplementary benefits.
"94A. The parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors' and disability benefits irrespective of age, but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter."
Short title and citation.
2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1964, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I was interrupted by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), who took exception to my previous statement that he had tried to give the impression that there were survivorship benefits in the former pension plan. His intervention on a question of privilege I took to be an effort to prove that he did know all the time that the previous pension plan was no good. In the result he proved the very point I was trying to make, which was that with full knowledge that the former plan was not satisfactory he nevertheless continued to give the public the general impression that the plan was wonderful.
I was discussing, Mr. Speaker, the question of private pension plans when I was interrupted. The government has dipped into matters of provincial jurisdiction to bring on the benefits of a pension plan, but they do not want the responsibility of the private pension plan problems. They just invade the provincial field far enough to create a problem in connection with private pension plans, but not to the point of giving any assistance to help solve the problem they have created. They say to the provinces: "We are bringing forward a national plan which we want you to accept, because it is beneficial". To this point the present legislation and proposals go; but having reached that point and created problems for private plans all across the country, the government stop there and say to the provinces: "Well, this question of private plans really is not our responsibility; it is yours, so you solve it the best way you can".
Just before one o'clock I stated my contention that this is not a satisfactory way of solving the problem. There are four alternatives the provinces can take in connection with the national plan. There are just as many or even more alternatives that can be taken in connection with private plans. My point is that the situation is going to be so


confused that there will not be any national plan or any uniformity in pensions across Canada.
I am seriously concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the economic effects of this whole plan. So far as a pension plan provides a vehicle for compulsory savings for retirement, I can see no objection in principle. I think it is a worthy effort to encourage, in fact to compel in some cases, people to save for their retirement years and for their future. To this extent I have no objection, and to the point to which this plan goes it is a worthy effort. But the trouble now is that this plan has gone far beyond what one would call a compulsory savings plan; it is developing into something else.
I should like to express the situation by saying that the plan now is not a pension plan but a pension deal. In other words, it is based on the result of bargains which have been struck all over the place and is not the result of a calm and considered pension plan. This is not the time to go into details, Mr. Speaker, but there are departures from the basic set-up for pensions which have gone far beyond what I believe to be suitable for a national pension plan. These changes are alarming. The escalation of benefits is much too steep for any actuarial plan, or for anything approaching an actuarial plan, to be suitable; and the new plan is making them much steeper. The widows' benefits are calculated on a double standard. They start off on a price index basis for a certain period of time, the first ten years, then they go on to a wage index and finally, when the widow becomes of pensionable age under the Old Age Security Act, they go back to a price index basis. This is a most confusing method of calculating a widow's allowance. She has no knowledge from one day to the next what the amount of her pension will be or the method by which it will be calculated in the future.
There are many other things which I do not wish to go into now. My point is that the plan is now in such a very difficult state, both from an actuarial and physical point of view, it is difficult to know whether any actuarial basis will result in the end or whether, in reality, this will become another welfare scheme. This is what many people feared in the beginning, that it might become another welfare scheme and not a compulsory savings plan. We appear now to be coming to the point where it will be a combination of both and nothing much of either.

I say, Mr. Speaker, there are too many tag ends lying around. The whole situation is very confused. We should really have another white paper so that we will know where we are, and we should have had one before this debate commenced. We had a white paper in July, 1963, setting out the Canada pension plan. We had another white paper in March, 1964, setting out another pension plan. One of my colleagues suggests that the white paper is now getting a little grey. As I pointed out in the beginning, it is difficult to know exactly where we are with this particular pension plan at this moment.
In concluding, may I say that the time is opportune for a constitutional amendment. I think we must pass it now and deal with the problem of the Canada pension plan as a secondary matter. To that extent, therefore, I support the motion before us.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to prolong this discussion, for the very simple reason that I too am anxious to go on holidays. Therefore, the less we talk, the better it is.
However, I should like to say that, in its present form, the motion may entail some difficulties for the provinces on the administrative level. When the provinces transfer their rights to the federal government, they cannot take them back later on. Here is what I mean: When the provinces gave the federal government permission to set up an old age pension scheme for instance, that legislation was put into force at once and the federal government became competent to administer any old age pension plan, which means that it can now increase at will the benefits paid to elderly people.
Therefore, it means that the central government can establish its own legislation regardless of the provinces.
If an intelligent amendment had been brought to the constitutional amendment as it appears on the order paper it would have been possible for the house to express its feelings on the matter.
However, since all the provinces have been consulted and since the government would have to seek their approval once more if the House of Commons changed anything in the resolution, I feel it would not be appropriate to move a subamendment at this time. The same situation prevails as with the Columbia river treaty; if we had changed anything to the treaty we would have had to get in touch with the other party, the United States, to get its consent.
British North America Act
The fact that it has to deal with ten provinces would mean longer discussions for the federal government. Now, since the provinces have accepted the amendment as proposed, I do not see why we should introduce one ourselves. However, had we presented one, it could have read something like this:
After "irrespective of age", we could have said: "But no subsequent legislation to that effect may be passed without the further consent of the provinces."
That would have meant that the federal government would now be able to legislate about the pension plan as proposed, or as accepted by the provinces, but that, if ever it wanted to amend this plan a little later on, it would have, once again, to get the provinces' permission.
However, as I said a while ago, if the provinces did not want to ask or to demand guarantees other than those they obtained when they agreed to sign, it is not up to us to defend them against their will.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have participated in this debate before me have made reference to the anomalous situation which existed when we interrupted the debate with regard to national symbols which have been proposed for this country and found ourselves faced with the very extraordinary position of having, within the terms of the motion we are now discussing, to humbly approach Her Majesty praying that she may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before parliament, and so on. Now, all hon. members who have discussed this have said how ironical it is, and I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on that except to make this point wihch I think is a necessary corollary to be drawn from what has been said.
Hon. members have said, let us hope that this situation will not again occur; let us hope that before too long we will have domiciled in Canada the constitution for which we now seek changes in the United Kingdom. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I see little prospect of that. I believe I am entitled to mention this point at this time. I see little prospect of that because of the fact that during the course of the last year there have been deep and strong currents of hostility sweeping across this land, and the very debate which we interrupted, in my opinion- I will say more about this on a more appropriate occasion, but I think I must say it here- has hardened or deepened these emotions

British North America Act across our country to the point where violent emotions may yet sweep over this land and prevent the degree of unity which we must have if we are going to have the constitution returned to Canada.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in his unusual approach to this problem, indicated that a measure of unanimity would be required before we could even at the very least bring the constitution back to Canada. I say, is there any hon. member in this house who honestly believes that the situation which now exists will not be so reflected in any constitutional conference with the provinces that the prospect of obtaining unanimity has been put back for years, if not for generations? Whether we like it or not, because of this fact, it is my opinion from what I have observed and read that when we come to consider further amendments, because of what happened last year and particularly in the last few weeks we will still be going through this process of humbly asking Her Majesty to have her parliament in Westminster amend our constitution, when the need next arises. I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say this morning, in response to a question, that this matter will be placed on the agenda for the next federal-provincial conference. However, I would point out that some time ago I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), who would be the member of the government most concerned, whether or not in his opinion the time was ripe to reconvene the constitutional conference of the attorneys general, about which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke, when he said that in 1960 and 1961 such great progress had been made. I think the Minister of Justice is a realisitic man and so in his answer he said not only had no date been fixed but that no formal letter had been sent out suggesting that a date be fixed. It might well be that the minister has been alerted as a result of my question, and I hope he is now sending out a letter for that purpose.
However, I do make the statement in all seriousness that the situation which has existed, which does exist and will continue to exist, in my humble opinion will make it most difficult, if not impossible for some considerable time, for us to secure the things we need; and all the brave and bold words, all the ringing terms and stirring declarations in the very fine debate on the flag question are, to my way of thinking, so much waste because of this situation.

I generally accept the principle in this motion, but I must say I hinge a qualification, an attaching condition, that I do not think it should be assumed that because we are accepting and approving the motion for this address to be forwarded to Her Majesty, we also accept with it, as the tail of the comet, the principles of the proposed pension legislation about which we have heard from time to time from members of the government.
Reference has been made to this by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I am not going to say any more about it, except to suggest a very good expression is one which we used in the front lines during the last war, when the brass in the field and the brass on the staff had got together and had thoroughly messed up the situation. We used to say it was "snafu"-situation normal, all fouled up. I think this is about as good a description as the pension legislation situation is worth at this time.
But I say in approaching this motion-and there are some other qualifications-I do so on the distinct understanding that it does not indicate by any means a wholehearted approval of the pension legislation. It is my opinion that a large percentage of the people of Canada have come to the decision that some type of contributory pension plan is desirable. On the other hand, when the legislation is laid before us it will be our duty to examine it as to its reasonableness, as to the degree of contribution required, and as to whether or not it will lay a burden upon the economy of the country that the country can well bear, having in mind all its other responsibilities. These are matters upon which we must reserve our decision until the appropriate time, and in approving the motion this, with other qualifications, must be the first condition attached.
Now, let us look at the proposed amendment itself. I have some doubts as to whether, having in mind it was essential for the government to secure this constitutional amendment, it might not well have gone further and done better, and possibly saved the necessity of coming back here again. In the first place this amendment purports to repeal and replace section 94A of the British North America Act.
I call to the attention of hon. members that the position of section 94A must be of some significance. Sections 91, 92 and 93 deal with exclusive rights, given respectively to the federal and provincial governments as the case may be. However, sections

