1964-06-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of the house. It arises out of an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday, Wednesday, June 17 headed "The End of the Affair" dealing with the report of the standing committee on privileges and elections.
The report of that committee is printed in Votes and Proceedings of Monday, June 15. The essence of that report is contained in paragraph 5 and the following paragraph which say there is no evidence of bribery or attempted bribery, and no question of privilege. As a member of that committee I feel that the deliberate misconstruing of that report by this editorial writer cannot go unchallenged.
The first sentence of the editorial says in part:
When Mr. Gerard Girouard, the Social Credit-turned Conservative M.P., accused the director of the Liberal party of trying to bribe him into joining the government side-
That is a deliberate lie by the editorial writer. There never was any such statement made by the hon. member for Labelle, and in fact throughout the hearings of that committee the hon. member for Labelle himself said there was no attempt to bribe him. The house will remember that when the hon. member for Labelle rose on his question of privilege on April 27, as recorded at page 2583 of Hansard he said:
The benefits: a party in power and a fat electoral fund for the next election.
The only suggestion that there had been a bribe offered was the statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in this house on April 28, when he rose on a question of privilege concerning this matter and said, as recorded at page 2645 of Hansard:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Labelle has alleged in this house that he was
offered a bribe, that he was offered certain advantages if he would take a certain position in this House of Commons.
The only suggestion of bribery which was made by anyone was that statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The statement made by the editorial writer is therefore completely and directly contrary to the facts, and since the hon. member for Labelle himself denied there was any attempted bribery it is obvious that the editorial writer is deliberately lying when he makes this accusation against that hon. member.
Further, Mr. Speaker, there appears this sentence in the editorial: "Thus, Mr. Davey is vindicated". The house will recall that the hon. member for Labelle rose on a question of privilege because he had been termed by Mr. Davey a "Liberal reject". The committee in considering this whole matter spent a considerable length of time examining the question and the evidence as to whether the hon. member for Labelle had in fact tried to join the Liberal party or had in fact been rejected. The report of the committee makes no reference whatsoever to Mr. Davey's charge. Mr. Davey was by no means vindicated by the report of that committee, so this is the second deliberate lie by the writer of the editorial.
That is not the only objectionable part of the editorial, because the writer then goes on to make allegations against an hon. member of this house which can only be called scurrilous. I will read the rest of the editorial so that hon. members may fully understand the slanderous imputation which this editorial writer makes so falsely against a member of this house, the last two paragraphs read as follows:
We are left with Mr. Girouard, and a nasty precedent. Parliamentary privilege is absolute, and no legal action can lie against a member who makes an accusation that would be held defamatory if it were made in another place. But privilege implies responsibility. And the "honourable members," as they love to call themselves-
And I would just point out that "honourable members" is put in quotation marks
-must be careful not to defame without justification individuals outside the house who do not share their legal immunity.
If Mr. Girouard can escape this incident without censure, there will be a temptation for unscrupulous members to think that it is worth making any reckless accusation against a political enemy.

Question of Privilege
Even if the charge is eventually disproven, there is always the chance that a bit of mud will stick. Someone in the house who shares Mr. Girouard's immunity ought to express the indignation of those members who are honourable in fact as well as by usage.
In my opinion the use of the words "honourable members" in quotation marks followed by "as they love to call themselves" is more than a slight against the hon. member for Labelle; it is a sneering imputation that members of this house are not fully entitled to such an appellation. Further, sir, the sentence "If Mr. Girouard can escape this incident without censure there will be a temptation for unscrupulous members to think that it is worth making any reckless accusation against a political enemy" contains more than a suggestion that there are unscrupulous members in this house. There is also an implied accusation that the committee on privileges and elections failed to do its duty with regard to this reference. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the phrase "the indignation of those members who are honourable in fact as well as by usage" is a clear allegation that not all members of this house are honourable.
Seldom if ever have members of parliament who conscientiously try to do their duty been subjected to such a scurrilous and unfounded attack as this writer makes upon the hon. member for Labelle. I cannot conceive that any member of this house would allow such wholesale attacks on all hon. members as these slanderous inferences constitute. I believe that newspaper editorial writers have a responsibility for at least quoting their facts accurately. They should have at least some regard for fairness. We as members of parliament must protect the position of members of this house as honourable members or fail utterly in our responsibility to those positions.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume):
That this editorial be referred to the committee on privileges and elections so that the editorial writer and/or the editor of the paper responsible for this editorial may be given an opportunity to appear before that committee to explain their conduct and for the committee to report back to this house their recommendations as to what action should be taken in this regard.
I have the newspaper, and I will table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there other hon. members who would like to give some guidance to the Chair?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak on the

motion for a moment. In reference to the irresponsible editor and the editorial I would just like to read from the sworn testimony on page 51 of the proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections. This is what the hon. member said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is the time for an extended debate. The question is, have other hon. members in this house any advice to tender to the Chair so I may reach a decision as to whether this motion is in order and should be put to the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is material to the motion to point out what are the facts. The hon. member said:
I explained the facts in the house. If any of you wish to have further details with regard to the interpretation that may be given to my statement, I will be happy to supply you with them.
And this is what he said:
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I have repeated facts and words in order to clear myself of the accusation made against me.
Those words which he refers to as having been said in the house on April 27, 1964 were "the benefits of the party in power and a fat electoral fund for the next election". So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the editorial was most irresponsible, and I therefore rise in support of the motion in question.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, after the experience we had with this particular case before the committee on privileges and elections I think it would be most regrettable if this motion were accepted by you. I would like to point out that the report has not been concurred in, and we have an undertaking from the chairman of the committee that concurrence will be moved. This will provide an opportunity for debate; it will open up a chance for all hon. members to have their say. I thought it was a pitiful editorial and most unfair, but I do not see how this particular action can really do much about setting it right. If we wanted to, I think any member of the house could take exception on almost any day to some editorial somewhere in connection with our role as members of parliament and how we carry out our duties.
I would like to point out to you, sir, that we will have the chance for a full debate. I know the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and others of us who were on the committee certainly intend to take that

opportunity to point out one of the implications from our hearings that was touched on by the editorial writer. I suggest that there would be a duplication in accepting this motion and at the same time having the debate on concurrence. I think everything could be fully aired then.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: As the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) just said, Mr. Speaker, I think we shall have an opportunity to give our impressions on what went on at the meetings of the committee when we will be asked to approve its report.
However, contrary to what the hon. member for Port Arthur and others before him stated, I do not think the editorial was as irresponsible as all that. Personally, I feel the proceedings of the committee left us quite sceptical about the value of such a committee.
Some hon. members contributed to conceal the truth or to have it concealed, and members of the committee completely washed their hands of the matter submitted to them. However, we shall have the opportunity to discuss this matter further when concurrence in this report will be moved. At that time we shall give our impression, which is far from favourable, about the work done by this committee and the results achieved.
I have not read the editorial in question, but according to what the hon. member who moved the motion said about it, I believe that the editor's remarks are rather justified.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, when the report was tabled two days ago it became a public document. The editorial quoted by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was comment on that public document. The main part of the hon. member's argument, I respectfully submit, was irrelevant and ought not to have been received because it was an attempt to review the evidence given in committee. It has been indicated that the committee report will be put before the house by way of a motion for concurrence, and then can be debated. Therefore that part of the hon. member's remarks should not have been received, since they were an attempt to anticipate that debate.
The latter part of his remarks were an expression of his opinion as to the editorial, and the assertion of the view that the editorial was irresponsible. Irresponsibility of
Question of Privilege
editorials is no part of the concern of this house. Surely the argument that in his view an editorial writer wos irresponsible cannot be put forward as the basis for a motion on the ground of breach of privilege of the hon. members of this house. The question of the responsibility or irresponsibility of editorial writings is completely irrelevant to the motion made. The fact that the hon. member does not like the editorial is quite his privilege. Others may like it.
The point here surely must be that the hon. member must make a prima facie case that the privileges of an hon. member have been breached. That case has not been made, and has not been argued by the hon. member beyond the mere assertion that, because of the irresponsibility, that result follows. Unless he can show some improper reflection on the personal character of an hon. member and separate that from mere comment on a public document as a public proceeding in this house, then the case must fail.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that no question of privilege has been raised that should call for a motion to refer the editorial to the committee.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only for the purpose of confirming and endorsing what has been said by the hon. member for Port Arthur. May I respectfully point out that the press were present during the hearings and heard all the evidence. The report of the committee having been delivered, it seems to me, with the greatest of respect, that the press can now make what they deem to be fair comment. The motion for concurrence is now on the order paper, and the same opportunity to comment will be accorded every hon. member of the house in due course when the motion for concurrence is moved.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no other comment it is my duty and obligation to find whether a prima facie case of privilege has been made out, and I wish to thank all hon. members who have spoken for giving me their advice.
Members may recall that only eight days ago, on Wednesday, June 10, I had occasion to give a long dissertation on a question of privilege, and perhaps I could refer to a few citations quoted therein. The first was Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 104, paragraph 5, which is as follows:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege

Question of Privilege
has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
These references are to be found at page 4140 of Hansard and, of course, in the original texts. Later on I referred to Abraham and Hawtrey, page 40, which says:
To constitute a breach of privilege a statement reflecting on the conduct of a member in his capacity as a member need not be untrue but it must tend to lower the house in the eyes of the public.
Then again, Bourinot's third edition page 152:
To constitute a breach of privilege such libels must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity.
Then Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 104, paragraph 2:
It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege does not extend to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the house itself.
Lastly, Abraham and Hawtrey at page 41:
If the Speaker decides that the member has made out a prima facie case, the member must make some motion in reference to the matter. He usually moves that the matter of the complaint be referred to the committee on privileges...
I have had the advantage of reading the editorial in question and I have a copy in front of me. It seems to me that if this editorial referred in general terms to members of parliament none of us, I suppose, would be so thin skinned that we could not accept some rather healthy criticism, but this editorial does cite the name of one hon. member once or twice, together with someone who is not a member. In other words it focuses attention on a certain member, and to that degree in a not very favourable light.
It seems to me it is my duty to determine, first of all, whether there is a prima facie case, and whether it has been raised at the earliest opportunity. On the second point, this is the earliest opportunity. As to the first point, it is for the house to decide whether there is a breach of privilege but it is for me to decide whether there is a prima facie case, and in my opinion there is.
Mr. Nugent moves, seconded by Mr. Rheau-me:
That this editorial be referred to the committee on privileges and elections so that the editorial writer and/or the editor of the paper responsible for this editorial may be given an opportunity to appear before that committee to explain their conduct and for the committee to report back to this house their recommendations as to what action should be taken in this regard.

The question will, I hope, be decided by the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to argue
against this motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I can certainly put my views forward. This is now a debatable motion. I want to argue against accepting the motion, and I want to make my reasons quite clear. I agree that the editorial is very scurrilous, but I want to point out to hon. members that there is implicit in what has already taken place in this matter, particularly with regard to the hon. member who is impugned by the editorial, a contradiction in relation to the evidence submitted to the committee between the evidence given by that hon. member and that of another hon. member.
I do not see how we can possibly deal sensibly with the issue brought forward on the question of privilege until this house as a whole has decided on this other fundamental point which I suggest lies right at the heart of that matter and at the heart of this comment. For that reason I put it to the house that we should not accept this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against 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:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Harkness:: I was paired with the Minister of National Defence. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Groos:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Loiselle.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Tomorrow at one o'clock, if the house agrees to revert to motions, there will be tabled volume 1 of the report of the royal commission on health services.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
June 16-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-
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:
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
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. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the answer he gave on June 16 with regard to one Josif Vergakis. At the same time I should like to ask him whether it is a fact that Vergakis was kept in custody following an order given for bail, which he was prepared to put up. Was he kept in custody from May 6 to June 14 for the alleged offence of refusing to answer questions? Is that correct or is it not?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: It is not correct, and I think the explanation is given in the answer I gave this week.


John George Diefenbaker: If I read the answer correctly that is the position. I ask the minis-

ter whether in view of this case, another very sordid example of administrative lawlessness, he will now consider having this matter looked into by an independent commission to the end that situations of this kind will not be permitted to continue.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as you know, when a supply motion was presented last week an hon. member dealt with a matter respecting immigration. When that motion comes again before the house in the next few days, I shall be very glad to supply at that time all required information to the house, as well as to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


John George Diefenbaker: One of the provisions in Magna Carta is that justice shall not be denied, neither shall it be delayed. Will the minister give consideration to the appointment of even a one man commission to look into this case so that arbitrary actions of this kind in this country may end?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to assign an official to make the necessary investigation in the department with respect to charges levelled against the administration of the department of immigration.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister not consider that a special committee of this parliament, which after all is responsible for the liberties of people, would be an appropriate body to look into this whole matter of the immigration law and the difficulties that have arisen?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, upon receiving this report, I will be very glad to submit it to any committee of the house for full consideration.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister has told the house that he is prepared to follow up any accusation brought to his attention. The question I want answered is, what protection is there for the liberties and rights of those people receiving this treatment of whom we may not hear?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the investigating commissioner will be able to take all the necessary steps so as to examine the charges that have been laid against the department during the last few days.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give us the name of this person, who belongs to the department, I take it?


René Tremblay: No.
Inquiries of the Ministry 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?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 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.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, it is someone outside the department making this inquiry? Who is	CANADIAN BROADCASTING
this person?	CORPORATION


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to announce the name of the person entrusted with this responsibility at the beginning of the week; it will not be a department employee.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he has not yet been appointed; is that correct? Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that it is difficult to put on Hansard either a vertical or horizontal movement of the head.
I^r* Tremblay: The decision has been taken, but we have not yet appointed this man. '


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. He said that the report of this as yet unappointed official would be referred to a committee of the house. Which committee would be considering this matter please?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will put this report before the house. It seems to me that it is up to the house to find a way to examine the report.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: At
the same time as the name is given, would the minister also state the terms of reference?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government proposing to take action to bring private 20220-281



INQUIRIES AS TO FILM RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister on the basis of the answer that he provided in the house the day before yesterday to a question by the hon. member for Royal. To make the question understandable I will read the relevant part of the question and the answer. The hon. member for Royal asked, concerning the restricted film on the Prime Minister:
~was. an oath of secrecy administered to Richard liaJicntine and his technical crew during the filming of this production prior to their being admitted to meetings of the cabinet or a committee of the cabinet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there was no such admission of unauthorized persons, including those mentioned by my hon friend, to any meeting of cabinet or committee of the cabinet.
I have in my hand a copy of the Montreal Gazette of yesterday which shows what purports to be 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.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not, of course, responsible for pictures that appear in the newspapers or for the captions put under them. I repeat what I said the other day, that neither this

Inquiries of the Ministry photographer nor anybody connected with him was admitted to any meeting of the cabinet or to any committee of the cabinet, nor to take any pictures of the cabinet in session or committee of the cabinet in session.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question addressed to the Secretary of State. I am wondering whether he is aware that if he visits a certain location in downtown Ottawa tonight, knocks three times and gives the password "Mike sent me" he can enjoy the otherwise restricted film "Mr. Pearson" which has been tastefully cleaned up so as not to offend the sensibilities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs; and would he pass on this good news to the C.B.C.?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the general interest in this subject, but I am not at all sure that the original question was not out of order on two grounds; first, because it asked whether a statement made in a newspaper was correct, and it seems to me that the caption underneath a picture could be the equivalent of a statement; and second- well, I think the first ground is sufficient.