94A and 95 deal with what is in effect concurrent legislation, where both federal and provincial governments have been given rights to legislate. In section 95, as hon. members know, the provinces are given the right to legislate in respect of agriculture and immigration, and so is the federal government; but it is laid down that where there is a conflict-as necessarily there would be a conflict if you have legislation on these subjects by distinctive legislatures-the federal government legislation must prevail. This is placed immediately after section 94A, which also gives rights to both provincial and federal governments to legislate; but there the reverse is the case, and provincial legislation must be dominant.
The section as it now reads, and this particular part has been carried on in the new, proposed amendment:
-no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
In order to establish a foundation for the point I propose to make I would like to refer hon. members to the amendment in its present form, which was brought forth in 1951. At that time there was an exchange of correspondence between the then minister of justice, Mr. Garson, and the provincial premiers, and the original proposition made by Mr. Garson was contained in the form of a proposed amendment quite distinct from section 94A as it now appears. It was as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions.
And there it stopped. In other words, the original amendment as suggested was an amendment which, in the view of many of the attorneys general of the provinces and of the premiers of the provinces, expressed in the correspondence tabled in this house in 1951, gave to the federal government not necessarily exclusive but certainly paramount jurisdiction in the field of pension laws. I think it was probably wise that this should have been the case, and this is the first point I make, that I would have much preferred this amendment to have eliminated the words which appear there, that-
-no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
It is my submission that by leaving this portion in as it now appears, we are putting in the hands of the provinces the right of
British North America Act any province at any time to veto by means of enacting legislation, which is distinct in any material respect from the federal legislation, and so prevent the federal legislation from operating in that province.
Let me give an illustration of that. I have before me a news item from the Montreal Gazette of June 17, 1964, dealing with when this matter was being debated in the legislature of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Johnson, the leader of the official opposition in the legislature in Quebec, is reported in this way: "Johnson Says Pension Plan Socially Bad". He is reported as giving a number of reasons which he thinks are sound why this is not good legislation and why in its present form it should not be carried out. I simply put the case in this way. If Mr. Johnson thinks that the legislation which the province of Quebec now desires, which is comparable to and parallel with the legislation and the plan of the federal government, is bad legislation, then if he should secure power in a future election in the province of Quebec he will repeal or amend it. The minute he does that it will be legislation distinct in form from the legislation that the federal government has passed and consequently the federal plan will no longer be operative.
I think this can apply in any province. Any leader of a political party seeking power in a province might, if I may use a distinguished parallel, make a promise on the election platform that within two years after being elected he will bring before the legislature a distinctive provincial plan and then upon securing power bring into effect this distinctive provincial plan whereupon the federal plan must immediately fall to the ground.
Section 94A relating to old age pensions probably did not present any particular difficulty as it stood, because under our pension legislation up to this time it has been a matter of the federal government making a payment at the age set by statute, which payment has been increased from time to time; and actually there have been no rights accruing, save possibly general legislative rights with respect to individuals in the country who reach this age. But on the basis of a contributory pension plan it is my submission that an entirely different situation will prevail. There will be contributions made form workers' salaries and by employers. Large funds will be accumulated which will be susceptible of being used for development purposes. The people living in each province will acquire distinct, specific vested rights in

British North America Act contributory pension plans. Then instead of that degree of permanency which must be present to ensure the success of a contributory pension plan, the position will be that at any time a provincial government sees fit to introduce legislation of this nature which is at variance with the federal plan the provincial legislation will then prevail.
While I support this address, I should like to have seen it provided that in the event of there being any conflict between federal and provincial legislation the federal plan must prevail, and I think in due course the government will find it will have to come to this, if it can ever secure that degree of unanimity to which I referred before. Whether we like it or not, if we are going to have a sound, successful, permanent plan I suggest that we will have to bring ourselves to this position.
There is one other point I should like to make before I resume my seat. The new section 94A is to read in part as follows:
The parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors' and disability benefits-
I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) and others say that the law officers of the crown have indicated in the past that the use of the term "old age pensions" is sufficiently wide to include a scheme of contributory pensions. I accept that the law officers of the crown are distinguished and knowledgeable members of my profession, and I certainly do not propose to set my views up in complete opposition to theirs. But as a member of the house I must say that some doubt runs in my mind with regard to whether or not it would not have been better to have eliminated the words "old age" and substituted the word "contributory" or else use the words "old age and contributory pensions".
I look at the matter in this way. What is old age? When does old age start? At what stage of a man's or woman's life does old age begin? I see the Prime Minister smiling at that. It may be that the process of aging goes on a little more rapidly in this house than in other places. But let us assume that at some time in the future it may be desirable to reduce the age at which the contributory pensions are paid. We do not know when that will be desirable or when it will be financially feasible. We may find that from an age of 65 we will come down to 62, 60 or even less than 60. Are these pensions then old age pensions? Can they be brought under

the description now appearing in section 94A, that "the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions"?
I submit with respect that there is very grave doubt in that regard. While we were in the process of securing a constitutional amendment I think we should have gone the whole distance and used such words as "old age and contributory pensions". It may be suggested that follows from the use of the words "old age pensions and supplementary benefits" but I think that the word "supplementary" must be related to "old age" and that the legal principle of ejusdem generis applies. I doubt that you can use this particular phrase to say that a pension payable at a lower age than what might be considered old age is a pension included in this legislation.
There is no doubt at all that some of the best legal minds in the country are going to be scrutinizing this constitutional amendment and examining the legislation which the government proposes to introduce. I say that if we are going to have pension legislation we should leave nothing to chance. In my thinking there are defects in this proposal. While I support the address I feel it is my duty to say that I think there are defects, and these defects will appear in the future.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I support the address which will provide for survivor benefits in the pension legislation but, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) have said, I accept it with certain reservations. My reservations are based on the fact that the whole handling of the pension plan has been a monstrosity. I do not know of any other word to cover the situation. From the very start we have had nothing but that sort of approach to this legislation, ever since the Liberal government brought in their plan, and the same approach to most of their other legislation as well.
Let me be a little more specific. If I may go back to the legislation for a pension plan brought in by the Conservative party, the Liberals put forward strong criticism that an amendment such as is now being put forward by that party was not necessary. If you will examine the speeches you will find that one after the other they got up and said it was not necessary. They pooh-poohed the idea all along the line, but now they are

faced with the fact that they have to ask for such an amendment. That is the first point.
Let us take the history of their production of a plan. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) brought in a plan last year. I have no doubt that plan was approved by the whole cabinet. They obviously must have discussed it. But the plan she brought in was a mess. There is no question about that. It was so much of a mess that in line with practically all legislation it had to be completely dropped.
She brought in another plan and it was more or less dropped and, indeed, most of us-and this expresses the reservations put forward today-are wondering just how far this government has gone in getting its legislation properly prepared and looking into the future. We need only have regard to the words of my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who has just resumed his seat. He brought forward point after point and I am wondering whether this government has done anything in relation to the matters he put forward. Those questions are most germane to this subject.
My third point is this: We have almost exactly the same question before us as has arisen over the flag. The government says: This is the plan-take it or leave it. And, personally, I do not think we should be subjected to legislation in this form. The fourth point I wish to bring forward concerns the lack of consultation with the provinces, and in this regard the strong talent for diplomacy which the Prime Minister is supposed to possess in such abundance. This plan was brought forward without any consultation with the provinces whatsoever. Premier Lesage could not make a speech quickly enough and could not get to the press quickly enough, when the initial plan was put forward, to say: Count me out; I am not with this; there has been no consultation whatsoever. We also have the position taken by Premier Robarts. Premier Robarts put forward from time to time, after a certain amount of consultation, the points which he thought necessary for the plan to be successful. He got the short end of the stick. In fact the Prime Minister made some most uncomplimentary remarks with regard to the premier of that province. So we have to consider that there were two provinces which rejected the plan. In the field of diplomacy, I do not know what the Prime Minister was thinking about but it is perfectly obvious
British North America Act that after a short time his people told him he had better get the concurrence of those provinces, otherwise the plan as a national plan would be a flop.
We read lately in the newspapers, and it was trumpeted by various members of the Liberal party, what a tremendous diplomatic job had been done. The Prime Minister had gone to the plains of Abraham and consulted with Premier Lesage and others, and I am just wondering who won the second battle of the plains of Abraham. There is no question about it. The plan put forward by this government had to be changed so as to conform almost completely with the Quebec plan. It may be, now, that it is a good plan. It may be that this is the plan required by Canada. Certainly Premier Robarts says these are the changes which he thought were necessary to meet Canada's requirements.
We also find a little of the Prime Minister's diplomacy seeping down to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). She listened to certain objections which were put forward by the insurance companies of Canada. I gathered from the newspapers, from the reports which were current at one time, that the minister thought the insurance companies of Canada did not know what they were talking about. I should like to remind the hon. lady that the insurance companies of Canada have played a long and important part in the development of our economy. They have provided survivors' benefits all down the line and they might well have been listened to a little bit more and handled, I will use the word again, with diplomacy. Maybe the hon. lady does not like to hear about this, but she has to.
Once again I am in favour of seeking this amendment, because it is a necessary step to take. It was the Conservative plan, to start with. We must get concurrence. We must get this change made right away and we must get on with the establishment of these pensions, too. Once again, subject to the points I have put forward, points more ably expressed, probably, by my hon. friends from Peace River and Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), I am in complete agreement with this proposal, and I believe we should get along with the legislation.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: regret the way in which the proposed contributory pension legislation has been handled, and what I think have been the unnecessary difficulties which have been raised by the

British North America Act government as a result of the stops and starts it has made with regard to this matter.
In addition, I have very grave doubts as to what the financial effects and implications will be, first as far as the government's own financial position is concerned and, what is more important, what the effect will be as far as the reduced amount of capital available in Canada for the starting of new industries and the general development of the country is concerned. However, I do not propose to go into these questions now. I have risen at the present moment really to ask one question. Yesterday, on the orders of the day, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the following:
Is the government proposing to take action to bring private pension plans into the same situation in the rest of Canada as Mr. Lesage apparently announced yesterday would be the case in the province of Quebec, in view of the fact that the pension plan in Quebec and the pension plan for the rest of Canada are supposed to be on an equal footing?
To which the Prime Minister replied:
We will be discussing this matter shortly, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult for me to answer that question in detail on the orders of the day, but I will be glad to take it as notice.
Well, the Prime Minister did not say anything in his speech yesterday with reference to the position of private pension plans in the rest of Canada, and I am now asking that he deal with this matter before the debate is closed today. I think this is of particular importance because, as I understood the announcement from Quebec city yesterday, the government of Quebec proposes to bring private pension plans under its pension legislation to the extent of laying down three or four conditions which all private pension plans must meet. This is of immediate concern, I think, to all people who have an interest in private pension plans throughout the rest of Canada, particularly since this scheme proposed by the federal government is to be national in scope; so I hope the right hon. gentleman can deal with the matter.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a few remarks to make on this question. They will not be along the lines followed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) or by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). They deal with another aspect of this subject.
The question before us raises the whole question of national sovereignty. It portrays vividly the source and origin of our constitu-


tion. The British North America Act distinguishes Canada as a unit, a nation, a people. The B.N.A. Act outlines the guarantees and protections provided to the elements which compose that union. Upon these articles contained in the Act of Union of 1867, the one-nation concept was adopted. The necessity of proceeding to Westminster to amend our constitution is a relic of the suspicions and fears of the generation before confederation. It is the only remaining symbol to mark our immaturity as a nation. It, more than any other thing, has delayed and prevented the welding of interest which might otherwise have brought Canadians together.
It is a remarkable achievement that confederation has been able to survive under the handicap contained in this particle of immaturity. Confederation has survived. Confederation has spread from four to ten provinces and two territories. Each of the four, and each of the others, can measure the sacrifice voluntarily assumed and suffered to achieve our present status. This measure before us today reminds us all that a great mutual trust and respect is required if we are to be liberated from this relic of the past.
That is for Canadians to choose for themselves. The new Canadians, from which my family originates, have been ready and even eager for Canada to take unto herself the right to determine her own constitution. We believe it would be a step along the way to national unity and national purpose; it would complete the foundations upon which this nation could choose and develop those symbols that could rally our people in the building of this nation.
The Canada of 1964 is not the Canada of 1867. Throughout the years one thing has remained unchanged. Confederation has held a common objective for all Canadians. In the beginning divergent elements joined in a common purpose. Their decision was a deliberate one, despite their differences. They must have known that conflict might arise in an emerging nation. That much this generation owes in tribute to the spirit and tolerance of those days, as revealed by the articles of confederation. That union has admitted new loyalties, and I have the abiding courage to believe that union continues as the greatest inspiration on which people in every part of Canada have to draw on.
The concept of the one nation is, if anything, more urgent and desirable today than ever before. The nations of the world no longer can feel secure in their own separate

worlds. Why then should the cry of separatism within a nation hope to achieve anything but a lesser security and recognition by following the paths of division? The cry of the separatist is the cry of those who say, "You have nothing to lose". It is a negative cry; it is a denial of courage and purpose of the generation that chose confederation. It measures the extent to which the fires of isolation have been fed and nurtured. Confederation still beckons; the opportunities it offers return again and again, providing the opportunity for wholesome participation in the building of a greater Canada. The years have passed, since 1867, like dropping leaves, and have left a tree somewhat more naked than any of us would like to see. The history of those years cannot be rewritten; it will always be with us as a nation. Surely we can make a new beginning. That is one of the reasons I am proud to be a member of this party now constituting the official opposition in parliament. This party has not been ready to barter the heritage of Canadians. Our leader has never sought to isolate the people in any area of Canada. His hands have never reached to feed the fires of division and isolation. His invitation has always been participation, not separation. Equality within confederation requires participation. Participation yields the fruits of recognition. That is the path upon which Canadians can leave the imprint of their identity and personality. That is the emerging nation, sought and promised by confederation.
That being so, sir, I wish to take this opportunity to renew the request for a joint conference of provincial and federal government officials to study our constitution for the purpose of providing a new beginning for confederation and the elements that now comprise confederation as we know it. This party and my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, were ready to proceed along these lines when we were swept from office. I urge the present Prime Minister to unfetter himself from the tortuous course he has been embarked upon and give recognition to the positive fruits of confederation by calling together a full-fledged conference to deal with the matters of confederation. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this resolution as it is and I join with those others of my party in the remarks they have made regarding it.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief in my remarks today, but I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not at least express our hope and desire that
British North America Act this resolution will go through rapidly and get to Westminster so that permission can be granted before the dissolution of that parliament as a result of the coming election. Yesterday both the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) expressed deep regret and embarrassment at having at this stage to go to Westminster in order that we might provide survivor and disability benefits in our pension scheme. I also feel this way; but I think it has been and is up until now essential that this be done.
We all know that at one stage hon. Mr. Fulton when he was minister of justice did his utmost to come up with a plan to repatriate the constitution. Great efforts went into this endeavour, but they were unsuccessful. As was explained yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, there were two stumbling blocks to that achievement, the province of Saskatchewan but primarily the province of Quebec. We remember that some time ago, as again the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, an effort was made to have a constitutional amendment put through as is now agreed to and admitted by the government to be necessary, in order to provide survivor and disability benefits. We recall the history of the many plans we have had. I think I outlined these fairly accurately on July 18 last, although since that date there has been another one. We remember the election literature of the present government, which claimed that their plan would have survivor benefits. This was not proven to be correct in their March 17 endeavour, and survivor benefits as we understand them, despite what the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) may say, were not included in those two previous efforts.
We are now faced with another plan. We do not have its details. We are anxious, of course, to know just whether all the details have been worked out. I suppose it will be some time before the newest plan is put before us. However, when these details are worked out, if they are all worked out, it will certainly be necessary to consider them carefully because in many respects this plan has gone beyond what was originally anticipated. We hope there will not be any further delay in this regard.
As I stated on March 17 last, we are for a pension plan, and I think my words were "there are no if's, and's and but's about it". We want to see this plan put into operation.

British North America Act As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, we are heartily in accord with the passing of this resolution to enact an amendment to the British North America Act. I remember the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when I held the portfolio of national health and welfare criticizing us to the extent of saying this amendment would not be necessary. It has proven to be necessary; the Liberals now admit that. They found it was necessary to implement their election promises even though their first two endeavours did not do so.
I am intrigued by the present plan as it unfolds. I think it was on April 20 that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) first outlined in very broad terms what was going to happen to the then existing plan and what our new scheme might be. I think on April 23 the present parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) spoke in Kingston and gave some further details. And then according to the Montreal Gazette of June 11 the Prime Minister again added more details. Therefore, we are most anxious to see what this new over-all completed plan will entail. I imagine there will be a white paper prepared on this newest and latest plan, and of course it will have to be given a great deal of study. I should simply like at this stage to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried in the past to get this amendment through and we are certainly very anxious that it be gone ahead with at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did see one or two members asleep but some of them have just awakened. I do not intend to take very much time, but I do not think that I have spoken on this amendment to our constitution on any other occasion and I should like to say a few words with regard to it. I feel today-and I think it is time somebody said this-that when we take a really cold look at our constitution, as we should do so at a time like this when asking for an amendment to the constitution in connection with survivor benefits, we realize we have wandered somewhat astray from the intention of the fathers of confederation. There was no doubt at that time when they were considering union, about which I shall have something to say in few minutes, that there was the question posed as to whether we should have a legislative union or a


federal union. A legislative union, as we all know, would have put most of the powers into the central government which would have been delegated to the various provincial governments. The alternative was a division of powers in a federal system, such as that finally adopted. Then they ran into difficulty at the first conference in 1864 and at the second conference in Quebec, and a compromise was reached between Sir John A. Macdonald and Cartier on a federal union.
In a federal union certain powers are put in the central government and other powers are delegated to provincial governments. Unfortunately this federal type of system, which was, as I have said, a compromise reached between Macdonald and Cartier, has had serious repercussions. At one time when our constitution went before the Supreme Court of Canada and the judicial committee of the privy council, the interpretation given to the constitution was that it took certain powers away from the central government and strengthened the provincial government. When this system is compared with the federal system of the United States one finds that their courts interpreted the powers away from the states and made the central government stronger.
The charge I am making against the Liberal party-and here I speak for myself as a member of parliament and not as a member of any particular party-is this. It may be a passing phase of Liberalism under Pearson, which I call a wishy-washy type of Liberalism, but in order to reach certain compromises-although some people call this diplomacy-the Liberal government brought in a pension plan three times and then withdrew it. The point I am making is that if this country is to survive in confederation we have to make certain that we have a strong federal administration. We must have a strong central government at Ottawa. The kind of federalism which we have today is a balkanization of Canada which I believe was never intended. If this country is to survive we cannot have ten distinct governments dictating every time to the federal authorities. We must delegate to Ottawa some supremacy.
With regard to amending the constitution, we have just heard the last two speakers and also the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), in which he properly put forward the fact that this party realized that when dealing with survivor benefits we must have an amendment to our constitution.

We had the consent of all ten provinces except Quebec. If we are to have the kind of constitution which can only be amended with the consent of all provinces, then this puts our constitution in the middle of the political field.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Well, we happen to have in Quebec today a premier who is not sympathetic, and if it were not for the fact that he dictates his own terms to this government we would probably never be here today arguing this point. I take the position that Lesage is running the government of Canada, not the present Prime Minister or the Liberals who sit opposite.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone says shame. Of course it is a shame. It has always been a shame. But the fact is that the constitution is put in the middle of politics. Why? We would never have got an amendment in the development and evolution of our democratic principles unless we had a sympathetic government in certain provinces with federal authority. Therefore, in order to amend our constitution we have to have the same parties in certain provinces as we have in Ottawa. Surely this is not good enough, and it certainly was not the intention of the fathers of confederation, who had a greater dream than that.
The first thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I know it has to be done in this way because there is some expediency for it, is that instead of spending days on arguing about a flag when there are so many other important things to do, particularly when there is a sensitivity in confederation, we should come to grips with the problem of amending our constitution on a sound legal basis. Surely if we are to have the contract system in order to amend our constitution, when there are ten parties to the contract it should not be the kind of contract where in law, if you wish to change it, you have to get the consent of all parties to the contract. If we have a democracy at all in this country this should be done by majority rule. For example, if nine or eight of the provinces want to amend the constitution, and it is important to Canadians that this be done-whether it be in the field of welfare or health or any other field- surely the majority of Canadians should be able to say to the government of the country or to whatever authority exists having jurisdiction over the constitution that it should be so amended. That is the first point I want to make and we should take a hard look at 20220-287
British North America Act this problem. We are worrying about the flag and spending a lot of time debating the issue. Surely the thing we should have been considering, if we want to be an independent and great nation with all the sovereignty we dream and speak about with such great emotion, is giving the country the right to amend its own constitution, and doing so on this side of the ocean. If you read what Mr. St. Laurent said during his term of office about the various manners in which you can amend the constitution, I am sure you will find that he felt then the same as I feel at this time. It is a far more important thing that we have the ability to amend our own constitution.
I come back to the other point, that it is unfortunate we did not obtain the ability to amend our constitution when the imperial parliament passed the act in 1867 making this nation. When I am talking about the nation, I am sorry that my friend in the corner whom I call the "little Beauehesne" is not here. I am one of those people who believe that confederation was not the union of two nations; it was the union of four colonies who united at that time and who realized their destinies individually by combining to create a nation. It may have been, and indeed it was, a union of two great cultures, the French on the one hand and the English on the other. My friends opposite laugh, but they only laugh because they have never dusted off the pages of history or read the debates that took place at that time.
If they want to try to explore the real birth certificate of our nation, then they should look at the pages of history. They will find that it was the four colonies who united. The earliest meetings relating to confederation were not held in the province of Quebec or in the province of Ontario. The first meetings were held in the maritimes. The first real problem we had with confederation did not relate to Upper or Lower Canada but to the fact that Nova Scotia wished to withdraw. I do not want to take the time this afternoon to go through history to show that the birth of our nation was the result of the union of four colonies. There was just as distinctive a culture in the maritimes as there was in Quebec. There was just as distinctive a culture in Ontario as there was in Quebec. If you look at the pages of history you will see that at the time the northwest was controlled by the Hudson's Bay Company. These men had a great vision. The culture of the northwest likewise would be a part of our way of life.