Mr. Fairwealher:: As always, I gladly
accept your ruling, sir.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, do I understand you have just ruled that my original question was of doubtful validity, according to our rules?


Mr. Speaker:: I did not rule, but I made a very strong suggestion; at least that was intended. The question has already been asked and there have been two or three sup-plementaries, but if we were to start over again I am afraid I would have to rule that in my opinion it was a statement made in a newspaper.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then I have to give notice to you, sir, that there are serious implications in this matter which I will have to deal with at a time when I review all the facts before me. I am serving notice of that.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of "rural development", forestry and "ARDA"?

Is it true that the minister telephoned Quebec's agriculture minister to tell him that he did not want to deal with him any longer about the ARDA regulations and that from now on he intended to deal directly with the premier of Quebec?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I talked to him three times yesterday and I never dealt with the matter in that way.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of forestry and rural rehabilitation. In view of the importance of the ten major research projects under ARDA being carried out by the centre for community studies in Saskatoon, what has been done to overcome the difficulties resulting from the decision of the Saskatchewan government to cut the budget of that organization by two thirds?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question requiring a detailed answer. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper.



DELAY IN APPROVAL OF PROJECTS IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry in connection with ARDA. Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that his department has not yet approved the 29 specific projects, amounting to $7,500,000, submitted by the department of agriculture of Quebec?
If so, can he tell us why.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I gave a detailed answer to that question yesterday at the request of the hon member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry. Could he tell the house whether it is true that he is taking advantage of ARDA to interfere in provincial affairs?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the debate on that point results from a misunderstanding. During three telephone conversations I had yesterday

with hon. Mr. Courcy, everything was settled and we agreed on the interpretation to be given to ARDA in the province of Quebec. We are to meet in Mont Joli next July 4; members of the press gallery of the House of Commons and of the Quebec legislature will be present.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house who was wrong, the Quebec minister of agriculture or himself?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I will publish this afternoon the whole text of the speech I gave in Matane and the hon. member will have the opportunity to see the stand taken by the Quebec minister of agriculture and myself in that respect.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister ready to table-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a debate.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES EMPLOYMENT BY ROYAL COMMISSION OF RESEARCH STAFF

[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 Secretary of State. Would the minister inform the house whether the two man royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism plans to hire 45 full-time and part-time researchers at public expense to undertake various projects; and if so, would he tell the house the exact nature of these projects?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; and in view of the nature of the question and the lengthy reply that would be required, I suggest it be put on the order paper.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will this same commission be holding public hearings or meetings in Toronto and Montreal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe they have already held meetings there. I am not sure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, they haven't.
20220-281J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: But I also believe their public sessions are completed.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. The question arises from press reports of today. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the B and B gang will in fact be examining television, radio and newspaper media in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate this question at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I suggest to the hon. member that the use of the word "gang" in connection with a royal commission does not exactly dignify such a body.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I wish to debate this question at ten o'clock.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MEMBER OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is prompted by a report in today's Gazette in which a member of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism is quoted directly as saying that he did not believe in the recommendations of the commission, which would not change anything. Is the Prime Minister investigating this utterance, and has he had word of any resignation from any member of the commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think if I investigated every utterance made on the work of this commission I would be doing nothing else.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house what steps the government is taking to alleviate the great backlog of freight waiting to be shipped to Newfoundland via North Sydney and Port aux Basques?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker-

Inquiries of the Ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seem to be a little slow today, but that does strike me as a very good question for the order paper.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I serve notice that I will be debating this question at ten o'clock.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING SATELLITE TRACKING STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, nor have we yet received detailed reports of the unhappy damage in that country.']
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, now that you have allowed that last important question maybe I can rephrase the question I put to the Minister of Transport last week in regard to the construction of a multimillion dollar satellite tracking station in eastern Canada. Are negotiations still going on between the governments of the United States and Canada and, if so, how soon can we expect a further announcement regarding developments with respect to this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe the negotiations are going very well, but I should not like to predict when they will be concluded.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Canadian government made any offer of assistance to the government of Japan to assist those who have been afflicted by the disastrous earthquake in that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, nor have we yet received detailed reports of the unhappy damage in that country.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries?

In view of the statement that I heard last night concerning fish, does the minister propose to set up an inquiry into the merit of that statement to the effect that the consumption of fish could be one of the direct causes of stomach cancer? We would also like to know whether the minister proposes to launch a drive against fishing and fisheries as his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), did against the use of cigarettes?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member
put this important question on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the import of this question is of such a nature and of such great importance to a vast number of people in one of the primary industries of Canada that, with great deference to you, sir, it should not be placed on the order paper, but that if the Minister of Fisheries is in a position to make a reply of some nature at this time he should now do so.


Mr. Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house, if the minister is ready, and in view of the importance of the question, the minister may be prepared to make a statement.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the question is so important that it would be impossible for me to deal with it during the question period. But all hon. members can take my word for it, it is a good thing to eat fish at every opportunity.


Marcel Lessard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the minister willingly replied "with your approval", I feel the question I raised is most important, as mentioned by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), and I think the minister should take it more seriously and give it the consideration it deserves.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In order to give the matter more serious consideration, I should have to see and examine this report.

Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman, and will try and get an answer tomorrow.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Does the government intend to divide the resolution on the two anthems: "O Canada" and the royal anthem, as it has been done for the two flags?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot see any possible supplementary after a "no" answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask you this question.
Do you intend to divide the resolution on the two national anthems, "O Canada" and the royal anthem, as you did for the two flags?


Mr. Speaker:: It gives me pleasure to rule that question out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I discuss it after ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
Last Monday, June 15, as reported on page 4291 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister whether the federal government would be represented at the meeting to be held on June 30 next to study the critical situation of the water level in the port of Montreal. Can the Prime Minister give us an answer today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the hon.



EFFECT OF LOW WATER LEVEL IN GEORGIAN BAY AND LAKE HURON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister give immediate consideration to the communication he has received from the Georgian bay development association with regard to the current low water levels in the lake Huron and Georgian bay area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, apparently this is a much more urgent matter than the matter of getting freight to Newfoundland, but I am glad to tell the hon. gentleman that I have been giving urgent consideration to this matter for many months.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I object to the slur that was just cast on the Chair.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would withdraw this slur on the Chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I said anything that was disrespectful to anyone I apologize at once.


Mr. Speaker:: I hasten to assure the minister that I did not hear him.


Edison John Clayton Loney: A supplementary question.
Could I ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware that this communication refers to a letter written to the Prime Minister on April 28 which as of June 16 was unanswered?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with all the Prime Minister's correspondence but I will look into the matter and consult with his office. However, I can assure hon. members that there is no member of the house more concerned about the levels of Georgian bay and lake Huron than my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who represents in this house a very large part of that area.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the house whether he has any objection to sign stealing here in the house and, if so would he camouflage his signs a little more.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUESTS FOR STATEMENT ON PRIORITY OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the time element, with September drawing close now, would the Prime Minister advise when he expects to announce the student loan policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We hope to proceed with that, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we finish the resolutions on the flag and the anthem and the pension proposal which we will be bringing before the house. We will then proceed with the student loan and youth allowance matters.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. In any event, if all these matters are not cleaned up does the Prime Minister not think that the student loan policy is sufficiently important that one of the debates could be broken into so this could be put through?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot contemplate that we will not be able to dispose of these other matters before the middle of July.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, does the government intend to grant two kinds of loans to students, in view of the fact that we will have two flags?


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. When can we expect the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loan Act and the Crop Insurance Act to be brought before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As soon as we complete the measures already mentioned.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport having to do with the timetable respecting legislation. There is a report in this morning's paper which says "Transportation legislation shelved once more." In view of the tremendous importance of this legislation to a number of the provinces, and in view of the preparation which they must make to meet the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, would the Min-

ister of Transport give some assurance that the resolution will be passed so that we can see the bill, and that then there will be a waiting period before it is proceeded with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if most hon. members followed the excellent example of the hon. member for Medicine Hat it would not be too long before we reached this measure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, now that I have recovered from the unexpected and perhaps unwarranted flattery of the Minister of Transport, I wonder whether he would answer the question. The newspaper article to which I referred indicated that some official or officials of the Department of Transport had said that the transport legislation will be still further delayed. I should like to know if there has been a change of attitude by the Department of Transport with respect to priorities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been no change with respect to priorities, but in view of what has been going on it reads to me like rather intelligent speculation as to what might really happen.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider using his influence with his colleagues to arrange to have the transportation legislation brought in prior to the resumption of the flag debate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer he gave the hon. member for Ontario a few moments ago regarding the student loan legislation, does he think the flag issue is more important than bringing in legislation to help students?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I recognize that my hon. friend would be very grateful indeed if we would rescue him and his party from their dilemma in regard to the flag debate.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister

make a statement to the house with reference to the news report that a meeting will be held in Ottawa this fall of nations interested, with Canada, in the forming of peace keeping machinery to be available to the United Nations? Are these reports correct, and can the Prime Minister make a statement on the matter to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. Discussions have taken place through diplomatic channels and I hope a report on this matter will be made in a very short time either by myself or my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice; he may not be in a position to answer it today. I put a question on the order paper with reference to juveniles incarcerated in the penitentiaries of Canada. The answer to that question showed that one child under 14 or 15 years of age was in a penitentiary. Is his department considering implementing the recommendations of the royal commission with reference to the investigation of juvenile delinquency, and in particular taking some steps in regard to children of that age being placed in the penitentiaries of Canada?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In view of the current heavy pollution of the waters and shores of lake Ontario bounding Prince Edward and Lennox counties, which is apparently created by the ruthless dumping of oily wastes by shipping on the lake and which is ruinous to the beaches, the tourist industry and to fish and game, will the minister use his authority to investigate forthwith the origin of this pollution and use all means available to him to
Inquiries of the Ministry
apprehend, prosecute and stop this flagrant and barbaric breach of the law?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very much against pollution, Mr. Speaker, and I will do everything I can.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. Is he aware that the Fisher Gauge plant in Peterborough is moving part of its operation to the United States on account of the 11 per cent sales tax that is going to be levied on production machinery? I should also like to ask him if his department was in touch with this plant in Peterborough.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my officials have been in touch for some time with the Fisher Gauge operation in Peterborough. We are aware of the factors which have led them to consider removing part of their operation to the United States. I think it would be unwise or untrue for me to suggest that the 11 per cent sales tax was the only reason for this move. There are a number of complex factors, and we are endeavouring to correct as many of those factors as we can to try to prevent this move taking place.


Mr. Winkler:: Have you discussed it with the Minister of Finance?


Fred Frise Stenson: A supplementary question. I understand the Department of National Revenue has had auditors in the plant. What recommendations have been made to the minister's department or the Department of National Revenue with regard to this plant? I asked the minister, I think, and the Minister of National Revenue for this information some time ago, and I have not received it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member really wishes me to disclose recommendations made by one department to another.


David Vaughan Pugh: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Some time ago I asked if he kept a breakdown of the returns to the government from the 11 per cent tax. I ask him again, does he keep such a breakdown?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am not clear as to the question. Would my hon. friend be kind enough to repeat it a little more specifically?


David Vaughan Pugh: Does the minister's department keep a breakdown of the revenue to the government as a result of the 11 per cent sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding about this tax. I should like to point out, if I may, that it is a general tax which applies to a wide variety of products. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question the other day. He seemed to think it was a tax that had been placed on drugs by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: What has that got to do with building materials?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The tax has applied to drugs for a long time, and I would remind my hon. friend that it was his government that increased it to 11 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that kind of evasive action is the reason the Canadian economy is slipping in so far as our balance of payments is concerned. Can the minister give the intelligent answer we would like to have as to how much is realized month by month from the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials? I understood that to be the question. Does the minister's evasion indicate that they have no such records?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know whether my so-called evasive answers are responsible for the improvement in the economy, but if so perhaps it is worth while. As far as this specific question is concerned, I would be glad to get the information and supply it to the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: If you had said that in the first place you would not have had any difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this particular matter has been well gone into.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister


of Public Works which is of extreme importance to all members of parliament. My question is prompted by the lecture delivered today to the voluntary health committee of parliament by Dr. Dudley White emphasizing the vital need for exercise in the prevention of heart disease, especially among politicians. When will the exercise room in the west block, which was ready last year, be opened for use by members of parliament?


Hon. Jean Paul Deschaielels (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this question does not come under the exclusive jurisdiction of my department, but I will take up this matter with the various organizations looking after the welfare of the members of parliament and I will give an answer to the hon. member later.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed a question to the Prime Minister and he told me that he would look into it personally. I wanted to know whether all the members of the R.C.M.P. on duty on parliament hill in Ottawa to welcome tourists, are bilingual.
I should like the Prime Minister to tell me whether my recommendation was implemented.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have taken this matter up with the Minister of Justice who is responsible, of course, for the R.C.M.P. He is in discussion at the present time with the R.C.M.P. on ways and means of dealing with this matter, and hopes to be able to make a report very shortly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR BILINGUAL INSIGNIA ON NEW CARS On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
The Canadian National Railways has just ordered 500 cars from the National Steel Car of Montreal.