British North America Act I should like now to quote from a historian, George W. Brown. Sometimes when we get so far off the track it is best to ascertain what the real facts of history are, especially when there is this talk across the country that spreads dissension and disunity. I quote from Mr. Brown's book:
"Sir, it is my fervent aspiration and hope that some here tonight may live to see the day when the-
-flag shall proudly wave from Labrador to Vancouver island, and from Niagara to the shores of Hudson bay." So spoke the Canadian leader, George Brown, in 1858. Lord Durham and others had also dreamed of a united British American nation, but in the 1850's it was still nothing but a dream.
We only have to walk in the door of the House of Commons to find out what our history is. These words of Durham, these words of Brown, the words of Cartier and Macdonald are spelled out quite simply over the entrance as we come into this House of Commons. This is the reason I say it never was the union of two nations, it was the union of four colonies. It was the vision of these men that we would become a great nation. People came to this land from various parts of the world. They came from Europe to carve out a new destiny. Why did they come? There had been wars and fears of wars in Europe and this left in the bosom of these people hatred and animosities. When they came to Canada they set aside those animosities and those prejudices. They came to live with one another as neighbours and to build the nation, Canada.
I should like to quote again from the historian, Mr. George Brown. I ask every one of you, if you have not done so before, to take a look above the door as you enter the House of Commons. Carved in stone above the main door of the parliament buildings of Canada are these words, "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west." This is the situation. We are in a period of sensitivity for confederation. We are in a period of sensitivity for confederation because of the ambitions, because of the desires of a certain group who, for their own political purposes, would like to carve up this nation rather than unite. We had people of this type back in 1864 when we were trying to get together. Every time the Liberals enter the gates of office, we have a period of sensitivity for confederation. As one distinguished member said last night, they have a habit of pitting the French against the English, one


religion against another. We have a sensitivity of confederation and in that period of sensitivity we must not forget one thing when we are dealing with amendments to our constitution. It is time somebody stood up in this house and said it. This nation can only last as long as we have a strong central government. Even under federalism you must have a strong central government. The Liberals are like the waves of the ocean-they roll with the tides.
During the war and after the war, they believed in centralizing everything. Today, in order to buy the votes of certain provinces in this country of ours they now say we must have a weak government. It1 is time we adopted the same principles in respect of our constitution that were used to carve out this land in 1867, the same principles that were followed to solve the depression of the thirties and which brought us through two wars. As I said at the beginning, we should have the right to amend our constitution on this side of the ocean.
Now, I have said something about confederation and I want to turn just for a moment to my second point. We are dealing with the pension plan. I do not suppose there is any member of parliament who would dare, for his own political health, to oppose a form of pension plan at the moment. Why is this so? Well, we have had across this nation the stories for three or four different pension plans. We have seen newspaper headlines so high about the great compromiser. He went to Quebec and met Lesage on the plains of Abraham. They embraced, but we do not know what they whispered to one another. He came back with the great compromise. He is the great diplomat. The fact is that they brought in three plans. Madam Minister, who is not in her place this afternoon, said, I stake my reputation on this plan. Now, she is looking for greener pastures, the leadership of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario. There is one thing I would say in passing, if I may digress for a moment. If she does get that job it ensures the Conservatives another 50 years in office.


John Carr Munro: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it not seem unusual for the hon. member to cast aspersions on the character of another person, especially when she is not in the house? I think he would prove himself more of a man if he did so next week when the minister is here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thought that the hon. member was really serious. I read a news-

paper report in a newspaper not unfriendly to that side of the house, that here was the living dynamo, the great intellect of the Liberal party, who will one day walk in and lead the Liberals. If the hon. member had any real point of order, then what we saw on orders of the day will be nothing to what we will see in the future when he takes over a responsible position.
Coming back to my point before I was interrupted by such a frivolous interruption, may I say this: We have had three pension plans. I said at the time that they were conceived by the hon. lady in haste and delivered in confusion. We still do not know what kind of conception there was or what kind of delivery there is going to be. We do not know what the terms and the conditions of the pension plan will be. I repeat the warning that I have issued before. I know that people do not like to be reminded of what other people have said in the past. I say we are moving in Canada into a period of great inflation. This government said when they took office that they would balance the budget, but they are going to have bigger and better deficits. I would like to know, and this is what should be spelled out when we are dealing with pensions, what it is going to cost the people of Canada. How is it going to affect those planned pension schemes set up by the unions of this country, whether they be the united mine workers of America or the unions dealing with railways? How is it going to affect the teachers of this nation who have their own pension plan? How is it going to affect those people who have some ambition and initiative, who have carved out pension plans for themselves? This is something we should have laid on the line, and I hope when the government introduces its bill there will be less talk and more facts about what it is going to cost the nation in taxes.
I say the taxes of this nation must go up. They have already gone up substantially. Anyone can see this by going out into the country and watching how the administrators in the tax department, in more indirect ways, are milking the taxpayers, squeezing out the last dollar, and the dollar past the last dollar, in order to get the necessary revenue to finance the government's socialistic programs.
All of us are in favour of a pension plan, but let us make sure we know what the plan is so that when we are asked to vote on it we can adopt a plan that is reasonable and workable. Let us know what it is going to cost. It is awfully easy to go to the people 20220-287i
British North America Act when you have given them a brand new Cadillac, but it is not easy to go to the people when you are asking them to make the 38 payments.
The Liberal party seems to be building up for an election. It wants to go to the people when it has a pension plan in the box, or the drawer, but it will not tell the people it is ready to send out this tax octopus across the nation in order to pay for it.


An hon. Member:: You did it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad you said that. I have been waiting for you to make a speech for 25 years. Mr. Speaker, I need not say I support the resolution to amend our constitution. In summary I would say once again Canada should have the right to amend its own constitution. Canada's constitution should be amended without having to get the consent of all the provinces, because this gives the right to one province to control the nation, particularly for political expediency when you have got a Liberal government.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate today, but after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), I feel bound, as a French Canadian, to challenge or refute a great part of the stupid things he said this afternoon. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member by raising points of orders or questions of privilege while he was speaking, even though I would have had ample opportunity to do so.
Once again, the hon. member for Bow River, who aspires to become, sooner or later, leader of the Conservative party, has shown us in striking manner that the Conservative party in this house, now as ever, is more opposed to French Canadians and to the province of Quebec than any other party Canada has ever known or might know.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of privilege.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no time to waste. During his speech, I did not want to bother the hon. member with interruptions and I now want to go on with my remarks-
4518	HOUSE OF
British North America Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Bow River rises on a point of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to say now and repeat as I said a few minutes ago-and I think I am entitled to the expression of that opinion-that it was not a union of two nations but a union of four provinces, with a desire to extend it to 10 provinces. But I did say it was a union of two great cultures, the union of French and English. The record will speak for itself; but when we hear people like that, they are the kind of people breeding disunity in this nation.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that the kind of speech made by his leader during the flag debate a few days ago suits to perfection a man trying to bring about disunity in Canada.
The hon. member has been talking and is still talking through his hat. This afternoon we were under the impression that he thought for a while he was somebody else. He stated, and we refuse to admit that, that the province of Quebec may have been one of the provinces which formed the basis for the establishment of confederation and that, as such, it should be treated as the others, that at the time of the union of the four provinces, it was but one of the four.
The province of Quebec has never accepted and will never accept being treated as one of the ten parts of Canada or of the dominion, as part of confederation. We have contributed to the establishment of confederation. Everybody knows that at the time of the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, French Canadians were in majority. However, the situation has changed since then and that is why we do not want to lose our rights and be assimilated by the majority as suggested by the hon. member for Bow River.
He accused the Liberal party of working for centralization but he failed to prove that the Conservative party acted otherwise when it was in power. It had the same attitude during the five years it was in office and even before the Liberals were voted out of office in 1956 or 1957.
It is unfortunate that such speeches are made in the house. It is obvious that the Conservative party has not yet understood the mentality of the province of Quebec and that it does not care for French Canadians. The


latter have learned to know the Conservatives in the past, especially their present leader.
It is not speeches such as the one that the hon. member for Bow River has just made which will strengthen Canadian unity. It is certainly not such speeches that will lead to a better understanding between the two races which served as a basis for our Canadian confederation.
We have been patient too long. We have already made too many concessions to allow ourselves, in 1964, exactly three years before the celebration of confederation, to be insulted or told that we are only one of the ten provinces of Canada-


An hon. Member:: One in ten, that's all.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That is exactly what they were driving at. It is a good thing to have these remarks reported in Hansard, as it shows once and for all that the Conservative party never was the national unity party and, considering the interruptions such as those they are making at present in the house, I cannot see how we will be able to satisfy both races, the English Canadian and the French Canadian, and ensure a better understanding in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, what we do want, the hon. member for Villeneuve stated it yesterday: we do not want to take anything away from anyone.
We want to retain our rights. We were once recognized as a nation, and, today, they want to give us the status of a province, when the French Canadian nation accounts for about one third of the population of Canada as a whole.
We are told to our face in this house that we are but one out of ten provinces within confederation, that we are now but 250,000 people, when actually the province of Quebec has a population of around 6 million. They want to put us on the same footing as any other province, and then they are surprised and shocked to find that there are separatists in Quebec.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that if there are at present separatists in Canada, the greatest of them all are to be found within the ranks of the Conservative party, and I refer especially to the hon. member for Bow River, who just resumed his seat.
It is pitiful that in 1964, when the Liberals, among whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and others, are doing their best to encourage agreement and understanding, such a speech should have been made by the hon.

member for Bow River, who does all he can to propagate dissension and disagreement in Canada.
I know that it might be to the advantage of Conservatives to be able to say that there is more disunity, haggling and misunderstanding in Canada under the present Prime Minister and that the situation is worse than it ever was in our history. Well, I say that it is not so much the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who could settle this issue; every hon. member has his part to play if we want to create better feelings.
If we are to be bullied, by those who would use the majority, the constitution, or the weaknesses of our confederation to crush us further, if we are to be refused the undeniable rights of French Canadians with regard to Canada, it will only increase the hope of seeing the province of Quebec manage its own affairs.
I realize now that the government of the province of Quebec has had this tendency for some time. We are wondering whether there would be a way to come to some agreement in this house with members who are as narrow-minded as the one we just heard this afternoon, when he expounded his views on the amendment to the constitution which the Canadian parliament would have us pass.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult, I think, to have a better example of how far apart two speakers can be in their viewpoints as to the make-up of this nation, some of the constitutional difficulties we face and generally the points of view represented by individuals coming from different parts of the country. Certainly I must confess that the last speaker distressed me a little by some of his comments. I wish he had been a little more specific when he talked about such things as taking away some of the French Canadian's rights, and the too many concessions that French Canada had to make to the rest of the country. If he had put forward a couple of concrete examples of where he thinks the province of Quebec has not been treated right I think he would have had a better chance of achieving some understanding in this house. In my opinion it is perhaps not so important that we know each particular complaint, but when we are now talking about a constitutional amendment to make possible the fulfilment of a pension plan we must realize just how far apart we are in Canada today, how
British North America Act deep seated are some of the feelings and why we need to look very closely not only at our constitutional government but also try to foresee some of the effects which this pension plan is likely to have, where it may impose the stresses and strains that go with change and what it will do to our make-up as one country.
I should like to say to my friend from Quebec that he rather surprises me when he is so indignant about the province of Quebec being called a province rather than a state, and goes on to say that Quebec was formerly regarded as a nation. I must say I had never heard this said before and I am unable to comprehend how he can seriously say that French Canada was ever regarded as a nation. Certainly it was a French colony, just as other parts of Canada were English colonies. These colonies joined together to make one nation. I wish he had explained his reference to Quebec having been formerly regarded as a nation.
With regard to Quebec's special status, certainly it has a special status with respect to its language and its religion and I am sure that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) would not want to change that in any manner, shape or form. I do not think anyone who accuses the rest of Canada of trying to take away these special French rights is going to find any evidence to support his claim. With regard to whether or not Quebec is just a province, I say that each province in this country is a province with rights in its own house as guaranteed by the constitution. We as a party want to see each province have and maintain its own rights and responsibilities and we want to see that each province, as a political area, has a voice in federal affairs proportionate to its size and population. To that extent each province is different. But since each province has the same rights and obligations and is protected in the same way under the law, it is incorrect to say that any province has a different status other than in the manner I have indicated.
We are here considering an amendment to the constitution with regard to the pension plan, and anyone who looks at the proposed amendment will see that it contains the following provision:
-no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter.
Every member of the house is familiar with the history of pension legislation as it has been improved from time to time. We have