Would the minister tell us whether the inscriptions on those new cars will be bilingual?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I could not answer that question offhand.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Lester Bowles 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to move what I hope will be a joint address of parliament for the amendment of section 94A of the British North America Act. If the resolution is approved by this house, then we shall of course move a motion requesting the concurrence of the other house, which 20220-282
British North America Act can be expressed by inserting the words "Senate and" in the resolution.
The purpose of this proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, is well known to the members of the house. It is a purpose which I believe is supported by all parties in the house. The means for achieving this purpose, survivor benefits in pension legislation, that is by submission of a resolution to the parliament at Westminster, is of course strangely out of date and indeed inappropriate. But at the moment, it is our only means available to this parliament for making this kind of constitutional change. It is, of course, an unhappy situation as we approach the centenary of our confederation and as we approach the 35th anniversary of the passing of the statute of Westminster. It is a situation which I am sure all members of the house and all Canadians would like to see changed. But we have to deal with the situation as it is at present with regard to the procedure to be followed in this matter. If the procedure is anomalous, as it is, and if indeed in a sense it is humiliating to go to another parliament to ask them to do something of this kind for us, it is a self-inflicted humiliation.
The existing section 94A was created by a constitutional amendment in 1951. This 1951 amendment made possible the old age security system under which all Canadians are paid a flat rate monthly pension on reaching age 70. This amendment provided simply that the parliament of Canada, as well as the legislatures of the provinces of Canada, might enact legislation regarding old age pension. This, of course, has led to joint jurisdiction in this matter.
Now, that provision was adequate for the old age security system under which everyone became a beneficiary at a certain age, and no one became a beneficiary before that age. I think we can all agree that this is the foundation of our social security system but that it is not, in itself, enough. I believe it is generally agreed that the time has come to supplement the universal flat rate pension with a broad scheme of social insurance. This is certainly the government's belief, and discussions that have already taken place in the house have shown that it commands general support in the house.
The main benefit under any proposed pension scheme of the kind which I hope will be introduced shortly into the house will, of course, be a retirement pension. For a great majority of people who go on working to the

British North America Act usual age of retirement, the plan will provide an earnings related pension which, in combination with the old age security benefits, will I believe assure that people continue to have at least a modestly adequate income on retirement. But such a plan is not complete unless it provides assurance also to people who unfortunately are not able to go on working to the usual age of retirement. This is the purpose of supplementary benefits in a contributory pension scheme.
In the documents which I tabled in the house last week, I think it was, the supplementary benefits that we propose, which would be covered by this kind of amendment if it were adopted, were described in some detail. They were of four kinds and I will outline them briefly. First, there would be the pension for widows of contributors; second, there would be the benefits to dependant children of contributors who die; third, there would be pensions for contributors who became disabled before reaching retirement age; and fourth, there would be a modest death benefit payable to the estate of any contributor.
These benefits are supplementary to the pension plan but they are not themselves old age pensions. The beneficiaries are not necessarily aged. An important group of them, indeed, are children whose father is dead, or whose mother is dead in a case where it was the mother who supported the family.
The constitutional amendment is necessary to make it clear that this parliament has the power to legislate such supplementary benefits of the kind I have mentioned. The amendment, as proposed in this resolution, would be simply an adaptation of section 94A of the British North America Act to cover this broader purpose. It adds to old age pensions, and I quote from the proposed amendment, "supplementary benefits, including survivors and disability benefits irrespective of age". This, Mr. Speaker, is the only change, though it is an important change. It is the only change of substance.
The amendment also takes advantage of the opportunity to tidy up the wording of section 94A by deleting an unnecessary "it is declared" and an unnecessary phrase "from time to time". These are deletions from the original 94A. There are also certain consequential changes in the latter half of the section, that part of the section which safeguards the continuing jurisdiction of the provinces in relation to pensions and related

matters. The present wording of the section refers only to pensions. In order that the safeguard will apply equally to the supplementary benefits proposed, the amendment refers more broadly to "such law" and "any such matter"-that is, the supplementary benefits as well as the pensions themselves. These are the changes that are proposed in the resolution, Mr. Speaker-one of substance, the other of wording and a consequential amendment.
I should like to make it quite clear that the rights of the provinces are unaffected by this amendment. Indeed, I feel that goes without saying or the provinces would not have unanimously agreed to the wording of this formula. The existing section 94A provides that no federal legislation shall affect the operation of any federal law, present or future, in relation to old age pensions. The proposed amendment retains the same provision in relation to both pensions and supplementary benefits. As the house is aware, the wording of the amendment has been submitted to the provinces. As I have just said, this resolution is being brought before the house only after all the provinces have officially expressed their concurrence in the proposed wording.
In conclusion, I should like to express my appreciation of the co-operative spirit in which the premiers of the provinces have considered this matter with the federal government. As a result of that co-operation, we can now make a most important social advance in this parliament. I am sure all hon. members will wish to participate in that advance for the good of the people of Canada. I believe, therefore, that this amendment which is before the house will receive the approval of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the unique ironies of Canadian history that parliament should halt consideration of the question of national flags in order to make an application, by way of an address to the British parliament, to ask that house to amend the Canadian constitution.
In these days of discussion regarding Canada's position as a nation, the panegyrics one has heard in the last few days as to the steps being taken by the government, make the application for the present address before the house rather ridiculous. During the period we were in office we tried to bring about, through the initiation of action within our country, the repatriation of the Canadian

constitution. We dealt with that on more than one occasion. There were times when we were very close to agreement. We started in 1960 by the convening of two conferences to repatriate the British North America Act, and we hoped that we would be able to achieve that.
Discussions took place over a period of time, and in particular on November 2 and 3, 1960, following which a communique was issued. The conference had available for discussion the drafts of the various alternatives which had been previously suggested, forming the basis for a possible formula under which the power to amend might be transferred to Canada, and a committee representative of all the provinces started to consider the various submissions made.
It was unanimously agreed that the provisions concerning language and education, and one or two others, should be entrenched, but the area of disagreement was mainly that dealing with legislative powers of the provinces under section 92.
A further meeting was held on January 12 and 13 of the following year. There was considerable opposition, and the chief opposition to the entrenchment of much of section 92 originated from the government of Saskatchewan. There was as well, of course, continuing opposition from the government of Quebec in this connection.
In 1961 various meetings were held and finally a draft bill was made public on December 1 of that year. That draft bill would have made possible the removal of one of those anachronisms that speaks out loudly and definitely whenever we in Canada wish to make any changes that have a constitutional import. As I said a moment ago it is ironical that we, because of the failure of our governments federally and provincially to arrive at agreement, still have provisions that are not applicable to any other independent nation within the commonwealth. Whatever the views of the past may have been, certainly there has been no justification for this during the last 40 years.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) mentioned the Statute of Westminister. It enacted nothing new. The Statute of Westminister simply placed into legislative form the accepted principles of the association within the commonwealth. For many years successive governments hoped to bring about agreement in this regard but now in 1964, while we talk about emblems, national symbols and all that kind of thing, we go cap in hand to Westminister in order to secure 20220-282i
British North America Act changes that are necessary from the point of view of both economic and social security.
I am going to say no more in this connection, except that it is not Westminster that exercises by its own wish this authority over Canada. It is the failure of Canadians to build within this nation one Canada. That is the reason for this situation.
Dealing specifically with the amendment, it is a strange thing that when we were in office and said such an amendment was necessary if survivor benefits were to be provided, those who now sit on the treasury benches argued that no such constitutional amendment was necessary to provide for such benefits. The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), when he was minister of national health and welfare, dealt with this matter on a number of occasions, and each time this question came before the house those who now sit on the treasury benches said such a course was entirely unnecessary. Well, repentance has its reward, however late. It takes place, I am told, in the religious world; but this is a remarkable turnabout on the part of a government which, when in opposition, enunciated the principle that all of these things could be done right here in parliament without there being any necessity of securing a constitutional amendment.
We tried to get this amendment consented to. All of the provinces excepting the province of Quebec agreed. All were prepared to accept and to consent to an amendment to provide for the provision of contributory retirement pensions. We had the legislation ready. We had at all times supported the need. We had before parliament and ready for presentation, as set out in the speech from the throne, legislation that would have provided for these things that are now provided for in the suggested bill that will be presented following the acceptance of this amendment by Westminster.
Sir, to say the least, the course of the government on pension legislation and contributory pensions has been marked by evasion, retreat, withdrawal, defiance of the provinces and finally by capitulation on the part of the government, it having failed to cooperate through consultation with the provinces. It has been a wonderful story. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) is not here. I can understand that. Remember when she came before parliament -she now appears-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: She came before parliament in the month of July last, saying, in effect: Here is the pension plan. It is the

British North America Act greatest thing which has ever been presented anywhere at any time. The hon. lady went on to point out that it had to be passed by parliament-"Either you pass this plan in the form in which 1 have presented it, or I will not continue as minister". It was not passed. It was not considered. And she still is minister.
Then there was the second plan which evolved out of other considerations into which I shall not inquire at the moment. This second plan was supposed to be better than the superlative plan number one which died even before birth. Number two, in turn, was one of those measures it was said which men would look back on in the years to come as a milestone in the field of social security legislation. We said of both of those plans, number one and number two: You cannot bring them in without a constitutional amendment. We asked for that almost a year ago. And the answer was that there was no necessity whatever for such an amendment.
We endeavoured ourselves, in January 1962 and earlier, to secure the consent of the provinces to bringing in legislation which would enable provision to be made for contributory pensions. In order that there may be no doubt about this, I wish to place on record a copy of a letter which was sent to all the premiers of Canada in this connection. This letter appears in Hansard of 1962 at page 76 and it reads, in part, as follows:
My colleagues and I in the federal government have come to the conclusion that the Canadian social security system should be improved by the addition of a plan for graduated old age pensions on a contributory basis in addition to the basic old age security pension, for all those who can reasonably afford additional provision for their old age and who have not already undertaken it under private pension plans or other contractual arrangements.
In other words, our plan was to operate in conjunction with existing plans; it was not intended to impose a new system over and above existing plans. The letter continues.
We believe that a plan of this kind, which would have some resemblance to the American social security laws and the recent British legislation, should also contain provisions for the payment of benefits under certain circumstances to the widows and children of contributors who die, and to former contributors who become permanently disabled.
I emphasize this because it shows clearly there is nothing new about what is being produced here today over and above the measure we endeavoured to bring in and in respect to which an amendment to the constitution was required. Then I went on to point out:

The British North America Act was amended in 1951 by the addition of the following as section 94A-
This has now been set out by the Prime Minister in the course of his remarks, and I will therefore not repeat it. The letter continues:
The law officers of the crown advise me that this authority would permit parliament to enact a contributory, graduated old age pension plan-
That is the authority of the amendment of 1951-
-but would not permit the inclusion of benefits payable under certain circumstances to widows and children, nor to contributors who become disabled before they are old. To extend the law in this most desirable way, it would be necessary to replace the present section with one reading-
And I then set out the manner in which the amendment could be made.
Hon. gentlemen now sitting opposite on the treasury benches said this was nonsense. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who then was not only an authority on agriculture but an authority as well on health and welfare, said this was not necessary. He said there could not have been such an opinion received from the law officers of the crown. But there was. This government said, when it came to office, that such an amendment of the constitution would not be necessary. They have found out, after two experimental jumps, that finally, before making the effective jump, they now have to ask for something which they repudiated as being unnecessary for a period of years.
The section we suggested, and which we wanted to bring in, was this:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
(a)	old age pensions, and
(b)	pensions and other benefits incidental to, or conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions,
but no law made by the parliament of Canada under the authority of this section affects the operation of any law enacted by the legislature of a province in relation to any of the matters specified In paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
This is, in effect, what is being done today, after the delay on the part of this government of a year while telling us such action was not necessary. Now hon. members opposite recognize that it is. I went on to say:
My colleagues and I had hoped that agreement would have been reached by this time on a means of amending Canada's constitution in Canada and that this change In section 91A would have been one of the first amendments made under the new

arrangements. It is now evident that it will take some further time to reach agreement on the methods of amendment of the constitution in Canada and it will therefore be necessary to proceed by way of an address to the Queen-
All the provinces of Canada with the exception of Quebec agreed. Mr. Lesage took the stand that unless we set out in detail what we proposed to do with this power he would not give his consent. We pressed him again in the fall of 1962 and we received the same answer. He advanced a proposition which constitutionally was untenable, namely that a province has the right to ask a federal parliament to give full details of whatever action it intends to take under amendments to be made to the British North America Act.
I will not go into that correspondence now. It is set out in detail in Hansard. It shows clearly that the only reason this legislation is not on the statute books today-portable pensions available under a contribtuory plan -is that this constitutional amendment was denied. The present government, however, when it first came to office, undertook that all these things were to be done in those 60 days of never to be forgotten indecision. They tried, they talked-and they ended up by withdrawing. Finally, there was a dominion-provincial meeting. Then the situation became abundantly clear when Mr. Lesage said: I will not accept the plan you have produced. This was the revised version-the second jump, which was the epitome of all the parliamentary advances in the field of social security. Mr. Lesage said: I will have nothing to do with it; it is not good; I have a better plan. And he proceeded to set out in detail the plan he had. Indeed, he went so far, I understand, as to prepare a bill. At the conference in Quebec no agreement was reached. The Prime Minister of Canada said: We will have to try to do something about it, but we stand firm on the plan enunciated by my colleague the minister of health and welfare. That is what the right hon. gentleman said in effect. Her plans today are forgotten; the schemes are things of the past-they have joined the limbo of forgotten things. Two weeks after that meeting in Quebec the government of Canada decided that they would give a carrot, a large carrot to the provinces. They promised new plans of sharing in taxation fields, plans that are going to greatly increase the income tax of Canadians because $60 million will have to be raised this year and double that amount next year. Those are the things that happened. They brought out this new scheme; they said, "Here is the
British North America Act money", which they had refused two weeks earlier. But they went further and they said to the premier of Quebec, which was the fact, that his plan was immeasurably better than the ill digested plans they had placed before the house.
On May 14 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) wrote a letter to the premier of Quebec. He said:
I acknowledge your letter of April 29. I fully agree with you that the spirit which marked the recent arrangements between the federal government and the provinces must continue to inspire and characterize federal-provincial relations.
I am happy, in particular, that your government has decided to participate in the work of the joint committee on taxation...
I am also gratified by your approval of the pension plan which I outlined in its main aspects in my telegram of April 19. I intend to submit to parliament the proposed amendment to the constitution concerning supplementary benefits, as soon as it has been endorsed by the provinces.
Then he said this:
I have learned with pleasure that the preliminary meeting which the officials of our two governments held last week to make preparations for the negotiations which are to take place at the beginning of June on "contracting out", has been useful and fruitful.
Contracting out? What do the ministers surrounding the Prime Minister say about this? What about the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp); what does he say about contracting out? I read from a speech which he delivered a few days before that particular date, when he said this, "some confusion on this point seems to have arisen as a result of the misbegotten phrase 'contracting out' ". I do not know where the illegitimacy comes in, but certainly that misbegotten phrase was the one that was created by the Prime Minister to describe what was being done. It is a matter of great interest to look back over the years and to read what some of these people said when evidence was given before a joint committee of both houses, upon which occasion the chairman of the House of Commons representation was hon. Jean Lesage. That was in 1950. They met together and called various witnesses before them-and one of them was Mr. Mitchell Sharp.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He gave evidence which is reported at page 950 of the minutes of proceedings of the joint committee on old age security; this was for the financing of a plan of old age security for Canadians, and there was presented a brief prepared for the joint committee by the Department of
,4450

British North America Act Finance. I ask hon. members to read this evidence. It bears about as much relationship to this present plan as does the present plan to the first one that was brought before the house. Mr. Mitchell Sharp gave evidence as follows:
The fundamental characteristic of a "pay as you go" system is that those who are working pay the cost of providing pensions for those who have retired. The financing of a "pay as you go" system is, a matter of distributing the current cost of pensions over the population in what is considered to be a proper way. In other words, it is essentially a revenue problem, even though the scheme may be "contributory" in the sense that it is paid for in whole or in part by a special levy or contribution.
Then he referred to the deferred equity plan. But the interesting thing in connection with this matter is that among the witnesses who gave evidence was none other than the present Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne). He gave evidence at that time and he gave his views in regard to various matters. This is of interest. This is the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker; the man who over and over again criticized us because we had budget deficits, created as a result of the extra assistance we gave to the provinces. What did he say when he gave evidence here in parliament? At page 1041 he is reported as having said this-and I refer to Professor Lamontagne:
Q. For general taxation purposes, then, that would assume that the taxes levied upon us now are excessive and not needed for the general revenue Qi the country?
A. Yes.
Just prior to answering that question there is this passage:
Q. Do you mean you would lower the income rate as it now exists?
A. Yes, for general taxation purposes.
This was the economist talking, not the politician. A little further on it becomes even more interesting as he gives his general views on the question of the economy. I wonder whether he has whispered any of these things to the Prime Minister and the other members of the government:
Q. You say you would therefore lower them? Assuming that we continue to receive the revenue we now get for expenditures that are necessary, do you say that we should lessen those expenditures?
Here is his answer:
Not lessen our expenditures-
In that this government has certainly run true to the Lamontagne viewpoint of 1950.

They have not lessened our expenditures; they have increased them by several hundred million dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I bring this to the attention of the government. He said, "Not lessen our expenditures"-and certainly they have learned that lesson. They did not need the Secretary of State to give them that advice. This is the next part of his answer:
-but I do not believe in the balanced budget-
This is interesting. This is one of the ministers of this government talking. Now we begin to see why the talk of a balanced budget has now ceased and does not have any efficacy in their thinking. Then he said:
-and I think we will experience deficits in the near future.
Those prophecies on the part of the Secretary of State, Professor Lamontagne as he then was, came a lot nearer to the facts and were much truer than those of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in "Troubled Canada." Professor Lamontagne was asked this question a little later on, as reported at page 1042:
When you spoke of reducing the rates of income tax you had in mind the fact that today we are spending, in our budget, about $100 million on old age pensions; and you say you would take that out of the budget, put it in the social security levy, and reduce the income tax by the amount that results in the $100 million of taxation?
His reply was:
Not necessarily; but that is another question.
Then he was asked:
Subject to what you said about balancing the budget?
A. No, I do not favour a balanced budget.
This is tremendously interesting. I suggest, sir, that when we come to financing this new plan of social security Mr. Lamontagne be called in, and his professional opinion that the time has come for a reduction in income tax be carried into effect, regardless of whether or not there is a balanced budget, because when he was an economist before he became a politician he did not believe in a balanced budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What about this plan?


An hon. Member:: He would take off the sales tax, too.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. He spoke of a reduction in taxation. Certainly no government in so short a time has increased taxation on so many.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: They talk about reducing taxes. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce were not in Saskatoon trying to sell a second class product today to the people of that city in my province, I would refer to the fact that they pointed out that a sales tax on building materials would increase the cost of construction. He apparently did not want anything of that. This is before Mitchell Sharp, the economist of 1950, became Minister of Trade and Commerce in the government of 1964.
It has been, Mr. Speaker, an interesting study in the course of manipulation in planning, a sinuous course which has been followed by this government and which now culminates in the application of something which each and every one of those who sit opposite and talked about it said was unnecessary, namely an amendment. Mr. Speaker, you are not surprised, you are not shocked, you are not disturbed. You have seen so much of this in the last 14 months that you would be surprised, shocked and disturbed were the government not to follow this course in this case, as in so many others. We thought we had touched bottom with changes, alterations, withdrawals and retreats one after the other as this government brought in some measure or other, advanced it to the house and then took it away again to be amended. Take for example the pension plan, which was brought in with a blare of trumpets and then taken back to the workshop of the minister of health and welfare even before it got on the road. Then it was found that it would not operate and the government produced another plan. Then they found that would not operate. As I was saying, we thought we had touched bottom, but this government has shown unfathomed depths in its incapacity in this case as in so many others.
What will be next, Mr. Speaker? We said 14 months ago that this amendment was necessary. At that time we did not have the same minister of justice. That minister of justice has gone to another reward; I do not know whether that was because of his opinion given in 1964 that a constitutional amendment was not necessary. I am sure the present minister would never have agreed with that, otherwise we would not have this measure before us today.
British North America Act
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this is the kind of dawdling and playing around which has characterized this government. I was in Saskatoon yesterday-I notice my absence was noted-and I think the harvest looks pretty hopeful. I found the people there talking about this pension plan, and they are starting to ask when they will get it. You remember, Mr. Speaker, immediately after the election the old pensioner who thought he was going to get an extra $10, but who found that the government would not act until we forced them by moving an amendment. This plan which will be brought in-providing there is not yet another change -will not be in effect for a long while. Payments will start, as I recall it, in 1966; contributions will start earlier. When the government brings in this legislation I think they should widen the powers for which they are now asking in the amendment so as to cover additional possibilities which may arise in the future.
As far as this amendment is concerned, we support it. We said that it was necessary in 1962, when this contention was ridiculed by those opposite. I am not going to clutter the record by repeating the loud denials of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), or the lesser ones of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), or of other ministers, this galaxy who today occupy the front benches of the government. I would simply point out this-and it cannot be denied-that what they said was unnecessary is today the necessity which we said it was. When this amendment is passed, as I am sure it will be, and Westminster makes it law, we can thereby proceed to start to retrieve the loss of 14 months caused by the incapacity and stubborn tenacity with which this government bulled its way ahead, bringing in plans for parliament which were ineffective, ill-born, or at least ill-conceived. After 14 months what we said was necessary then is now being done.
We support this amendment and welcome the fact that it is being brought in now. I conclude where I began, namely by saying, what a commentary this is. When the front benchers of this government talk in such stentorian tones of what they are doing to bring about national symbols and national unity, while at the same time bringing about symbols of national disunity, we have to go to Westminster and say, "Will you please allow us to amend our constitution?" Not because this is what Westminster wants, but

British North America Act because there is not in this country of Canada that oneness, that determination of Canadians whatever their province, to join together as one nation to make this a great nation. No nation can achieve greatness when there are divisions within it which deny the right of the parliament of one's country to deal with one's own constitution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we regret that there have been so many delays in connection with the proposed Canada pension plan. However, we are hopeful that this third start may be more successful than the other two turned out to be. There have been a number of references this week to history. Perhaps I might see a hopeful omen in the fact that we are making this third start on the 56th anniversary of the day that the first legislation in this country respecting pensions was dealt with in the House of Commons of Canada. It was on June 18, 1908, a day that I have a personal reason for recalling, that the Government Annuities Act was given its second reading and put through committee of the whole. Perhaps on this occasion a third start to the Canada pension plan on June 18, 1964, will be a little more successful.
Since there have been these delays, Mr. Speaker, we are also glad that the point has now been reached where we are facing the necessity of obtaining an amendment to the constitution. I should like to look at this question of obtaining an amendment to the constitution a little more objectively than, in my opinion, the previous speaker did. The fact is that prior to 1951 there were no references in the constitution to old age pensions, and therefore such old age pension legislation as we had was ours because it did not involve any direct tax or direct contribution for old age pensions. In other words, the original old age pensions act of 1926 was possible without any special authority in the British North America Act.
But when in 1951 it was proposed, as a result of the work of the committee on old age security to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred, to bring in an old age security act, it was the opinion of the law officers that we had to obtain an amendment to the constitution. Why? Not because there was anything essentially different in the pensions that pensioners would receive-even the removal of the means test was not a constitutional problem-but because special taxes were going to be collected, taxes that were earmarked


for the specific purpose of pensions. Therefore we had to obtain the amendment to the British North America Act that is contained in section 94A.
But we have reached the stage in our amending of the constitution of Canada where we seem to feel we have to get unanimity among the provinces and the federal government, so each time we get an amendment we get just the amendment that we need to fit the piece of legislation that is in mind at the time. In 1951 all we were seeking to do was to provide a pension that was partially contributory in the sense that special taxes would be collected. But it was only an old age pension. It was payable only at age 70 so far as the Old Age Security Act was concerned, and so section 94A was written just to meet that particular situation.
It strikes me that the first and second versions of the Canada pension plan, the one that was first presented to us on July 18 last year and the one that was presented to us on March 17 this year, were in order under the constitution as the constitution stands, because those versions of the Canada pension plan did not go into the field of survivors' or disability benefits, did not provide for payments for anyone who was to be entitled to those payments on any basis other than age. The provision for widows in the first and second versions included the requirement that such widows be of a certain age, at least 65. So I think it is quite clear that as versions Nos. 1 and 2 of the Canada pension plan stood, no further amendment to the British North America Act was necessary.
The reason we now require one, the reason that the former government felt that it required an amendment to the British North America Act, was that the new plan, as indeed the legislation envisaged by the former government, goes beyond old age, goes into the field of benefits for people who are not old in age but who would qualify for those benefits because of being left as orphans or dependants or widows, or as persons who are disabled. The reason, therefore, that we require today an amendment to the British North America Act is that versions Nos. 1 and 2 of the Canada pension plan, as a result of negotiations with the provinces, have been enlarged upon. We are moving into a broader field and that is the reason we need an amendment today. We are glad that the negotiations with the provinces have resulted in this decision to move into these other fields and therefore we welcome the step that is now

being taken. I hope that this step being initiated today will be successful all down the line.
Kemarks have already been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and by the Leader of the Opposition about the strange irony of today's proceedings. We are in the middle of a week in which most of the talk in this chamber has been about our national identity, around the flag, around the symbols of nationhood. Yet here we are, despite our national identity, despite our independence as a nation within the commonwealth, finding that we have to go to the legislative halls of another country to get an amendment to our own constitution. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the irony of this situation. I hope he will not mind my correcting his words slightly. I think he said it was ironical that we should have to make an address to the British parliament. Actually our address is not to the British parliament; it is to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. But it amounts to the same thing because we are asking her to place our proposal before the parliament of the United Kingdom.
I think the Prime Minister put it very well when he said we are employing means strangely out of date and inappropriate. This is all very true, Mr. Speaker, and we say it every time we have to do it. Every time the necessity arises for an amendment to the British North America Act we go through the ritual we are going through today. We say it is strangely out of date and inappropriate, but that we have to fall back on it, that it is the only means we have.
The excuse for not having repatriated our constitution is, of course, an understandable one, namely that we have not been able to reach agreement among the provinces as to what kind of constitution we would provide in Canada, and as to what the arrangements would be for amending that constitution. I want to urge that we should not leave until we have drafted some perfect constitution, the question of repatriating our constitution, the question of bringing it to Canada and making it a Canadian document. I think we should be smart enough to find a way to bring to Canada the present constitution as it is, leaving to the future the working out of an arrangement for amending the various sections, particularly sections 91 and 92. I suggest that this could be done.
There was circulated among all of us a few days ago an address by a gentleman who is the head of one of the commercial firms in the country. I forget his name for the moment.
British North America Act As a matter of fact, I lent my copy to someone else so 1 do not have it with me. But I do know that in the course of that address this gentleman referred to the words of J. B. McGeachy, a name known to all of us, who made what I thought, even though oversimplified, was a useful suggestion. He said: Why do we not just pass an act here in Canada declaring that the British North America Act of 1867, as amended by all of the amending acts across the years, be known as the constitution of Canada and that it be amendable in Canada by a device to be worked out later? That is an oversimplification, of course. There are difficulties, particularly in the latter part of that suggestion, but it does seem to me that Mr. J. B. McGeachy has a suggestion that the experts and the lawyers should look at as one that we should try to carry out. I believe we could pass an act in the parliament of Canada making the present British North America Act and all of its amendments, by our say-so and with the approval of the representative of Her Majesty, an act or a series of acts of this parliament.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


George Robson Muir: Since the British North America Act was set up to provide for the authority of the provinces as well as that of the federal government, would we not have to have the concurrence of the provinces?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a very good question. I want to answer it and I will be glad to do so, but I suppose I had better do so at eight o'clock. I have the answer but it is one minute after five.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, I will. I will be glad to. Mr. Speaker, may I try to answer this question as briefly as I can?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean that one Conservative will not let another Conservative get an answer?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as

Private Bills
listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-8, respecting The General Accident Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Wahn.
Bill No. S-9, respecting Scottish Canadian Assurance Corporation-Mr. Wahn.
Bill No. S-14, respecting The Dominion Life Assurance Company-Mr. Weichel.
Bill No. S-12, respecting Allstate Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Ryan.

Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-27, respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I Translation]


Mr, L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words.
I wish to point out to the house that the net income of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada for the year ended on December 31, 1963 amounted to $68.3 million.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would not be in the public interest that the federal charter of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada be completely revised, since in my opinion it is outdated.
I also wonder whether it would not also be in the interest of the Canadian people that the provinces consider the possibility of nationalizing the Bell Telephone Company of Canada within their territory.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will allow the Chair to interrupt him for a second, I should like him to show, if possible, how his remarks are related to the amendment before the house.
As the hon. member knows, he cannot take advantage of an amending bill to refer to other sections of the legislation to be amended.
Consequently, I would urge the hon. member to limit his comments to the substance of the amendment under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if I refer to section 1 of this bill, I notice that subsection 8 reads as follows:
The business of the company shall be managed by a board-

If they want to increase the number of directors, it is surely to look after the business of the company. That means look after the company's earnings. Therefore one can surely talk about the earnings and profits made by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada in the Canadian areas where it is operating.
In short, that certainly allows me to make the necessary remarks as far as that public utility company is concerned. That is why I referred earlier to the net income of $68 million realized by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. It is the largest monopoly in the world. There is none larger or more powerful in the whole world.
It is time that authorities concerned assumed their responsibilities and amended first the federal charter of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which is a state within a state.
I do not wish to question the devotion to duty of this company's employees, who work in the best interests of the Canadian people. However, I feel bound to draw to the attention of the house this powerful monopoly, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I remember that, at a convention held by the chambers of commerce in L'Assomption, nationalization of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada was requested. Several organizations have also talked about that in the past and they are still talking about it.
With your kind permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read a few extracts of the report which was submitted by the chamber of commerce of L'Assomption about this matter.


Mr. Francis:: May I ask the hon. member a question. I am trying to follow the hon. member's remarks and he is probably aware, as are other hon. members, that most of the business of this company is outside the province of Quebec. Is he relating his remarks only to the activities of the company in the province of Quebec, or to its activities in the whole of Canada?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the charter of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a federal one, but the nationalization of that company is a provincial matter. First of all, may I point out that I encourage my province to take the necessary action to nationalize that company as soon as possible. I have nothing against that company's employees who give the best of themselves in the public interest;

besides they are very well treated by the authorities of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
That company is very good to its employees but in a great number of regions in Canada it has no competition, it is entirely free to do as it pleases. That is why I feel that it would be in the public interest to nationalize that company since such a decision is up to the provinces.
In my view, the federal charter of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is too old. Until the provinces take the necessary steps to nationalize the company within the scope of their jurisdiction, I feel that in the public interest the government should amend the act and refer the charter of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to a special committee so that it might be brought into line with present day circumstances since, in my opinion, the company often abuses the wide powers it enjoys under its charter.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will give a summary of the discussions held at the convention of the chamber of commerce of the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm region-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I was very lenient with the hon. member, since I allowed him to stray quite far from the subject matter under consideration. If the hon. member would read the explanatory notes of the bill, he will realize that the bill now before the house is rather limited. It deals exclusively with increasing the number of directors from 15 to 20.
I do not think that an amendment as explicit as this one permits discussion in this house of all the sections of the act concerning the company in question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if it is decided, through this bill, to increase from 15 to 20 the maximum number of board directors, it is surely because the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has made enormous progress in the country where it operates. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to draw the attention of the house to the huge profits made by that company. If profits were only $4 or 5 million, it would be acceptable, but they are of the order of $68 million, and it is only for that reason that-


Lawrence T. Pennell: I wonder if I may be allowed to ask the hon. member a question purely for my own information. Are there any other telephone companies operating in the province of Quebec?
18. 1964	4455
Private Bills


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest the question asked by the hon. member concerns an aspect of the matter which is again irrelevant and out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question and, even if I come back to this matter, I can answer him without being out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member would be out of order if he were to reply.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I also agree that private companies such as that of Mr. Jules Brillant, a member of the legislative council, should be taxed and should not be granted an exemption.
If this bill to increase from 15 to 20 the number of directors is introduced, it is surely not because the volume of business of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has decreased. Each year, on the contrary, their profits have been increasing.