British North America Act heard many speeches about the fact that the Conservative government made a strenuous effort to secure complete agreement among the provinces /or a constitutional amendment because we did not feel it was wise to attempt to bring in a pension plan without survivor benefits. In other words, we felt if we were going to do the job it should be done right and that therefore first things should come first and we should achieve the consent of the provinces to an amendment.
The Liberals have chosen their own method of proceeding. They thought that political considerations should come first in bringing in a pension plan. They brought one in and we spent considerable time in the house on that first version. They wasted considerable time of the house with a second version. Both versions were of no help to the people of Canada. They simply gave the Liberals a great opportunity for propaganda so that they could say what valiant efforts they were making to bring in a pension plan and so that they could point a finger at others and say: See, they did not do what we can do. They were perfectly right; what they did we did not do. We did not play politics, and they certainly proved they know how to do it.
Those of us who do not have short memories will recall that it was only because the province of Quebec brought out a formula which they sold to the Liberal government that it was possible to avoid a head-on clash and having a so-called pension plan under which provinces would have the power to opt out. Indeed, it looked like we were going to have a so-called Canada pension plan with the two largest provinces out of it altogether.
I bring this up so that we may realize the importance of having agreement, especially with our largest provinces, and so that we may properly settle the background against which we must look at the resolution now before us. In my view, far too little attention has been paid to the fact that with the proposed pension plan, once it starts to work and we get built up in the various provinces large investment funds, there is going to be a great deal of difficulty unless there is some uniformity of investment, some uniformity of agreement among the provinces as to the manner in which these funds can be handled. There is going to be a great deal of difficulty between the federal government and the provinces as to who is going to control them and how much control each is going to have. But I ask the house to consider for one moment the fact that we have different types of gov-


ernment in many of our provinces, that the governments are Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit in the two western provinces, and that the types of leaders of each of these governments in the provinces vary very widely, from some very conservative people, with a small "c" to some who are, I would think, radical.
We know for instance in the province of British Columbia which, in name at least, has a Social Credit government, that the premier of the province has done such things as nationalize a power company, and some of his views on the duties and scope of government intereference with private enterprise come as a little surprising. Frankly, I am never amazed at how widely his views may range in what I call a political sense, all the way from the far left to the far right, and I suggest that with this range of possibility of government action on investment funds there is going to be a tremendous impact on potential investors in Canada-and I am speaking generally. Certainly, no businessman is going to invest his money in an industry in some of the provinces where he has to look seriously at a huge investment fund built up by that province, where the province has not only control over the fund but the ability to direct that fund into a competing business, as well as the ability to make laws and regulations which might cripple him in competition with a government enterprise. This is going to slow down the possibility of investment in Canada. It is going to make this nation almost as risky as some of the, shall I say, unstable Latin American republics. These, I suggest, are not fanciful thoughts at all. The possibility of large government investment funds, coupled with the type of government administration which can become indiscreet from time to time is going to have an effect not just on those industries upon which the government puts its fingers but on every type of investment that might be made in that province, and is something at which all of us should take a long and serious look.
Anyone who has read what the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act provides for regulation of investment of trust funds built up for insurance policies would be aware of the extreme care we take to make sure that those funds cannot be dissipated. We also very carefully regulate, by regulations which were just recently amended, the types of investment. We take a very close look, when they want to amend that act, at the impact on the demand for capital of each of the

various deals in which insurance companies are likely to invest their money. Therefore I say when we are going to contemplate here even vaster sums of money, where there is apparently not at the moment any regulation made by us, where there is very little hope, it seems, that the federal government will be having any control over these investments in a regular pattern, where we have such a wild range and diversity of provinces and have some conception of their different ideas and how wide ranging their regulations for applying those funds may be, we can see the divisive forces which can come about once these funds get going, forces which are really going to wreck this nation. Since we have been able to do so little about our present difficulties in this regard and since we see those difficulties so bitterly expressed as they are today, it is time we gave a little more planning and proceeded more cautiously in putting into force this pension plan no matter how much we may want to see it implemented.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should just like to say that we have other speakers who are interested in the subject but they are prepared, now, for the measure to be passed. If there is time remaining later today, without other legislation intervening, we are prepared to go ahead with the act respecting the Roosevelt-Campobello international park.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Aye.
Motion (Mr. Pearson) agreed to.



MOTION REQUESTING CONCURRENCE OF THE SENATE IN ADDRESS

Lester Bowles Pearson: That the said address be endorsed and a message sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that the House of Commons has passed the said address and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the same by inserting therein the words "Senate and".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith:
That this house do concur in the address of the Senate to His Excellency the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Excellency
Speaker's Ruling
may be pleased to transmit the joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen;
That the words "and Commons" be inserted in the said address from the Senate; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house does unite with the Senate in the said address.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether hon. members would bear with me if I interrupt the proceedings. I have a duty to perform and I hope it will end in a pleasant way.
Again, it is my duty and obligation to give a definite ruling on certain incidents which took place in the house this morning. This decision could well have been made at the time were it not that such heat had been engendered that it did seem preferable to allow a cooling-off period to elapse so as to permit hon. members to look at things rationally.
As the events to which I refer are still fresh in the minds of each and every one of us, I will not go over them again. However, following an answer from the Prime Minister tne hon. member for Qu'Appelle stated:
On the basis of the evidence we have, I say that it is not the complete truth.
The Prime Minister objected to the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and asked the Chair to decide that the hon. member should withdraw the words to the effect that he, the Prime Minister, had not stated the complete truth. At this point, and later on during the debate which followed, in other words twice during the debate, and relying on Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 145 which states-
-it has been formally ruled by Speakers in Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted-
-I did then, rightly or wrongly, make a decision that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle should withdraw the words he had used and accept the word of the Prime Minister. The actual words I used are as follows:
Therefore, in the circumstances, and in view of the discussion, I would respectfully ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to withdraw.
That, evidently, was a decision of the Chair which leads to two conclusions, and they are

Speaker's Ruling
as follows. The first conclusion is to be found in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 69 and it is:
The Speaker exceeds his authority, if, without having been specially instructed by the house, he takes upon himself to alter any of his rulings which, once given, are under the exclusive control of the house.
The second conclusion follows from the same citation and it is that a Speaker's ruling, once given, belongs to the house which, under standing order 12, is free to reject it.
Also in the same citation it is mentioned that when a member has risen and announced that he appeals from a ruling, no argument should be brought forward to influence the vote about to be given by the house. For the information of the house I wish to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 133, which reads in part as follows:
When the Speaker takes notice of any expression as personal and disorderly, and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and calls upon the offending member to explain, it is the duty of the latter immediately to explain or retract the offensive expressions.. .The Speaker's demand usually produces the required explanation, at once; if not, the Speaker then repeats the call for explanation, and informs the member, that if he does not immediately respond to it, it will become the duty of the Chair to name him to the house...
Then the first lines of citation 134, paragraph 1, are as follows:
In case a member persists in using unparliamentary language, the Speaker will be compelled to name him, which is equivalent to submitting his conduct to the judgment of the house.
Finally there is a last quotation which I would like to refer to, and it is the first lines of paragraph 2 of citation 55 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which read:
The rulings of the Speaker or chairman must always be respected even though the member against whom they are given may find them arbitrary. If he declines to bow-down and does not appeal to the house he inevitably places himself in the position of having infringed upon the rules of parliamentary practice.
Having stated what the parliamentary practice is and has been throughout the years, I would again ask the hon. member to accept the Prime Minister's word and to withdraw; otherwise the matter will be out of my hands and I will ask the house itself to come to a decision.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this morning, without any heat in my heart or mind I put myself in your hands. Based on the facts before me at that time, I felt I was correct in making the statement that I did make, and I am afraid I still feel

so. Therefore I am still in Your Honour's hands for any action that you consider necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a most unpleasant duty, but it is part of my job-
Bight Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on this matter. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said that he feels exactly as he did this morning when he made the statement to which you have referred, in which he stated, for the third time, that I had attempted to mislead the house in answer to a question. I took exception to these words, because it was the use of the words "attempted to mislead" which made it a specific and deliberate attempt on my part to mislead the house. I said that was not the case and I appealed to you for a ruling, and Your Honour has given a ruling that the hon. gentleman does not accept.
I hope we can avoid taking any action in this matter by agreement, because it certainly reflects on a ruling of the Chair when a matter of this kind requires that type of action. I know perfectly well that when the hon. gentleman asked his first question it was not addressed to me; it was addressed to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mc-Ilraith), and in looking at the Hansard report I realize now that I should not have intervened at that time and should have waited until a question was addressed to me. To that extent I admit that I was quite wrong and I apologize to the house for that.
But the hon. gentleman made the statement that I had for the third time attempted to mislead the house-and there can be no attempt that is not deliberate. If he had just said I had misled the house it might have been, as was pointed out this morning, an unwitting and unconscious misleading of the house; but an attempt to mislead the house is deliberate. Therefore I had no alternative, as a member of the house, and only in that capacity as a member of the house who should be treated as any other member of the house, no better or no worse, but to take exception to the statement that I had three times attempted to mislead the house in answer to a question. Only in that capacity as a member of the house did I take exception to the statement. But I do express to my hon. friend my regret for having intervened at that time in his question to the President of the Privy Council, which I should not have done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if discussion is going to be allowed, discussion will take place. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is endeavouring to back away from the position he took this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to point this out, that the Prime Minister spoke in the same terms regarding words that I spoke in this house, and I did not ask for a withdrawal and you, Mr. Speaker, did not exercise the right of requiring him to withdraw those statements. I have never asked for withdrawals in this house, and I will not. He made the identical charge against me-


An hon. Member:: Worse.


John George Diefenbaker: -that this afternoon he holds the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) responsible for, and demands that action be taken by the house. I remember the 25th of May, 1956; similar circumstances took place then-and in 1957 the people spoke.