Mr. Auguste Choqueffe (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I think the point you brought up a moment ago should be insisted upon. We are only dealing with a measure of an administrative nature, and yet my hon. friend is showing himself a supporter of the socialist philosophy.
I understand that he has been rejected by his party since he showed his intention to vote against the union jack, but that is no reason to betray his party.
Therefore, I still insist that this bill is a purely administrative resolution and that there is no reason to expound virtually communistic principles simply because the bill seeks to increase the number of directors.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member who is still inexperienced in the house by telling him that every year I have spoken about the Bell Telephone Company, and I know that many hon. members, including the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), agree with a good deal of my contentions even if they sit on the government side.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has no right to impute intentions, motives or feelings to an hon. member who is absent.

Private Bills


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: As concerns especially the province of Quebec, there has been some improvement as regards the bilingual staff and the promotion of French speaking Canadians, but this improvement is insufficient and, moreover, there are still complaints about bilingualism as applied in the telephone book. Things are not perfect, and so if the company wishes to get the sympathy of some members in this house, if the company wants us to co-operate in helping it to increase the number of its directors so its profits will be increasingly exorbitant, it might start by granting adequate promotions to bilingual Canadians, especially in the province of Quebec, in order that the public of that province be adequately served, for it is entitled to be attended to in its own language, be it one or the other. Such is its right.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I wanted to avail myself of this opportunity-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I request your co-operation. I think that my intentions are well known and that I am entitled to express my opinion. I do not think too highly of the remarks of the hon. member who remained seated. The hon. member for Lot-biniere rose to his feet when he tried to make his point. The hon. member for Longueuil has no right to take advantage of the fact he is on the government side to make remarks contrary to the rules of the house.
I know the company is powerful and it sometimes uses the appropriate means to get rid of persons it finds embarrassing. I say that because it is now time, in 1964, that the company's charter be entirely reviewed, at least until it is taken over by certain provinces as a public enterprise. I think it is urgent that its charter be entirely revised.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago, the company decided to build a telephone exchange in the town of Repentigny, though it had not even asked the municipal authorities for the necessary permit. Building was started without the previous consent of the civic authorities in Repentigny by just using-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I once more ask my hon. friend to limit his remarks to the bill now before us.
[Mr. Choquette.l


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask, do I interpret the hon. member's remarks as objecting to the head office of this corporation being in the province of Quebec, in the city of Montreal? Would he prefer to see it outside that province, outside that city?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had visited the province of Quebec and more particularly the city of Montreal, a little more frequently, he would see that the Bell Telephone Company controls the whole city of Montreal, and a vast area in the province of Quebec.
I am surprised at the hon. member's standing up so vigorously for that company. Does he have shares or an interest in it? Personally, my only concern is to defend the interests of the people of Quebec, and I am speaking from that angle only. Moreover, I know that a great number of hon. members share my views.
I remember that, during a former session- and I see some hon. members who agreed with me-


Mr. Dupuis:: Never.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I made speeches against the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I made them in the public interest, and I think the time has come for the hon. members to muster enough courage to express their views, at least as far as the federal jurisdiction and charter of this powerful company are concerned, because this company is the most powerful monopoly, second only to that of Mr. Khrushchev in U.S.S.R. In my opinion, it is urgent that the federal government should refer the charter of this company to the committee so that it can be revised.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) to go unanswered. I think he has made a despicable attack on a thoroughly reputable organization which is attempting to do a job. I would point out to the hon. member that the operations of this company extend substantially beyond the confines of one province, though the head office is maintained in one province. I must tell the hon. member that if attacks of this kind on businesses such as the Bell Telephone Company are kept up they will do nothing but harm to the province of Quebec, whose interest he is supposed to have at heart. I regret having to speak in

these terms, but it is the only language I can use in the light of the hon. member's own words, though it is language of a kind which hon. members of this house should refrain from using whenever possible. The head of this company is, I believe, a man whose native tongue is French. Lately the company has undertaken a program of public relations in an attempt to deal fairly and squarely with these issues, and I hope that when the board of directors is enlarged, representation will be given to the particular parts of this country in which its business is conducted.


Mr. Lamb:: How many shares have you got?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am not a shareholder in the Bell Telephone Company, and I will tell the hon. member that right away in response to his inquiry. But if the hon. member who made that interjection is thereby expressing agreement with the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I hope he will have the courage to get up and say so, because I think the people of Canada would like to know if he is a party-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to ask a question. I would appreciate very much if the hon. member could name, around the world, another monopoly like the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Again I do not like to answer in elementary terms, but the understanding of the hon. member is very limited. It seems there is a public authority which regulates telephone rates. Public utilities are often given franchises, which means that because of the technical nature of the service offered it is recognized that only a limited number of organizations can operate it. The procedure then is to regulate rates and charges. If the hon. member feels that the board of transport commissioners, or whatever authority is regulating the rates is not doing its job, his proper course would be to complain to that authority. If he does not think this is the correct remedy, I wonder what he hopes to achieve by these diatribes, these attacks on the integrity of an organization which, as far as I am concerned, is conducting its business reputably and honourably as a good citizen of our community. I do not intend to sit back and allow this kind of irresponsible, ultra-nationalist, socialist thought to be placed on record in Hansard without an answer being made, because I will have no part of it in any way, shape or form.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How many shares do you have?
Private Bills


Cyril Lloyd Francis: For the record, I am not a
shareholder in this company, nor is my wife nor are my children nor, to the best of my knowledge, is any member of my family. But if I were, I would be proud of it.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In the course of his remarks, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) said that I was speaking at the same time as he was. Now, I do not wish to discuss the principles he set forth, but I simply said that I find it strange that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should want to trade bilingualism within the Bell Telephone Company for large profits.
In fact, he said: We are prepared to let the company make tremendous profits, provided there is bilingualism in its administration. Those are the remarks to which I object.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could make a ruling now on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Longueuil. I think there was no question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as far as the question of privilege is concerned, the hon. member for Longueuil made a serious charge against me. He misquoted my remarks. I said that until such time as the provinces which wish to, will take their responsibility, and more particularly the province of Quebec, to nationalize the service of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada within their territory, the Bell Telephone Company should give more encouragement to bilingualism in the province of Quebec and favour the promotion of French Canadians.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, on that same question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is groundless. Perhaps some hon. members should explain their remarks, but such explanations do not really constitute a question of privilege.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order. When the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was speaking I distinctly heard

Private Bills
him-over the translation system-accuse the hon. member for Carleton of having, as motivation for his interruption, the fact that he probably owns some shares in the Bell Telephone Company. The hon. member for Carle-ton stated specifically and clearly that he did not have any shares in this company. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm interjected on two occasions since then, saying "How many shares have you got?" This is a direct violation of the rules of this house and I think the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should apologize. I do not believe any member of this house should be able to get away with accusations of that kind and persist in them, despite a denial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, made the same interjection, and those remarks also apply to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure it is not right for a member to suggest that other hon. members are contributing to a debate because they have a financial interest in a particular matter. I am sure the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Lamb) did not wish to impute motives to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis), and I have the impression he was satisfied with this when he rose and denied that he had a financial interest in the company in question.
Perhaps the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario will accept the suggestion I am making to them, that they did not intend to impute to the hon. member for Carleton any such motive, and we might leave it at that.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I just want to say how surprised I am to detect an obvious incompatibility between his party's principles and the socialist doctrine-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Progressive Conservative.


Auguste Choquette: -which he advocated in his remarks.
Private enterprise is the system which we respect in Canada, and I think that a great number of Canadians would like to see this system of private enterprise maintained, encouraged and strengthened.

Mr. Speaker, if private enterprise is successful, there is cause to rejoice. Of course, everyone is against monopolies which crush or oppress, but that is not a sufficient reason for allowing the state to increase unduly its interference and to impose controls such as those advocated by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm .
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a prosperous company, everyone knows it, and I think that is to the credit of its president who is a French speaking Canadian. The service that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada gives to all its customers is excellent and I do not see how the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm can reach such radical, extremist and derogatory conclusions as those he expressed a few moments ago.
Mr. Speaker, I will not speak very long, but I could not let the rather wild remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm go unchallenged. I no longer recognize in him the pupil of Messrs. Antonio Barrette and Maurice Duplessis, the greatest enemies of nationalization and socialization, and I wonder what happened to the pupil of Messrs. Duplessis and Barrette-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm speaks again, I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he is also straying away from the matter in hand.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member and ask him why he bears Mr. Rene Levesque a grudge for having nationalized the Shawinigan Falls company which was a very small company compared with the monopolistic Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The question of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is definitely out of order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked very much to answer the hon. member's question, but if you rule it out of order, I shall abide by your ruling. However, I had a ready answer.
There is no comparison possible between the nationalization of power companies and that of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. In any case, since the nationalization of power

companies is most advantageous to the province of Quebec, I do not see why the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is against it.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house deals with the activities of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and section 1 reads as follows:
The business of the company shall he managed by a board of not less than five nor more than 20 directors, as may from time to time be determined by resolution of the shareholders, and each such director shall be proprietor of at least ten shares in the capital stock of the company, or such other additional number of shares, not exceeding forty additional shares-
Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm could enter upon such a ridiculous course as he did a while ago, when we are merely asked to increase the number of directors from 15 to 20.
Here is a company which has a gigantic capital and manages a gigantic affair. It merely asks that the number of its directors be increased.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm takes this opportunity to engage in quite a ridiculous demagogy and deliver an emphatic speech requesting the nationalization of a company which is merely submitting a petition of an administrative character, asking for an increase in the number of its directors.
What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? What is wrong with the fact that a company requests an increase in the number of its directors?
When a company does good business, it is quite normal and legitimate on its part to look for an increase in the number of its directors, with a view to better efficiency which, besides, has been excellent up to the present. Now, the company is more ambitious than that. It wishes to improve its efficiency. In my opinion, it is perfectly justified in submitting to the House of Commons the bill before us, and I feel that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is going astray-and it is not the first time, as everyone knows. Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, how he flies off at a tangent when a serious matter is being discussed; he always tries to divert the question and invariably places it on the level of petty politics.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) claims I am not acting in the public interest in this house. He
Private Bills
has no right to question the work I am doing in the House of Commons and, if he wanted to prove he is working in the public interest, he could be present in the house more often and follow the example of the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Auguste Choquette: I am taking note of the comments made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, but-


Yvon Dupuis: Ridiculous.


Auguste Choquette: -I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, that his contribution in this house-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: -is as valuable as he claims.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not imagine the hon. member wishes to continue dealing with the contribution made to this house by another hon. member, nor do I think such is the question now before us.


Auguste Choquette: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall continue my remarks on the bill under consideration.
I do not see why the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is opposed to the bill, for I remember that the number of members on the C.N.R. board of directors was increased from seven to 12 under a Conservative government. The principle of Bill No. S-27 is exactly the same. I do not see why the hon. member is so strongly opposed to it-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was a crown corporation.


Auguste Choquette: It does not make sense. Whether or not it is a crown corporation does not matter, Mr. Speaker, the principle is the same.


Yvon Dupuis: That is right.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should know -even if I know he does not know too much -that a crown corporation operates independently from the government. The government may sometimes grant financial aid to a crown corporation, but it operates as independently as a private company, like the Bell Telephone.
The bill seeks to increase the number of directors of the company, because it is expanding, prosperous, ambitious and daring in its prospects and its projects, and anxious to give satisfaction to the population. But the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm strongly objects to that. I wonder

Private Bills
about the logic of his attitude and what he is driving at.
That is why I want to conclude by saying that the bill before the house is excellent. We are dealing with a highly efficient company and it would be advisable to grant what it is asking the House of Commons.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, wonders never cease. When I heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) urging the nationalization of the Bell Telephone Company I realized that his close association with this group has had some influence on his political philosophy. We are pleased to welcome him into the ranks of those who see the necessity for the public ownership and control of public utilities such as the Bell Telephone Company, and so on.


Auguste Choquette: Communist.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere called me a communist-


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -he should withdraw his remarks-


Yvon Dupuis: -I rise on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege, which has priority over a point of order, as you should know as Minister without Portfolio.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order.

Would hon. members resume their seats. I believe the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is rising on a question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an accusation against me which is absolutely false and ridiculous.
If a government has ever nationalized crown corporations, it is certainly this government. On the other hand, the Quebec government has nationalized the Shawinigan company and I do not think that it is a communist government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member should withdraw his words.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear what the hon. member for Lotbiniere said.


Yvon Dupuis: He said that Khrushchev was a communist.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm objects to certain words, he should mention them and then we could hear the possible explanations or the withdrawal of those words by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have specifically mentioned them. I would not want the hon. member to mistake the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for his father who was a member of the Godbout administration, the most rotten administration the province of Quebec ever had.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: That is communism, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, these interruptions are interesting and somewhat unusual. However, I think it is most unfair for the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to suggest that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is a communist. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm could just as well say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a communist because the communist party supports the Pearson pennant. I do not think this makes any contribution to the debate, but it does indicate what a ferment our society is in. Never did I expect to see the day when a member of the Progressive Conservative party would take such a strong stand with respect to nationalizing a public utility, and I congratulate the hon. gentleman. In contrast, let us remember the great advocate of republicanism, liberalism and freedom from control who has just made a blatant defence of one of the worst forms of free enterprise. We have the worst form here, because the Bell Telephone Company is controlled by the American Telephone Company, a fact which we discovered during hearings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines some years ago. We also discovered that it is controlled to the extent that all the patents used by the Bell Telephone Company are controlled by a subsidiary of the American Telephone Company.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Auguste Choquette: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he himself is the owner of a private telephone company.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I am quite willing to admit that. Under the isolated circumstances in which I live my family owns a 40 mile telephone line in order to telephone our neighbours. Let me say that it is operated on a community basis and is a thoroughly socialist enterprise. We lose several hundred dollars a year, and we make no profit whatever because we provide free service to a number of the members of the community. We have one subscriber who pays us $2.25 a month. So I am really fulfilling the functions of a public utility which, to date, the B.C. Telephone Company has not wished to assume, although I have suggested to the company on a number of occasions that it would be very nice if they would purchase our company, and give this profit free service.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member permit another question. I am wondering whether the hon. member would easily accept the nationalization of his own company?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, that is what I am getting at. We would be delighted. We are carrying it on at considerable loss because of our public spiritedness, which we can scarcely afford.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and I can see from the nodding heads that he has many other converts to this principle in the Progressive Conservative party. This shows that you cannot judge the political philosophy of parties today, whether they be Conservative or Liberal; it depends so much on the individual nowadays. But I for one, and I know I also speak for the members of my party, am very pleased to see this conversion to our political philosophy and their advocacy of the same in the House of Commons. We trust that serious consideration will be given by the persons concerned, particularly the people of Ontario, to bringing this company under public ownership so that the profits remain in Canada, the control returns to Canada, so Canadians will also have full control over the services. I do not criticize any officers of the company under these circumstances; they are simply performing their duties under a free enterprise, profit seeking system. In conclusion, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but my heart was warmed and thrilled on listening to the
Private Bills
speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make concerning Bill No. S-27 respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
In principle, this bill is rather simple, as noted by several other members who have spoken before me, because it only requests an increase in the maximum number of directors from 15 to 20, that is five new directors.
Now, this bill has not yet been considered by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In my opinion, several items could have been cleared up before it is passed tonight.
We would like to know the number of capital shares of this company at present, the Canadian shares and the American shares. We would also like to know the names of the directors of this company. We would like amendments to be brought in after explanations have been given.
That is why we would like to have more time to consider this bill, since the last paragraph provides that the majority of the directors shall reside in Canada. In my opinion, it is not so much the appointment of five other directors which is important but rather the number of new shares which will be necessary to get those directors elected.
Indeed, if the company has developed-and I must admit that it gives good service in general, although there may be some places in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada where the service is not quite as good-it should be able to appoint five new directors if it is authorized to do so.
This company will be able, at the same time, to look carefully into the complaints made in the house today.
I do not agree at all with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who suggests-