Mr. Habel:: Eight years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: May I once more ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle if he would accept my ruling and withdraw his words.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of the Prime Minister, after your statement here today, simply convince me that my actions this morning were sound and correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Hamilton, with the greatest regret I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
And the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) having withdrawn from the chamber.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is a man who did so much for Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the reason they are annoyed with him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He did so much. Now you are happy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is it not now in keeping with the proceedings and procedures of this house for the Prime Minister or someone on that side of the chamber to move accordingly, now that the hon. member has left? Let the government now continue its action by the appropriate motion.
Speaker's Ruling


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has left the house, and I would assume it is for the balance of the sitting day.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody said anything. There is no motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no authority myself to go beyond what I have done so far.


John George Diefenbaker: The government is required to act now in order to confirm this procedure, and I am simply asking them to do the rest of their job.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They know they are guilty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps recall that a similar situation arose in respect of a member of the Social Credit group, and he withdrew from the house in the same circumstances as have occurred today. That was the action taken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the member may be immediately recalled? I will bring him right back.


John George Diefenbaker: The government is going to do the job they set out to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It just proves that they admit they are guilty.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a regular procedure for this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member withdrew. Therefore he is waiting for the action of the house, and the government is required now to act. We intend to vote against that action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has done his best to bring the Chair into disrepute. Therefore, we have no alternative, at the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, but to-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman has said I have endeavoured to bring the Chair into disrepute. It is the government that is in disrepute. I ask, sir, your ruling on this. The Prime Minister cannot ascribe motives to others, and he is endeavouring to place on your shoulders the responsibility for his picayune action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the refusal of a member of this house to accept your ruling in such a serious matter brings the Chair into disrepute; there could be no other result. When a ruling has been made by the Speaker and the Speaker has taken three or four

Speaker's Ruling
hours to think over the matter and has confirmed his ruling, and has asked for the cooperation of the member and of other members of the house in accepting his ruling, when his ruling is rejected by the hon. member concerned, and when the hon. member then of his own volition leaves the house, and when the Leader of the Opposition insists that the formality be completed by a motion to eject the member from the house, then I suggest that once again reflection is cast upon the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, black
Fridays there have been before. There was one on May 26 and another in June, 1956. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the suggestion that, in asking, as it is the right of any hon. member in this house to do, that the proprieties be carried out, I am bringing the Chair into disrepute. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that statement unequivocally; and if the rules are to be equally applied Your Honour must call upon him to withdraw that suggestion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is any imputation on the motives of the right hon. gentleman I withdraw it unequivocally, and I hope my hon. friend will do the same with his statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are not on the
plains of Abraham now.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 134, which is to be found on pages 117 and 118, he reads:
In case a member persists in using unparliamentary language, the Speaker will be compelled to name him, which is equivalent to submitting his conduct to the judgment of the house. The member should then explain and withdraw, and it will be for the house to consider what course to follow in reference to him. If the explanation is deemed sufficient, some member will move that it be accepted. In case the offending member does not explain and persists in remaining in the house, a motion shall forthwith be made, preferably by the leader of the house, that Mr. ... member for... be suspended for... days from the service of the house".
I submit that this procedure should be followed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in November 1962, I think it was, when the hon. member for Bellechasse found himself in the same situation as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the government of that day made no motion and the hon. member was allowed to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: In the present case I would point out that the important words are:
In case the offending member does not explain and persists in remaining in the house, a motion shall forthwith be made...
In this case the hon. member withdrew.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has not withdrawn; he is still in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: And subsequently he came back. The Chair can only go so far. I believe I have taken as many steps as I can at this stage. It will be for an hon. member to make a motion, if a motion is in order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: Oh yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is one matter I can handle. If the hon. member is to make a motion he will have to take the responsibility for that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: What a Minister of Justice.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I take full responsibility and I agree to that request. I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council-


John George Diefenbaker: The silent man.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I put you in your place.


Guy Favreau: That the hon. member for Qu'Appelle be suspended from the service of the house for the remainder of today's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Favreau, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith, moves that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle be suspended from the service of the house for the remainder of this day's sitting.
[Mr. Pearson.)



IS, 1964

Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I not been paired I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion to expel the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton).


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills.



BROADCASTING ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-40, to amend the Broadcasting Act (community antenna).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would have had hopes of withdrawing this bill from the order paper if the government had shown a little more alacrity in facing up to the problem created by community antenna television systems. Some hon. members may recall that on the first of January the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) issued a statement that serious consideration was being given to doing something about this matter. We have had a number of partial statements since and the difficulty still exists. In the time I have I want to put on the record what I think are the two major problems involved in community antenna television systems, and since I have changed my own attitude with regard to one of them I want to be quite clear as to what these two potentials are that are involved in the bill and which I think are essential, whatever action the government takes.
The first question, and the one where I still believe we must have this kind of legislation, relates to the threat to free t.v. or to advertising revenue supported television going into homes that is in prospect as the result of the development of wired systems, and the potential that exists in using them as a network. I think this is a very real threat and it has to be met by the broadcasting authorities, in this case the government agencies.
The second problem, and the one on which I have changed my attitude, really relates to the inroads that C.A.T.V. is making upon the commercial prospects of Canadian stations, particularly in minor markets where C.A.T.V.

Broadcasting Act
brings in a number of American channels and so tends to build a trend whereby the listening audience, the number of homes with television sets that are tuned or can be tuned to the local station and so to the local market, is reduced, and so offers a potential threat to advertising revenue and therefore to the commercial viability of these local stations. The reason I have changed my views in this regard relates partly to a straight recognition of the fact that more than 60 per cent of the television homes in Canada now have, through wired systems and through just sheer closeness to American stations, the ability to have both Canadian and American channels come into their homes. It does not seem to me that at this late date, with 60 per cent of the homes open to this kind of television fare, that we can have the kind of regulation and control based upon some control of the Canadian content, that is, in terms of television stations coming into the community, that might have been envisaged a couple of years ago.
In order to put this matter into what I think is a North American perspective I should like to read from an article that appeared in the New York Times on the 5th of April, 1964. It is headed, "Neighbourly Lines" and it is by a well known authority on television in the United States, Jack Gould. It reads in part as follows:
Nearly one million American families pay a monthly charge to see television and the number could rise with the mushrooming growth of a branch of t.v. probably unknown to the vast majority of viewers.
The relatively novel form of video is known as community antenna television. Originally it was designed as a service for families living in areas where it was difficult or impossible to pick up a station.
But with the technical restlessness characteristic of the electronic business, new applications are being found for community t.v., and there are some who suggest it may prove to be the back door by which pay as you see television might come into being.
Moreover, community t.v. also has been in the headlines because of its potential importance in Austin, Tex., where the system promises to break the local television program monopoly enjoyed for over a decade by station KTBC-TV. KTBC-TV is one of the broadcasting interests of Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson...
The simplest explanation of community antenna television can be found in the case of a town which is situated deep in a valley with high mountains blocking reception of pictures from distant t.v. stations.
A huge master antenna is erected atop the mountain. Then the pictures from several t.v. stations and the sound from radio stations are sent down the mountainside on wires to a terminal point. From such a terminal more wires fan out

to homes throughout the valley, carrying qualitative pictures and sound into a subscriber's parlour.
The charge for being connected to the community system can vary from 75 cents to $5 a month.
I have known cases in Canada where the charge is as high as $10 a month.
The income goes only to the system operator, not to stations providing its raw material.
At present there are about 1,300 such community systems in 46 states and their construction has become more sophisticated. By use of one or more relay towers between an isolated locale and a t.v. station, it is technically feasible to span almost any distance.
The broadcast industry's eyes really went up when J. Leonard Reinsch, president of the Cox Broadcasting Corporation, announced that he would like to pipe the programs of stations WPIX and WOR in New York halfway across Pennsylvania to the community antenna systems for Tyrone and Chambersburg. The Cox firm also is contemplating the relay of Chicago stations to community systems in Ohio.
I introduce this particular section, which may seem irrelevant, to make a comparison with an application by one community antenna television group to pipe programs all the way from Duluth up to the Winnipeg area, a very great distance, by use of satellite relays.
If, by chance, community systems between New York and Chicago should be linked up, something a prominent Pennsylvania broadcaster.. .fears, there could be the first primitive system of network pay t.v.
The basis for such intriguing speculation is the technical feasibility of using the community t.v. systems as a straight pay as you see t.v. method. In a few instances community antenna operators have done a little of their own programming and some systems have carried sports events blacked out on advertising-sponsored t.v.
I have mentioned this because, at the lake-head, the community antenna television system carried a fight broadcast which was blacked out on free television. I have spoken to Mr. Bassett of the Toronto Maple Leafs about the attitude of that particular firm or company and the national hockey league with regard to this question of major sports events and the likelihood of their disappearing from free t.v. He assured me that as far as he knew there was nothing in it and he would fight against it. But I wish to place on record at this point a part of Dennis Braithwaite's column on December 16, 1963. It covers an interview with Stafford Smythe of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club and it goes this way:
The possibility that Saturday night hockey may pass from home screens to become an exclusive pay t.v. attraction is another indication of the shaky economic position of the television industry in this country.

That is all I wish to read from this article. I wanted to slip it into this context. To continue:
But the more Immediate influence of community -t.v. is being felt in areas where there may be only one station on the air, such as Austin. If a community system can double or triple the volume of available t.v., it may not sit well with the one station concerned.
This is the matter about which I have said I have changed my opinion. I no longer see any way in which this can fairly be controlled. It is not for this reason, now, that I would offer this amendment to the Broadcasting Act.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he still advancing this amendment to the Broadcasting Act?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Very much so, because I think this threat to free t.v. is very important. I appreciate that the hon. member who intervened comes from Hamilton and I think it was as a result of the Hamilton community antenna television operator coming up here to see him that I had an opportunity of seeing him. He was one of the community-antenna people who was quite prepared to accept these changes of government regulations. He himself could see that this is really the master plan or the great potential of some of the big interests who are interested in promoting and becoming shareholders in community antenna television. If I may read on-
The federal communications commission, which has had a rather ambivalent policy-
Much like the present Minister of Transport's policy.
-on whether it should worry about the economic consequences of its acts, has tried to help the affected station where it could.
I understand the same situation exists in this country as far as the Department of Transport stepping in is concerned.
Thus far it has ruled that such a system should not carry a given t.v. program until the local station, in effect, has exercised a first refusal. But if a community system uses only wires and does not need a relay facility, the agency, at the moment is powerless to act.
This also is the situation in Canada as I understand it.
The larger problem for the F.C.C., of course, is that the agency is confronted with something like two modes of t.v. All its traditional thinking has been directed to the distribution of t.v. broadcast stations requiring channels on the air. Now along comes a supplementary system which could sprawl considerably without recourse to hard-to-get facilities.
Present signs in Washington point to a full-fledged inquiry probably leading to future regula-
Broadcasting Act
tion of all kinds of community antenna t.v_While
the major broadcasting stations are not likely to lose their dominant role the little-noticed community t.v. antenna operator is really sitting pretty. It pay-t.v. and free t.v. come into conflict, he can handle both systems side by side and offer his customers the best of the two video worlds. Which may explain why some of the bigger boys are becoming interested in a system which has introduced another abbreviation into the video vocabulary: "CATV".
The final point I wish to make about United States set-up is this: starting in July, out in California, such a wired network is going into operation, and it will cover all the large networks as well as the broadcasting stations. I suggest to hon. members the question really is whether we are prepared to have the right to regulate-not regulate, now, but to have the right to regulate-in order to make sure that wired television systems do not develop into the kind of provincial or national network which will take off the air free t.v, as we know it. I am prepared to take a position on this. I do not see that there is any great principle involved, but I am prepared to take a position myself. I can see the potential when someone gets to 400,000 or 500,000 wired homes in this country which can be linked up with all Canadian football and national hockey. Some of the greatest entertainment going will disappear from free television airways in favour of these wired arrangements because there is a tremendous money potential there, as anyone who has attended any of the hockey games shown at the theatre in Toronto last winter knows. That field, it seems to me, is a legitimate one. What I am afraid of is the linking of this kind of enterpreneurship and this kind of money with a co-operative or ownership arrangement with the multitude of wire systems which have been developed in this country. I say this is a threat to free television, or advertising revenue sponsored television as we know it, and we need to face up to it at the present time.
I wish to point out that the government is none too clear where it stands. I have a speech here by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) who answers in this field. This speech is called "The Eighth Lively Art". It was made on April 6, 1964 and the hon. minister has something to say about re-broadcasting and pay t.v.
As for pay-t.v., though not yet established firmly as a commercial television system in the home, it has been making strides into the cinemas, as many Ontario hockey fans know very well.