Auguste Choquette: He is not the only one.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: And not necessarily with the hon. member for Lotbiniere who suggests that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is actually urging that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada should be nationalized.
As a matter of principle, we have always been against the nationalization of companies,

Private Bills
because while we feel that a trust or private monopoly is bad, a state monopoly is no better.
It would be a lot easier to inquire into the rates charged by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada for long distance calls as well as for service, which are too high, it is true; in fact, we must admit that the rates are too high and that they are rising steadily.
The company of course makes a profit, of which I am not jealous. It is quite all right for the shareholders who have invested some capital in the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to make a profit. But, in view of the fact that, at the present time, that company has a monopoly which gives it absolute control, if we want to call it that, over all the long distance or other telephone services in the province and in the country, it is free from any competition and it is, therefore, in full control of the situation.
For instance, it is very costly to make a long distance call to a place located only 50 miles away, whereas if the call is placed to a very distant place, the charges are low, so to speak. I have placed calls to places located only 50 miles away, which cost me $2.00, that is the same as for calls lasting the same length of time to Toronto, which is located 300 or 400 miles farther.
I feel that if five new directors are appointed, if everything remains the same within the Bell Telephone Company, surely it is our responsibility to keep our eyes open about the activities of that company which how has a monopoly and absolute control over that service.
I would rather favour the establishment of a control board that would examine the administration of the company outside of the present board of directors, which will be enlarged.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm said that he was in favour of a state enterprise; we already have one in the province of Quebec.
As far as the hon. member for Lotbiniere is concerned, he has contradicted himself. He has praised private enterprise and said that it was the best production system in the world.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: And in his concluding remarks, he said that the nationalization of electric power in the province of Quebec was a splendid achievement and very profitable to private enterprise and to the government. Whereupon, I might say that he has

been as much of a demagogue as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the management of that important company throughout Canada be thoroughly examined by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which has not yet had the opportunity of studying the bill. However, the present management of the company would be asked a great many questions. Some improvements might be suggested-for instance, that Canadian capital in this company be raised to 51 per cent.
I wonder whether the bill before us is not rather a means of transferring an apparent American control into the hands of some new Canadian directors, in order to avoid the 15 per cent tax on American capital in Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I brought those few remarks to your attention, in order to ask the house to refer the bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, so as to have various aspects of the matter thoroughly examined.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of surprise that I noted the heat which this simple little bill has generated. I cannot see why the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) raised the argument he did. I just cannot see where the adoption or rejection of this bill has anything to do with the nationalization of the Bell Telephone Company, and I would suggest to the hon. member that if he has strong feelings in this regard the proper place to make such a speech would be in the provincial legislature of either Ontario or Quebec.
It is interesting to listen to the arguments advanced by the hon. member who just took his seat with regard to monopoly type corporations, public utilities which are virtually in themselves monopolies, and I think many members would have some sympathy with the idea of nationalization in an industry where competition is impossible. But as I said, I do not see how the adoption or rejection of this bill has anything to do with the nationalization of the Bell Telephone Company.
I wonder about the motives of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in making the speech he did at this particular time. I would certainly have appreciated it if the hon. member had risen and withdrawn the remarks he made about the hon. member

for Carleton (Mr. Francis) concerning the ownership of shares. If the purpose of the hon. member's imputation was not to discredit the hon. member for Carleton, I do not know why it was made at all. I think we would have all been interested in hearing an explanation from the hon. member rather than from yourself, Mr. Speaker.
I would be quite prepared to entertain arguments for and against nationalization, particularly in the case of a utility company which by its very nature is monopolistic. However, I must remind the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that whereas the charges of foreign ownership may be true in part there is another side to the argument. I think all hon. members know that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada does have its shares listed on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges and also that there are thousands of Canadian shareholders of the Bell Telephone Company. As a matter of fact, it is one company in our economy that has been acting in every way as a Canadian citizen, and it has certainly played a very large role in the development of our communications system.
I would even suggest to the hon. member for Kootenay West that his telephone line would not be very much good if he did not enjoy the benefit of the communications system existing in this country brought about in large part through the co-operation of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Bell Telephone Company or other telephone companies co-operate with the hon. member out of the goodness of their hearts. It is probably very good business for them to do so, although from the description of the operation given by the hon. member I am beginning to wonder how generous they are in some cases.
I find nothing objectionable in the bill increasing the number of directors. I also suggest to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that he may even find that the company is seeking to do this in order to increase the number of French Canadian directors on the board. I am surprised that objection has been taken.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, it is six o'clock. The hon. member has killed the bill. Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You killed the bill.
British North America Act [Translation]


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the house to refer Bill No. S-28 to the committee on banking and commerce?


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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), Canadian flag, alleged card game concerning proposed design; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), bilingualism and biculturalism commission, enlargement of scope of investigation; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), transport, alleviation of great backlog of freight shipped to Newfoundland.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 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:
[Stage Direction]
British North America Act
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. n, 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted at five o'clock I was in the midst of making a suggestion as to a course of action that might save us from this ironical situation of having to send an address to Westminster every time we want an amendment to our constitution. Just at that point the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) had asked me a question and I was prepared to answer but for the fact that some hon. members called it five o'clock. My hon. friend's question related to the fact that the British North America Act is the constitution, fundamentally, not only for Canada as a federal state but for our various provinces.
I believe I state my friend's question correctly when I say he asked me if I did not think the provinces should be consulted with respect to any basis upon which we would try to repatriate our constitution. I want to answer that question. May I do so, unless my hon. friend puts a further question to me, by stating what I think we should do.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that every time we require an amendment to our constitution we go through the same rhetoric that we have had in this house today. We say it is ironical; we say it is inappropriate, that it is out of date, but there is nothing else for us to do. We put off until some later time the actual repatriation of our constitution. I think it is fair to say that the repatriating of our constitution breaks into two parts. First of all, there is the question of getting it over here into Canada. Second, there is the question of reforming it, changing it to make it closer to what we might want. I think our difficulty is that we cannot do these two things at one

and the same time because we cannot agree on a formula for amending the constitution, or the other changes we might want to make in it. Therefore we put off the first step of bringing it here to Canada.
My suggestion therefore is-and as I said this afternoon I took the idea from something attributed to Mr. J. B. McGeachy-that we should take the first step right away, that is we should bring to Canada our constitution exactly as it is now. We should not, in this first process, seek to make any changes in it at all. We should just bring it to Canada in its present form. I suggest that the way to do that is for us, in the parliament of Canada, to pass an act, which would have royal assent before it would be law, declaring the present British North America Act and all its amending acts to be statutes of the parliament of Canada.
At that point the hon. member for Lisgar put to me the question, should not the provinces be consulted before such a step is taken? I say, readily, the answer is yes.


George Robson Muir: I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question at this point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly; go ahead.


George Robson Muir: Is it not a fact that the agreement of the provinces for the repatriation of our constitution has not been forthcoming in the past?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that is true, because every time in the past we have tried to get provincial agreement to the repatriation of the constitution we have had, at the same time, a proposal for amending it. I think the provinces might agree to bringing the constitution to Canada, even though they would not agree to some particular change that is being proposed. I am trying to suggest a means of repatriation to which I think the provinces, after some consultation, would agree.
Let me outline briefly the situation as it now exists. When we want to get an amendment to the constitution, we think it is difficult. Actually, I do not suppose anywhere in the world the constitution of a state the size of ours can be amended with as little legislative process as is the case for Canada. What do we do? We pass a resolution in this House of Commons and we ask the members of the other house to pass the same resolution. In both cases, it is a one stage debate. It is not a bill with first, second and third readings or any committee of the whole stage. It is

just a one stage proposition so far as debate is concerned, and that is all there is to it.
The next step is for the address that has been passed at the one stage debate in this house and the one stage debate in the other house, to be transmitted to Her Majesty. She causes the bill that is included in our resolution to be presented to the parliament at Westminster. It is a rule with them over there not to discuss it at all. The bill is presented and somebody says in amazement, what is this? It is pointed out that it is a request from Canada for an amendment to the constitution of Canada, and it is passed without any debate whatever. Any suggestion that there is any protection, any hold-up in the amending of our constitution because it has to go to Westminster, is a myth. There is no protection; there is nothing there at all. It is the simplest legislative process for amending a constitution that there could possibly be. There is a one stage debate in this house, a one stage debate in the other house, and the rest of it is so much rubberstamping, so much red tape.
If my hon. friend from Lisgar will hold his question for a moment, I suggest that instead of our passing an address to Her Majesty asking her to place our amending proposal before the United Kingdom parliament, we should pass an address of this house and an address of the other house to His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, asking him to cause to be placed before the parliament of Canada a bill to amend the constitution.
I immediately direct hon. members' attention to the fact that that process would actually be legislatively lengthier than the present process, because then we would have the one stage debate which we have now on this resolution, and afterwards a bill would come before parliament with first and second readings, consideration in committee of the whole and third reading, in this house, and in the other place as well.
Some years ago there were amendments to the British North America Act which were obtained without the consent of the provinces. I recall in my own day in this parliament when one of the provinces actually objected to an amendment sought by this parliament. No attention was paid to that objection at Westminster. But in more recent years, with the exception of the amendments passed under our right to pass amendments to our constitution regarding things that are purely federal, any amendments that touched the
British North America Act boundary line between section 91 and section 92 of the B.N.A. act, in all cases were not sought by this parliament until it had the unanimous agreement of the provinces. That tradition, I suggest, is so well established that it is as good as law.
Just as this government, in the last few weeks or couple of months, has engaged in consultations with the provinces to get this amendment that is now before us for a specific purpose, in a similar manner I believe the provinces would agree to the kind of proposal I have outlined, because what we would be asking the provinces to agree to is just the taking of one step, bringing to Canada the present constitution exactly as it is without any change.
The only difference we would make so far as amending it-until such time as a constituent assembly might do something about it-the only change we would make, instead of going through the form we are now going through of sending an address to Her Majesty asking her to place a bill before the parliament of Westminster, is that we would pass a resolution addressed to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, asking him to place a bill before parliament, and we would debate it ourselves.
Undoubtedly questions may be asked about this. Maybe somebody else has a better idea. But I do think it is something less than dignified for us to be talking so much as we are these days about our nationhood and independence, and yet forever to be going through this form of getting an amendment to our own constitution by having to send a request to the legislative halls of another country.
So, I place that suggestion before the house, before the government, hoping it might be thought about in between the times when amendments are introduced. This question never seems to be faced seriously except when we are actually in the throes of trying to get an amendment to the constitution. Unless some leadership along this line is given, then you can bet your last half dollar, or last half crown if you want-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Or your boots.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -or your boots, that come the next time for an amendment to the constitution, whatever government is in power will stand up and say again that this is an ironical situation, that this is outdated, that we should not be doing it this way, that we should have our constitution here, but that so far this is the only machinery we have got.

British North America Act
Surely the provinces have had enough experience with amendments that change the boundary line between sections 91 and 92 to know that no action is taken in that area without unanimous agreement among the provinces and the federal government. Surely, therefore, they would respond to this kind of suggestion. I believe all of them would feel happier if they knew we were doing it here.
I suspect that when this amendment reaches Westminster and the House of Commons and the House of Lords have to deal with it, some of the members will wonder what is going on that Canada, which they think of as an independent nation, equal in status with Britain in the commonwealth, has to send them such a request.
I suggest that this question be faced seriously. Let it not be something we just talk about. In the same way as we have taken other nettles and grasped them and tried to do something about them, we should grasp this one and achieve this symbol of nationhood, namely having our constitution here in Canada. I do not know if I have answered the question my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Muir) had in mind or not, but I take it his silence gives consent.


George Robson Muir: I would be very pleased to oblige the hon. gentleman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member had better get to his own seat then.