Broadcasting Act
And, after the Etobicoke and Hartford experiments, pay-t.v. is about to get a full trial in California beginning July 1.
As Mr. Ouimet has suggested, t.v. re-broadcasting stations and pay-t.v. require study before situations develop in Canada which may or may not be in the best interests of Canadian broadcasting and the Canadian public.
That is not a very definite position to take. The troika, the three wise men who considered broadcasting and presented reports not long ago, Dr. Stewart, Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Ouiment, went out of their way to leave this problem to the government. Recently, the government announced the setting up of an advisory committee on broadcasting. Again, the terms of reference to this committee specifically say that community antenna television systems are excluded. In other words, the government intends to deal with this. In other words there is an onus upon the government to reach some decision on this matter.
I wish to repeat that two problems are involved. One is the whole future of free television. The other is the effect of the proliferation of community antenna systems upon the economic viability of certain private stations or C.B.C. affiliated stations in small market areas, where the taking away of a sizeable part of the audience could have a disastrous effect, certainly a potentially disastrous effect, on television revenue. I really feel that this bill should be accepted by the government-not as legislation, but I think it should be referred to a committee of this house so that we could hear arguments pro and con.
I wish to make .one final point. I received a letter from a constituent protesting the government's intention to regulate in this field. It is from Mr. Robert Prettie who is president of Northern Wood Preservers Limited, Port Arthur. He said, in effect, the following:
It is surprising, to say the least, that Ottawa is concerned about the effect of cable t.v. on the "commercial health" of our broadcasting system. No concern was shown over the effect of these same stations on cultural attractions, movie theatres or on hockey games. Up until now the public has had a certain freedom of choice within the financial means of the individual to enjoy that freedom.
While I am, naturally, interested in and concerned about the local situation, I am also concerned about the over-all approach and the principles involved. For example, if people in Vancouver, Montreal and Port Arthur can have the services of cable television-why can't the people in Winnipeg have such services? If people in Toronto, Hamilton and Vancouver can receive American television stations direct on their own sets, why should the people of Winnipeg be deprived of

receiving the same programs over cable television if they can get it and if they are prepared to pay for it?
Freedom of the air would seem to me to be just as essential as freedom of the press. However, the present thinking would appear to leave to Ottawa the ultimate decisions as to what will be available to the general public. With so many individual tastes and desires,-do you think that the general public can ever be happy with any selection but their own?
I replied to Mr. Prettie in this form. I want to put it on the record because I think it is relevant to this question:
At least one of the points that you raise was one that I did not take into account, this was lack of any previous concern about the effect of television broadcasting on other cultural attractions and events. The problem in its essence is this (for me and I believe for the government) if cable t.v, systems develop much further, they provide the basis for a potential wired network across the country which could drastically alter what we get on so-called "free television". The battle is already joined in the United States on this. Any action by the government has the intention to stop the development of a network, rather than the creation of any individual community cable system, and I believe this is going to be clarified.
I wrote this letter a few weeks ago, on May 25, when I thought some clarification was coming. Then I went on:
The difference between freedom of the air and freedom of the press is a substantial one. In theory, anyone can start a newspaper or magazine. This is impossible in broadcasting because channels are limited. As you say it would be unfair to deny to others in Canada what many Canadians in other areas receive from American television stations. For that reason, I can no longer, in fairness, oppose the licensing of a cable television system in Winnipeg, but I do oppose the possibility of a network in which Winnipeg is a link with other C.A.T.V. systems and I do advocate a clear order forbidding this as soon as possible.
That in essence sums what is a rather complicated argument on one of the most confusing minor issues that has come into the political arena in the last few months. I have a file of letters here that have come to me, and I am sure most other members can match it. Dozens of people have written about their concern, which has been stirred up through the national community antenna association of Canada. I believe the matter should be solved fairly quickly by a government order to the effect that I have argued this afternoon.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should mention that the hon. member's time had just expired, although the hon. member for

Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) might be allowed to ask a question with the consent of the house. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: As I understand the hon. member, he is primarily concerned with the first problem rather than second, for which he finds no solution. Does he think the regulations under the Radio Act to some extent deal with the implications of his first problem, which he feels should still be dealt with?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No; I think it still requires amendments to both acts, because I would suggest that the personnel who manage and look after the radio listening side of it, the technical side of it, are not in a position to move or act or weigh the consequences or the possibilities in the same way that the board of broadcast governors are.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Speaker, since permission has been granted for one question to be asked, I wonder if another question might be asked.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Chester MacRae: When the hon. member spoke he suggested that he did not now oppose another community antenna television system for Winnipeg. Is that the position at which we stop? Does he now feel that there might be one granted for Winnipeg but no others should be granted for anywhere else?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, Mr. Speaker; I am for the granting of them any place in Canada to bring in television programs from anywhere from which they can be obtained; and obviously, from the references, electronic developments are making this more and more possible. I say we have to have the power to regulate to prevent these systems from becoming linked into a wire system that will eventually lead to the cutting off of free television, because the wired systems, with their economic potential, will be able to buy and attract major attractions off free television-* the blackout kind of situation.


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, if I congratulate the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), the sponsor of this bill, it is for the interest he has shown in this very important matter and the opportunity he is giving us to discuss, in this house, the necessity or inadvisability to submit the community antenna systems and the like to the supervision and control of the board of broad-
Broadcasting Act
cast governors, with the results we know and might expect, especially as regards programming and other non-technical questions.
It is the second time that a motion for second reading of this bill is brought before the house. Last November 29, the hon. member introduced Bill No. C-30, of which Bill No. C-40 now before us is an exact replica. I had the opportunity then to take part in the debate and I am glad today to add new comments to the few remarks I could make before the time allocated to the examination of that proposal had expired.
As the hon. member himself pointed out at the time, it is not sure either that the bill is complete or constitutional and that parliament has the authority to legislate in that respect.
This is a burning question at the present time and it could have great repercussions on Canadian t.v. viewers; it concerns, as well it might, several hon. members. It was discussed in the press throughout the country.
Indeed, all the newspaper accounts I have read were against any measure which would restrict individual freedom. One has to be jealous of one's freedom and be especially alert in that respect these days because governments have taken the habit of enacting legislation and regulations which often infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens.
Like many others, I received from my constituents several communications showing concern on their part and the desire to get information or to make representations to me. Though a good number of them were perhaps prompted by people who had an interest in the matter, I am sure that many of them wrote to us of their own accord.
However, I can understand, as the hon. member has put it, why he is concerned and disturbed by the fact that these systems may, providing certain circumstances and in certain places, facilitate the reception of American broadcasts and promote the participation of foreign capital in the setting up and managing of corporations or companies which operate systems of that kind.
Since the first bill was introduced and while waiting for the report requested from the board of broadcast governors, the ministers concerned, that is the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State, then in office, decided to stop issuing licences in some cases, everything following the press release of last December 30. I think that order has now been cancelled. However, since then the requested report was tabled in the house last

Broadcasting Act
March 19 and printed in Hansard. I agree with the hon. member that, in the not too distant future and in the interest of all those concerned in those operations, the government will announce the future policy it intends to follow in that field. Many people or corporations already have invested rather considerable sums of money and are waiting impatiently for the government's decision to proceed. Personally, I feel that this policy or decision will not necessarily follow the recommendations made last March 19 by the joint committee of the board of broadcast governors and the Department of Transport.
I think that many hon. members would be opposed to that body being granted the right to decide what our fellow citizens can see on their television screen, especially when such regulations could apply to only a certain part of the population.
I know that the government, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) are studying that matter seriously, and I am confident that they will find a logical and realistic solution, in keeping with the best interests of Canadians, taking into account the special circumstances surrounding that case, which is very complicated and hard to solve.
The systems involved-and I am still referring only to the community television networks, which in fact are only an extension of the antenna any individual can instal on his house and which are used only to get a better reception of the signals which are already there, in the air, and which play a totally passive role and are no substitute for any television broadcasting of signals-do not transmit any program and, therefore, from the logical and practical viewpoint, cannot be subjected to the same standards and regulations which are provided or set up by radio and television broadcasting stations.
It is one thing to control what programs can be broadcast, but it is another thing to tell the people what programs they will be allowed to watch on their set.
Also, we know that everything that concerns the field of communications is very important here in this country and plays a leading part in what is called "The search for national purposes or objectives".
We must take into serious consideration and not exaggerate the role played by those systems as regards the transmission of signals coming from our neighbours to the south. As

a matter of fact, 30 per cent of all cable systems in Canada do not transmit signals from the United States, but are used only to provide a variety and an improvement of programs already picked up in an area, or else they increase the capacity to pick up programs of Canadian stations which could not be seen otherwise.
Moreover, the subscribers of these networks represent only 5 per cent of all homes having television and even in this small percentage, one has to take into account all those who, like myself, live near the American border and can pick up television shows with an ordinary antenna or even without any.
It is obvious that in our country, the great majority of our people are concentrated in more or less narrow strips of land in the southern part of the country along the borders and can easily pick up the powerful American television stations. Such is the case in the eastern townships and except channel 7, the excellent station operated by the newspaper La Tribune in Sherbrooke, we can easily pick up American channels but hardly French and English stations of Montreal if we did not have the cable transmission services which are much appreciated by some 20,000 subscribers to the dozen of networks operating in our area.
Such is the situation of about half of the Canadian people. Regulations restricting the freedom and rights of a class of citizens would, in my opinion, only be unfair and discriminatory.
We appreciate the efforts and the contribution of the national network and of all private stations which are indispensable to us, and we acknowledge their merits. They actually offer us several interesting programs which are sometimes of great value.
It must be recognized, however, that our fellow citizens often look at programs originating south of the border and which our neighbours, with their unlimited means and greater facilities in every respect, can offer us in a more complete and elaborate manner.
At a time when, as evidenced by the Tel-star experience, we shall soon be able to see programs coming from any country in the world, television viewers in Canada should not be prevented from seeing programs of interest to them. In my opinion, attempts should be made rather to encourage, help and prompt the C.B.C. network, as well as t.v. and radio stations and our artists, to present choice programs of prime quality and likely to hold the attention of Canadians who,

in general, are interested in their country, in their culture, in our projects, in our artists, and who gladly watch our programs when they satisfy their legitimate aspirations.
That solution would perhaps be more practical, more realistic and easier to apply. I know that we are already immensely contributing towards the operations of the C.B.C., the national film board, etc., corporations promoting a Canadian culture and a Canadian mentality, but we sometimes wonder if the best means are being taken to achieve this highly desirable purpose.
I do not want to imply that I am against all controls; wire television systems now have to comply with regulations established by the Department of Transport which controls the issuance of licences and which can, beforehand, give particular attention to stations receiving and relaying programs, the area covered, etc., and, above all, it is reasonable to expect that those networks have the obligation to broadcast Canadian programs when it is technically possible to do so.
I have no objection either to corporations or companies which operate such systems and want to obtain a licence being owned and controlled by Canadian interests in a large proportion, if not entirely.
However, we must avoid passing regulations that would deprive an individual of the right to watch on his t.v. set what he might pick up himself by using or erecting a more expensive aerial, which he avoids by becoming a subscriber to a community system. A regulation to the contrary would be an undesirable change. Our present legislation provides and assures that our country has broadcasting means under Canadian control and requiring a certain amount of Canadian content.
The objectives and purposes mentioned in section 10 of the Broadcasting Act passed in 1958 certainly did not forbid to listen to or watch programs from foreign countries, in order to seal off our culture against outside influence, when on the contrary it can develop and improve through contact with the views and the clash of ideas from all parts of the world.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-40 before the house this afternoon, the purpose of which is to give the board of broadcast governors some control over the so-called community antenna t.v. and cable systems which are regularly picking up broadcast programs and relaying
Broadcasting Act
them for profit by cable to private homes, is one which I think needs to be studied by a committee of this house to determine whether or not this bill provides the manner in which it should be controlled or whether some other appropriate means should be set up. I say that for the reason that up to the present time the Department of Transport has exercised some control over the establishment of cable television systems, but at the same time I do not believe there has been an adequate or clear concept of how they do in fact go about setting up such control. As I understand it, they simply issue a licence or refuse to issue a licence to instal a cable system in a city, and that is about as far as it goes.
A few months ago a hearing lasting several days was held in the city of Ottawa at which the television and cable relay people all over the country presented their views. I think it is fair to say that at that time the main contention they put forward at the hearing was that these groups were nothing more or less than a large antenna system. In other words, a large number of people had banded together in a co-operative effort which resulted in their being able to receive programs which, in fact, they could individually receive anyway.
When the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) introduced this bill, he mentioned that there was some confusion surrounding the regulations and the actual functions of this cable television system. I believe he said a mouthful when he said that. There are so many conflicting interests and conflicting regulations when you consider how this is going to affect private television, but certainly the House of Commons ought to give some consideration to it. I believe an agency of government should be concerned, in fact has an obligation to be concerned, when there are large segments of the Canadian population who may be deprived of something such as free television. In addition to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I think we should very carefully consider the implication in rural areas as opposed to urban areas. We should consider what would happen if free television were either downgraded or discontinued. In many areas, even in my own constituency, there are people who are objecting vigorously to the establishment of cable television. They feel that, if and when it is installed, it is certainly going to delay the day when other satellites are set up in the area. This would

Broadcasting Act
mean the people in rural areas would be denied the opportunity of listening to more than one channel.
Most of my constituency, which may or may not be typical, is confined to one channel television. It happens that the C.B.C. serves both ends of the constituency from two different broadcast areas. I know that large numbers of these people feel their interests are being hurt by the establishment of cable television because this is going to pick up all these urban customers, if you want to call them that, and there would be no commercial incentive to establish free broadcasting satellites.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I do believe that the expansion of cable television in Canada has reached the point where we have to recognize the fact that the regulation for the 55 per cent Canadian content in programming is being defeated. In other words, if it is possible, and we know now it is, to bring into these cable systems the entire programming of a United States station for one day, then these Canadian listeners do not get any Canadian content in their programs. I believe that this subject should be referred to a committee, and we should re-examine the regulation calling for 55 per cent Canadian content. If we are going to insist that private television stations in the country have 55 per cent Canadian content in their programs, whether or not their audience likes it, then in my opinion it is not fair that cable television should be allowed to broadcast the complete program schedule of stations which are not required to have that 55 per cent Canadian content. On the one hand, perhaps we have too little control, and on the other hand we are insisting on too much control.
I think perhaps we could argue that in certain areas satellites serve almost exactly the same purpose as cable television. In other words a satellite broadcasting 50 miles or 100 miles away from some major city into a small town or rural area is simply relaying the programs that originate in a television station in a city some distance away. The argument that there should be some local programming for that area is not valid at all, because of the point of origin of the program.
I do not wish to say any more, Mr. Speaker, except that I support the suggestion by the hon. member for Fort Arthur that a committee of this house neds to have a look at this cable television development in Canada in view of the tremendous expansion of it. I

agree with him also that there is a danger -I think that was the main basis of his argument-that it might develop into a closed circuit network from one end of the country to the other. Certainly if this happens I can see no difference between the control that should be exercised on that network and the control that should be exercised over private television networks. I am not sure that 1 can accept the bill that is before us, because it does seem to give blanket control to the board of broadcast governors over cable television without any indication as to what the members of the House of Commons would like to have done. I think it would be better if the subject were referred to a committee to be studied, and then recommendations made by the members of this house as to the regulations that should govern.


John Chester MacRae: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


John Chester MacRae: Does he not realize the essential unfairness of a situation whereby a portion of our population close to the border can get half a dozen television program, while those who live 50 or 100 miles away are subjected to the delicate refinements of the C.B.C.?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I certainly do recognize that problem. I also recognize the problem, and I tried to outline it in the remarks I made, that private, free television broadcasting stations which are 100 miles away from the border are subjected to severe regulation, and if we are not going to do the same thing in controlling cable television then we should also relax these regulations for private television.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the comments of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I think many of the things he said are quite correct, and they are receiving the attention of the government.
The only area in which the hon. member became critical of the government, at least so far as I could ascertain, was that it could have moved faster in this area; but possibly the hon. member himself suggested a good reason why the government has not moved faster. Although the regulations in the Radio Act are holding the line adequately for the present, he himself indicated that he has been having second thoughts on this very complicated matter, and that is one of the reasons

why the government itself has not moved so fast in this area.
The hon. member indicated what is going through his mind on the basis of second thoughts, on the question of C.A.T.V. providing competition or cutting into broadcasting stations' service, and the implications that flow from this. He has indicated he is not so much concerned about this any more, and to a degree the matter gets down to the more technical aspects of the question with respect to C.A.T.V., and with respect to which is the most competent body or agency to deal with these matters, and with respect to what the technical criteria should be.
Perhaps there is some merit in what the hon. member suggests when he states he would bring that authority under the B.B.G. At the present time the Radio Act does provide some control. The hon. member did not deal with the question of foreign ownership to any great extent, at least that I heard, and I think this is one of the most serious matters concerned.
As I understand it, the Radio Act at present provides for a minimum of 75 per cent home ownership or partly Canadian ownership, and 25 per cent non-residential foreign ownership, and many people, including myself, have serious doubts whether this ownership provision is at all adequate. A lot can be said, especially when there is expensive technical equipment to purchase, in favour of a United States company purchasing 25 per cent of the equity stock in any C.A.T.V. network and, with the adequate financing they have, that they in fact should have the managerial control of the company. There is some question as to whether the provision in the Radio Act is sufficient to maintain Canadian ownership of C.A.T.V. This is very important, due to the fear that has been expressed, not only by the mover of this bill but by other hon. members who have spoken, regarding the implications of a possible network throughout the country.
We also have to be very concerned about foreign ownership because of the fact that these people might bid on something that is really Canadian, something like hockey night in Canada, and if this would happen we would have cause for real concern. I believe the government would be well advised to consider this bill, but to do so in conjunction with an over-all communications policy, not only in so far as foreign ownership of
Broadcasting Act
C.A.T.V. is concerned but with reference to television generally and radio as well.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And Time and Reader's Digest.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record a few comments by a man who has written to me on this subject. He is the operator of one of these C.A.T.V. stations in my constituency, Mr. Norman Curry, and in his letter he says he is concerned about the possibility of Famous Players buying into C.A.T.V. operations across the country. I do not think there can be any doubt about who owns Famous Players. It is foreign owned and is having very significant influence in the C.A.T.V. field, and in the national association to which the hon. member referred.
In his letter he states:
With this in mind, I am taking the liberty of putting my views forward, and I came here to give warning that if Famous Players are allowed to purchase and control cable systems across Canada, without any regulation, then the government is faced with the possibility of a third network in Canada, completely controlled by American sources. This is not a far fetched statement. Technically, all the systems that Famous Players now own or operate, or can purchase in the future, are capable of being interconnected. Various means exist in Canada that can be used to accomplish this purpose.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway each possess micro-wave facilities, and wire facilities, licensed by the dominion government as common carriers, at the service of those who wish to pay the fee.
So that in the event Famous Players decided to interconnect their systems, through these organizations, the use of their facilities, the number of viewers that they will have as a captive audience, and if a method of charging for a program placed on these facilities was carried out, they would be able to outbid any Canadian broadcaster in Canada, including the C.B.C., in the purchase of entertainment.
If the government wishes programs for Canadians to be determined by Americans or for that matter, by private Canadian interests across Canada, then there will be no regulations. If this occurs, I firmly believe that within a matter of a very few years, Famous Players Corporation, with the assets available to them, and their resources will succeed in removing the Saturday night hockey games from Maple Leaf Gardens, from the reach of Canadian broadcasters, and place it on their own system for a few.
But if the government believes that Canadian programming should be operated by Canadians for Canadians, then we must have regulations, and one of the keys to the whole situation is the interconnection between cable systems across Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask whoever is the acting house leader about the business for next week?


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member I can only repeat what the
house leader said earlier. The first business will be the legislation respecting the Roose-velt-Campobello international park, the second reading of that bill to be followed by the interim supply motion.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 22, 1964