George Robson Muir: May I speak from another seat here?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Robson Muir: Is it not a fact any time a discussion on the repatriation of a constitution has taken place with the provinces, one of the provinces in particular has trusted the British parliament more than it was willing to trust the Canadian parliament? Further, if the situation outlined by the hon. gentleman were achieved, is it not a fact that this particular province, or any province for that matter, could tie up the constitution for years in the Supreme Court?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank my hon. friend for the question. First may I say it is my proposal that before we pass the kind of act I am suggesting we should consult with the provinces. The other answer I give is that unless I am mistaken-and I would be glad to be corrected if I am-each time there has been any discussion with the provinces about repatriating the constitution it has not been

simpliciter, it has not been on the sole grounds of bringing the constitution to Canada as it now is. The discussion has always included some formula for amending it, some formula with respect to the dividing line between federal and provincial jurisdiction. My suggestion is that initially we bring the constitution to Canada unchanged, that we take it just as it is, for the sole purpose of having it come under our own national domain.
This debate, Mr. Speaker, revolves around two things, one being the method we have to use or get our constitution amended, and the other is the subject matter of the amendment that is before us in the resolution of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). As has already been indicated, we welcome the subject matter of the amendment. We are glad that the current understanding between the federal government and the provinces is that a Canada pension plan, with provisions for survivor and disability benefits, is agreed upon, and we hope this amendment can not only be enacted at the earliest possible moment but that, without any delay, the new Canada pension plan itself will be brought in so that we can get it on our statute books.
For my part this is far more important than another matter that is under discussion these days, and I hope before the weather gets much warmer we will have gone through the whole process not only of getting this amendment but of getting the actual Canada pension plan on our statute books.
There are one or two things about the wording of this amendment that leave me with something less than complete satisfaction. This afternoon the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) asked the Prime Minister whether the proposed Canada pension plan would include a provision, for Canadians in the rest of the provinces, similar to that which the province of Quebec has announced for Canadians who live within that province. He referred in particular to a requirement that other pension plans dovetail in with the Canada pension plan in a certain way. I see the difficulties involved. I also see there is no chance of the federal parliament moving in that direction under section 94A as proposed. That is obviously in the field of property and civil rights and I would say that in this respect the amendment to the constitution we are considering does not go far enough. I must also draw attention to the fact that the phrasing of the section 94A which has now been agreed upon does not remove certain words which were there before-words which

seem to give to provincial legislatures the power in the future to veto, to declare null and void, decisions of the federal parliament.
I	am referring of course to the last few words which say:
-but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter.
I suppose this was a case of having to present to us what could be agreed on by all
II	governments, but I think it is unfortunate that when 94A was being revised this somewhat complicated phrase which has stood in the way of certain other negotiations was not amended.
Perhaps it might be useful to have on record somewhere in today's Hansard the two sections 94A alongside each other. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both referred in their speeches to the old section and to the new section. Neither of them read the sections in full. I should like to do so. Section 94A as it now stands, reads as follows:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but 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.
The new 94A as it will stand after this resolution is passed and the rest of the red tape has been completed will read as follows:
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.
I do not intend to take these phrases and dissect them word by word. I would merely point out there has been a slight change in the wording of the opening part and also a slight change at the end. The change might not be material in either case, though one never knows what may happen when questions such as this go before the courts in the course of the years. The substance of the change is, of course, in the middle part of the proposed new section where there has been added to old age pensions the reference to supplementary benefits, survivors' and disability benefits irrespective of age.
I find it somewhat unfortunate that it was not possible to include wider provisions such as may be necessary with respect to disability pensions and survivors' benefits and, possibly, to the operation of the Canada pension
British North America Act plan as a whole. I think it is also unfortunate that this future veto power over federal legislation which seems to exist in the hands of the provinces under the wording of 94A, both as it now stands and as it will be after this resolution has passed, has been allowed to continue. Nevertheless, despite one's feeling that it should be better, it is good we should be taking this step; it is very good, in fact, that we are actually doing something about survivors' benefits and improving the position of people who are disabled during their working years. And I am glad to know that on the passing of this amendment to the British North America Act it will be possible to bring in the third version of the Canada pension plan which, despite the fact that it is still not all it should be, is an improvement over what we had in the two earlier versions.
So, I repeat, we welcome the substance of the amendment before us. We wish it were possible for us to do this piece of work-the amending of the B.N.A. Act-here in Canada as a grown-up nation. We hope we shall be able to attend to that matter very soon. In the meantime, once we do get this amendment through, let us get on with the job of placing this most important piece of legislation-I refer to the Canada pension plan-on the statute books of this country.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long and I do not pretend either to be an expert in constitutional matters. However, I would like just the same to express the views of our party about the proposed amendment under consideration.
First of all, I would like to say that we support that motion to amend the constitution because we have no choice in the matter; indeed at the present time, pensions which will be paid to widows, orphans, disabled people who have contributed to a pension plan could not be voted if we refused to approve that amendment to the constitution.
Nevertheless, may I make a few timely remarks in regard to the situation in which we are now faced with the problem of amending the constitution.
We already know that all provinces have agreed to that amendment, and we are glad to note that the province of Quebec has also given its assent. I believe that this province decided to agree following sensible negotiations.

British North America Act
If we examine both resolutions, we note a strange likeness between the two and it is for the benefit of this legislation that it will be passed.
The resolution concerning the amendment submitted by the federal government reads as follows:
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.
The motion submitted to the Quebec legislature is drafted along the same lines and reads as follows:
However, no existing law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of provincial legislatures in relation to any such matter.
We can conclude then that there has undoubtedly been consultation. I do not object to that; on the contrary, I am very happy about it.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition state this afternoon that he was unable to introduce his pension plan because the province of Quebec had not agreed to this amendment; I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the province of Quebec refused its consent at that time, it was perhaps because the Diefen-baker government would not guarantee that the rights of Quebec would be safeguarded.
I think that any federal government should take this into account at the present time, because the province of Quebec, due to its present economic, cultural and social development, will never tolerate to have its rights infringed by a central government unwilling to acknowledge its special status.
I am glad that this government was successful in its negotiations with the province of Quebec in respect to this amendment. I am also convinced that if the Diefenbaker government had remained in office, it would have been impossible to reach an agreement because I am under the impression that the present Leader of the Opposition has some kind of grudge against Quebec which is becoming more and more obvious.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not true.


Gérard Chapdelaine: I shall even go further and say that if we still had a Conservative government in power, confederation would be a thing of the past, because Quebec would have separated.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What you are saying is untrue.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is an impression.
fMr. Chapdelaine.]


Gérard Chapdelaine: This is all the more true, Mr. Speaker, as-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Be logical.


Gérard Chapdelaine: -the Leader of the Opposition does not even have now the support of the Conservative members from Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just made a gratuitous statement.


Gérard Chapdelaine: When the vote is taken on the flag issue, we will have an opportunity to see whether my contention is true or not.
If the present Leader of the Opposition had acted with more diplomacy when he wanted to negotiate with Quebec, I feel that he might have obtained the same results as both the provincial and the federal governments have obtained as far as relations with Ottawa was concerned.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, if he will permit.


Gérard Chapdelaine: I have no objection.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sit down. I am going to ask my question. Is the hon. member talking about the Conservative party? Can he tell the house whether he shares the views of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) who spoke on behalf of his party on the flag issue?


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I do not share them at all, and I am proud to say so.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just said that the hon. member for Cariboo spoke on behalf of his party, which is totally incorrect, since he said himself, on many occasions, and especially at the outset of his remarks:
The views that I express will be entirely my own and certainly will not involve concurrence by any other member of this group.
I am asking the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to kindly withdraw his words.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am happy to find out, with my colleagues, that Mr. Thompson's party is divided in two, once again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You had better get a mirror.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the debate is slowly drifting away from the resolution before the house. I ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapde-laine) to continue his remarks and to remain as closely as possible within the resolution before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I support your views, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, it may seem that I have somewhat deviated from the resolution before us, but I think that in the study of an amendment to the constitution, we should take into account the background and former work and see why there have been some failures and why we have not yet been in a position to repatriate our constitution.
I firmly believe, that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition during the six years he was in power is the reason why we have not made any progress in that direction. The Leader of the Opposition-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The allegations of the hon. member for Sherbrooke are completely false, because if there is a party which has contributed to the promotion of the cause-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sit down. I rose on a point of order, let me speak.


Guy Favreau: I rise on a point of order-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do not apply closure. Sit down. [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Will both hon. gentlemen sit down, please.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), too.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sit down, you. He refuses, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) rose on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. He was on nothing.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have risen on a point of order, too.
British North America Act


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I was on a point of order. Sit down. You are after me.


Guy Favreau: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was making a speech.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am on a point of order. He is on nothing, on no point, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
Perhaps the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm would give the Speaker an opportunity to speak, and perhaps the Minister of Justice would allow me to hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm; and then I will hear the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; you protect the rights of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. Thank you very much. I disagree with the statement made by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine). He was completely wrong in his statement. Mr. Diefenbaker, my leader, did his best in the public interest, and we were defeated because of the collusion of the Liberals with Social Credit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must
advise the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that, while he may have some disagreement with what has been said by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I do not think the remarks he just made really constitute a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But I think the Minister of Justice-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I have said and I repeat that if no progress has been made in the negotiations to repatriate our constitution during the last years, it is only on account of the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition and people such as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Mr. Speaker, how can we expect the Leader of the Opposition to get along with the Quebec Liberals when he is not even enable to get along with his own members from the province of Quebec? He could not even get the hon. member for Three Rivers to second his amendment on the flag motion-

British North America Act


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is untrue.


Gérard Chapdelaine: -and I shall go even further and say that he found no seconder for his amendment on the flag motion, as can be seen in Hansard.


George Robson Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; this debate has strayed far away from the matter in hand, and I would suggest that the hon. gentleman who is now speaking is out of order.


Miss LaMarsh:: Your leader started it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I would have to agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) and I will once again ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke to confine his remarks as closely as possible to the motion before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am
sure the hon. member for Sherbrooke will do that in the remaining remarks he intends to make.


Gérard Chapdelaine: In any case, I was coming back to more serious considerations.
Now that better relations seem to prevail between Quebec or French Canada and the federal government, now that people are beginning to understand that co-operative federalism can exist and that Canada can live with Quebec just as Quebec can live with Canada, we should consider repatriating the constitution immediately.
It was said this afternoon that the present situation is anachronistic because we have to go to London to vote pensions to needy mothers, widows and orphans.
At this point, I should like to quote the introduction of the speech delivered at-

In a speech delivered to the judge advocate general's conference in Ottawa on May 3, 1961, Mr. Driedger, Q.C., in his introduction, said:
Canada is unique among the independent nations of the world in that she does not possess complete power to amend her own constitution. Canadians are well aware of this limitation on the sovereignty of their nation and many efforts have been made in the past to find a satisfactory method of mending the constitution of Canada in Canada. So far. these efforts have not been successful. Constitutional amendment was discussed briefly at the dominion-provincial conference of 1927.
IMr. Chapdelaine.]
Then Mr. Driedger made continuous reference throughout his speech to the various occasions on which this subject has been discussed.

Mr. Speaker, we have a speech by the former minister of justice, Mr. Chevrier, delivered on September 6, 1963 in Alberta before the Canadian Bar Association in which he stated:
It is anachronistic that the oldest self-governing country of the commonwealth, except Great Britain, is the only one which has absolutely no legal power to amend its constitution. We have, in actual fact, the power to amend, since the United Kingdom parliament would amend the B.N.A.A. at the request of the Canadian government, but we do not have the legal power. I am sure that the parliament of the United Kingdom would like to be relieved of the responsibility of implementing the amendments requested by us and would gladly approve any piece of legislation which we would introduce to confer on ourselves full and final power to amend.
Such being the position taken by a former minister of justice-and to which, I imagine, the present one would subscribe-I cannot see why we should wait any longer before taking concrete steps towards the repatriation of our constitution.
I know it is not so much repatriation but a subsequent problem that would create some difficulty. I refer to the revision of the constitution which would have to be legalized and settled to the smallest detail before all the provinces could accept it.
Bearing those things in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the present Minister of Justice to call a conference on the constitution immediately in order to solve this problem. Even if the conference should last for some time, I think the present Minister of Justice has no alternative, because of the pledge taken by his predecessors; he must keep the commitments made by his predecessor, especially those taken in the speech he made on September 6, 1963 before the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, when he stated:
It is now more urgent than ever to develop such a formula, for it would be most regrettable if we had to celebrate the centenary of confederation in 1967 without being a completely sovereign state in law as well as in fact. I intend to call a new conference on the constitution early in 1964 in order to consider this most important question.
That is the pledge which was taken by the Minister of Justice's predecessor in office and the present incumbent cannot ignore it. I would ask him to give immediate consideration to that undertaking and to try to con-

vene a constitutional conference during the next few months, considering the climate which prevails at present concerning the debate on the national flag, a climate which makes us feel more independent, a climate which is improving as the discussion goes on, which is favourable to a better understanding between the two groups of citizens, French speaking and English speaking Canadians, and which will make our country stronger. In my opinion, the time is ripe for the convening of a constitutional conference.
I am sure that, by negotiations, we shall find the means to repatriate our constitution and to amend it right here in our country.
Besides, other speakers have mentioned and everybody agrees that it is nonsensical, both legally and socially, that in order to amend its constitution Canada should have to apply to a parliament which is not interested in our procedure and would gladly let us take our own initiatives in this field. I feel like the others that it is nonsensical that we have not yet devised a means to repatriate our constitution and to do whatever we want with it.
I express once again to the Minister of Justice my wish and that of my party that he will convene as soon as possible a constitutional conference in order to solve this problem once and for all.
I do not think it would take as much time as we imagine to arrive at a solution that would be fair to all parties.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the motion under study is precisely a motion of the kind which may seem ridiculous in 1964. In 1867, such a motion could have been accepted, submitted overseas, returned to Canada and adopted by our own parliament after having been approved by another parliament. But it is ridiculous that such a motion should be presented in 1964, when for over 20 years, from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, we have heard serious statements, half-serious statements, sometimes untimely statements, to the effect that we are members of a sovereign nation, that we live in an entirely free and independent country, a country free from economic political and social ties.
In 1964, on this day, June 18, at page 3 of the order paper, we read:
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 Kindom to be expressed as follows:
British North America Act
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.
1. Section ninety four A of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
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.
Mr. Speaker, three great points emerge from that motion.
First, the obligation for Canada to go to Westminster in order to amend the constitution, which definitely and clearly implies a suggestion of dependence and a state of inferiority.
Today, we heard the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) tell us that he was prepared, seven, six or five years ago, to introduce legislation to repatriate the constitution. Later on, we heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) saying how important it was to repatriate the Canadian constitution. And the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) just repeated the same thing. As far as the Liberals are concerned, they go one better.
The government which is introducing this motion has among its members a gentleman who has placed on the order paper a notice of motion to the effect that parliament should pass legislation to amend the British North America Act in such a way that no resort would be necessary to the parliament of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fa-vreau) is not on the verge of delegating the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to London to introduce the resolution now before the house.
Mr. Speaker, the same member is requesting the adoption of a distinctive flag which is the subject of the resolution now under consideration. Furthermore, he is asking that a Canadian citizen be no longer a British subject and that the word "dominion" be not used to designate Canada officially; that the supreme authority of Canada be symbolized in an essentially Canadian manner without reference to the sovereign of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker, those ideas which are gaining ground with the Liberals, and similar

British North America Act concepts are taking root among the Conservatives. As to the members of the New Democratic party, they advocate a repatriation of our constitution.
Indeed, I think that the constitution would have been brought back long ago, and I wonder whether the original text has not been lost abroad, so that one would be able to determine whose signature it bears. For the past ten years or so, there has always been some talk about the constitution. I have begun to wonder whether the Minister of Justice will not, some day, state that the constitution having been put on some dusty shelf in the parliament of Westminster, the original text has been irretrievably lost, so that we should make out a new one here, in this parliament.
The second point which emerges from the motion before us is the opportunity and the need of having a truly Canadian constitution and, as various hon. members stated this afternoon, a constitution which would be conceived by Canadians for Canadians, and not for one single element of Canada.
This does not mean that we are rejecting everything which has come to us from England. I would be the first to admit-and this may come as a surprise tonight-that, under the British system, we probably had greater opportunity to develop Canada than we would have had under the French regime.
At this stage of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I quote an example taken from everyday life. When a father raises a family, he may still slap a misbehaving two-year-old. He might pull, from time to time the ears of a child of ten, but when the child is 35, I hardly think any father would dare to raise his hand against his son or daughter. Why? Because at 21 a child is said to attain his majority. I admit he may be given some advice, offered some suggestions, but to force a child to do the things done by his parents is something which, to my mind, does not seem to be in the natural order of things.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a confederation, a constitution, for nearly a hundred years. Is it not time, after 97 years, or before we celebrate Canada's centennial, to amend the constitution so that the two groups which founded the Canadian confederation can enjoy a larger measure of autonomy and be assured of their complete freedom in the political, economic and social fields? The way I look at it, it is high time-otherwise, the day


will never come-to see to it that the abuses and mistakes which make the proposed amendments necessary are corrected.
Mr. Speaker, the motion under study underlines a third point; it recognizes that Canada is really composed of two nations. Some do not wish to recognize it, they will be behind their time. There are others who have recognized it for a long time; but, more and more, all Canadians will have to admit it.
On many occasions, in this house, I stated that we were asking nothing, that we wished to take nothing away from others, but that we wanted our rights to be fully recognized. That is why, when our group met in Quebec on January 26, 1964, we asked that the province of Quebec should control money and credit under the term of a new constitution and in the framework of a new confederation. Should the province of Ontario want the same thing, it is up to that province to decide; but as regards the province of Quebec, we want it to control its trade and commerce and its immigration policy and that it should recover all its taxation rights. The government had better take notice of these points, since all organizations, not only in the province of Quebec, but also outside of the province of Quebec, are increasingly claiming such rights.
Indeed, in the province of Quebec influential politicians made such claims, including Hon. Rene Levesque; the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, the minister of municipal affairs, Hon. Pierre Laporte, and the premier of the province of Quebec, Hon. Jean Lesage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And Real Caouette.


David Réal Caouette: Real Caouette, if you wish. And Charles Auguste Choquette also.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Comrades in arms. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, those words can be considered lightly or not at all.
In every Canadian province, as I found during my visits, people wonder what is happening in the province of Quebec, whether that province is in a turmoil, whether this evolution is dangerous, and so on. I do not think so. I do not believe so, as long as the federal government will not yield nor submit, but will consider straightforwardly the just demands of both elements of the country, so that they are treated equitably and fairly, in short, placed on an equal footing throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, under the motion, Quebec chooses its own pension plan, and the Minister of Justice must recognize that this motion is submitted to the House of Commons in order to meet Quebec's requirements.


Mr. Guay:: They always talk about Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend from Levis (Mr. Guay) say that we always talk of Quebec. We have a fairly good advance on him, because he did not even have time to talk of Quebec since he came here. As a matter of fact, I wonder if he remembers which riding elected him in the last general election.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: The Social Crediter does know.


David Réal Caouette: The fourth point which emerges from this motion is the fact that Quebec chooses its own pension plan. But it seems that this amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act is a threat, or its wording is not quite clear.
For instance, would it not be possible, at a given moment, for the federal government to decide an increase in the rate of old age pensions without consulting any province, which would perhaps establish or create double taxation, as is now the case?
As a matter of fact, in the province of Quebec, we have two income tax laws: a federal one and a provincial one. Does not section 94A call forth the possibility of such double taxation as a result of an increase in the old age pensions, in the pensions for the disabled or any other social measure?
We accept the general principle of this motion, because it leaves Quebec free to choose its own pension scheme. We will propose an amendment in order to ensure that the spirit and the letter of section 94A will not go beyond the intention of the government when it changes the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, in order to support what I said earlier, I refer to the newspaper he Devoir of June 18, that is this morning's issue, which reports that the St. Jean Baptiste society of Montreal submitted a brief to the committee on the constitution-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: 
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I listened with much interest to the hon. member for Villeneuve and I must admit that he is a most eloquent speaker. But, as we are here to discuss a resolution asking the parliament of Westminster-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the Queen.


Auguste Choquette: -to authorize the amendment of the constitution, I wonder if it is truly in order to discuss the absurdity of the fact that we have to ask the parliament of Westminster to approve the amendment. I wonder if it would not be more appropriate for the hon. member to restrict himself to the substance of the proposed amendment. Indeed,

British North America Act we all agree that it is absurd to have to ask the approval of the parliament in London, but I feel it would be more relevant to discuss the substance of the resolution.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one thing about the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. All those questions were discussed today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I understand the hon. member for Lotbiniere has a notice of motion bearing number 40, at page 21 of the order paper, which makes him the number one separatist in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of telling the hon. member for Lotbiniere what to say. On the other hand, I do not intend to get into the habit of letting him tell me what I should say.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to start a discussion, but I can see the hon. member is adding fuel to the fire, while my own comments were objective.
I should like you to give a ruling, after which I shall rise on a question of privilege.


Mr, Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would ask you, at the same time, to rule on the constant interruptions of the hon. member for Lotbiniere and also on the demagogy he is indulging in here in this house, when interrupting the hon. member for Villeneuve.
In my view, this is essential at present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty to rise on a question of privilege at this time. Now that you have ruled-


An hon. Member:: There is no ruling yet.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to rule on my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The ruling of the Chair is to the effect that the speech delivered by the hon. member for Villeneuve was within the scope of resolution now under consideration.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this ruling.
Now, allow me to rise on a question of privilege, because I feel bound to do so. I am convinced that the hon. member for Villeneuve went too far, as usual. He said that I was the staunchest separatist in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: I note that those who applaud are the very ones who divided their party in two, as well as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who actually left his party.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor at present. On the other hand, I would ask him to state as briefly as possible the question of privilege he wants to submit to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Are you through?
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns me personally. The hon. member for Villeneuve has claimed that I am the most separatist-minded person in the house.
I formally deny such an accusation and I state that I am in no way a separatist. I may be, in fact, I am surely a republican but I am not a separatist. The only separatists here are those-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair, bearing in mind the proprieties of the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lotbiniere proclaims himself to be a republican.
Since Canada is not yet a republic, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, to be consistent with himself, should resign immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has no basis for a question of privilege; he is in fact, raising an argument. I would ask all members, once again, to co-operate with the Chair, so that the hon. member for Villeneuve may carry on and finish his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has just mentioned that he might be a republican. Now, I would suggest to the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) to delegate the hon. member for Lotbiniere, as a republican, to London in order to introduce this motion which the government is asking us to pass today, so that we may obtain more freedom and better justice for the province of Quebec.
I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to a statement made recently by Canon Lionel Groulx: Master in one's own house. To be master in one's own house, continued Canon Groulx, this

would mean, for a nation having reached or claiming to have reached maturity, to be master of its policies, its government, its parliament, its legislation, and not to be, in this field, under any unseemly trusteeship. It would also mean, as much as possible in this day and age. to be master of its economic and social life, to develop for itself and not for others its natural resources, to have the means to finance its administration, its institutions of learning and of social welfare.
Canon Lionel Groulx has been fighting for half a century, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada, to help us acquire such mastery, both at the federal and provincial levels.
That amounts to one thing, Mr. Speaker. We want the provinces to enjoy as much autonomy as possible. Let Ottawa lift its embargoes when the development and even the full developmeent of a province is at stake.
On the other hand, I am surprised to see the motion only concerns old age pensions and supplementary benefits. We should get to Westminster with an amendment or a final decision under which the constitution would come back to Canada. Then we could amend the constitution.
The fears being spread about a repatriated constitution, to the effect that quarrels and misunderstandings would spring up when the time came to amend the said constitution, are not worthy of consideration. The danger of misunderstandings must not prevent us from taking action. It is better to act and make mistakes than to do nothing, that is not to act. Then, one does not run the risk of making mistakes, but one does not act. Let us act, even if we run the risk of making mistakes. Besides, we all make mistakes, because we are human and there is no perfect human being.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Does the hon. member for Villeneuve allow me to ask him a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Gérard Chapdelaine: What is the solution advocated by the hon. member to amend the constitution?


David Réal Caouette: To amend the constitution so as to give back to the provinces the control of money and credit, the control of their trade, their immigration, the full recovery and use of their taxation rights.
If those provisions were included in a constitutional reform, peace would be restored in Quebec, Ontario and other Canadian provinces.
20220-284J
British North America Act
Mr. Speaker, let us pass a piece of legislation to put a branch office of the Bank of Canada at the service of the provinces, which could use it to develop normally, and there will be no more wrangling between Quebec and Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta; there will not be misunderstanding but argument.
Mr. Speaker, the time allotted to me was quite shortened a few minutes ago, but I must just the same conclude my remarks. Before concluding, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) the following amendment:
That the following words be added to section 94A after the words: "in these matters"; However* this amendment to the British North America Act will only apply to the provinces which will ask it.
I have French and English copies of this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment detracts in no way from the merits of section 94A, but it gives us the assurance that no province will be subject to undue pressure from federal authorities.
Those are the remarks we wanted to make about the amendment moved by the government.
In conclusion, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the statements made in this house by Liberal, Conservative and other members, to the effect that it is ridiculous that, in 1964, we should have to ask permission to amend a constitution which might not be ours at the present time.
If this constitution is not ours, let us leave it over there and draw up a constitution here, with the help of a committee on constitution, as suggested earlier by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. We shall then feel not only as people who loudly proclaim their independence and the sovereignty of their country, but who shall prove to the whole world that we do enjoy that sovereignty, whereas today, in 1964, we give indisputable proof that it is still the parliament at Westminster which decides what the Canadian parliament shall pass.
Let us become our own masters and start right away. Let us not wait another half century before asserting that we are, in Canada, Canadians in the best interests of the whole country.

British North America Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might read to the house the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Villeneuve.

I move, seconded by 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.

Would hon. members care to offer comments for the guidance of the Chair in rendering a decision as to the acceptability of the amendment?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think that this amendment is decidedly out of order. In fact, if we read its wording carefully, we realize that it applies to the provinces. I think it is important that we should all read the text of this amendment at once. It wants to add, in the text of the resolution, after the words "to any such matter", in the last line of the new wording of section 94A, that the address ask Her Majesty to request the parliament of the United Kingdom to approve the following words:
However, this amendment to the British North America Act will apply only to the provinces which ask it.
If such an addition to the wording of section 94A were adopted, we would be faced with a constitutional nonsense which would contradict entirely the purpose, the scope and the framework of the amendment requested by the resolution introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister.
In fact, the purpose of the new section 94A is to allow the parliament of Canada to legislate. Now, the proposed addition to that amendment provides that the amendment, that is the new section 94A, will apply only to the provinces upon request.
This would take away any meaning that the new section 94A might have, because section 94A, which deals essentially with the powers of the federal parliament to legislate as far as pensions and miscellaneous provisions are concerned, cannot apply, from the constitutional view point, to the provinces even if a province requests it.
I would think that what was meant-but surely it is not for me to draft an amendment to a measure introduced by the government- 
is that if an act is passed under the constitutional amendment, that act will apply only to the province which requests it and, at that time, it will not be clear either if the request must be made before that act is passed by the parliament of Canada or after.
But, I wish to point out that, in any case, the text must be read as it now stands. It is intended to apply to the provinces, when they request it, a constitutional provision which can apply only to the federal parliament, according to the general text of the British North America Act.
That is why 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.
Besides, in practice, if that amendment could be taken to mean that it should apply to an act to be passed by the federal parliament under the new section 94A, that would make the procedure so complicated that, to all practical purposes, it would become inapplicable.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I point out that all the provinces have given their approval and that the province-that is Quebec-which had decided to proceed by means of a resolution introduced in the legislature, did so, and that the Quebec legislature has now approved that resolution, that is approved "entirely" the request for an amendment.
Therefore I submit that first, this motion in amendment is unacceptable because it is out of order as regards the constitution and the rules of the house; second, even if it were in order, the amendment should be rejected as it proposes a procedure that is inapplicable, if not inextricable.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the mover of this amendment is thinking of the practical aspect of any legislation which might subsequently arise from the possible amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act.
It is not often that I share the views of the Minister of Justice, but I agree with the remarks he just made, because the point is that we must consider tonight the constitutional aspect of the problem.
Under the proposed amendment, the Canadian parliament is asked for the power to sanction the wish of the house, to enable the federal government to legislate in some precise matters.

Now, the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve is to present the practical aspect of this amendment.
The hon. member for Villeneuve certainly wants to give the provinces the freedom to agree to such and such legislative plan which might subsequently be presented by the government, following the permission that the parliament of London will give to it of legislating in the particular matters mentioned in section 94A.
The effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve is to place on the same footing the provinces and the federal government in this field of legislation, when the effect of the proposed amendment is to give complete jurisdiction to the federal government in this matter, even if from a practical viewpoint, nothing will stop the provinces from reaching agreements or legislating through special legislation, jointly with the federal government in order to find a field for the application of the powers which will be granted to the federal parliament following the passing of this resolution.
I think the hon. member for Villeneuve is to be commended for his desire to put into effect a legislation which may follow the passing of the amendment. But that amendment, in my humble opinion, is not constitutional, because it would give the provinces a power that belongs exclusively to the federal government.
Anyhow, I think that this amended clause would not be practical, since adding that phraseology would serve no useful purpose because it would not give more power to the federal parliament, and the London parliament would not give us more power. On the contrary, this might complicate even further the interpretation of the British North America Act which, since 1867, has lent itself to many difficult interpretations and whose application has sometimes given rise to bitter discussions.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve is out of order.


Mr. Thompson:: I wish to ask one question. Could we have an English translation of the amendment? The wording of this amendment, as I have here, does not make a complete sentence. Therefore, it does not mean anything at all.
British North America Act


David Réal Caouette: We had sent copies.


Robert Norman Thompson: This is a copy-the one I am referring to. But it is an incomplete sentence and it does not make any sense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could read the English version of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the following words be added to article 94A after the words "any such matter":
"but this amendment to the British North America Act, 1867, does apply only to those provinces who will ask for"


Robert Norman Thompson: For what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may support the request of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and appeal to someone to help us out. I know I would be in the same position if I were trying to give a French translation of a motion I had drafted in English, but as I listened to the translation of the French text that I got through my earpiece, it was quite different from what was placed before us in English paper, I wonder if you, sir, could give us a hand in this connection and give an English translation of the French text that is before Your Honour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will attempt to give a translation of the French text that is before the Chair:
I move, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, that the following words be added to article 94A after the words "any such matter":
"but this amendment to the British North America Act will apply only to such provinces as ask for it".


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the legal point of view. It is the custom that all provinces must agree before we address to the London parliament a request for the approval of an amendment to the constitution.
This means that before addressing itself to London, the government ascertain that all provinces are agreeable to such an amendment. In fact, we can take the example given to us by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, when he said that his pension plan had not been put into effect because the province of Quebec had not agreed to a request for an amendment to the London parliament.
All the provinces have now given their assent.

British North America Act
The resolution reads as follows:
-but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter.
I understand the point of view of the hon. member for Villeneuve, but I believe his amendment comes too late. Such amendment should have been moved before the requests were made to the provinces, to obtain from them unanimous consent, and to apply to London afterwards. At that time, there might have been some use for this amendment whose object is to have only the provinces wishing to use it so authorized.
In the circumstances, it is too late because all provinces have already given their consent. We know, moreover, that to amend the constitution or depart from it, each time, whatever the motive, however small the change may be, it is necessary to apply to London. We have proof of this in this motion, since we have already obtained an amendment to the constitution to pay pensions to the aged. If the law could have been extended or somewhat enlarged, we might have included in it the benefits or payment of pensions to widows. But, the usage is so rigid that I do not believe -besides, circumstances are there to prove it -that we can, without prior agreement of all the provinces, obtain an amendment to the constitution on any point, however minute it may be.
In the circumstances, this amendment, I believe, adds nothing to the actual resolution, since the provinces have already given their consent and with regard to the case with which we are dealing, the provinces could not withdraw their consent, since they have already given it, and in order to apply to London to amend the constitution, such a consent was required.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words with regard to this amendment and its constitutionality or lack of it.
First of all, let us start from the beginning. The British North America Act, passed in 1867, gave certain powers to the federal government and to the provinces.
Now, under this act the provincial governments had exclusive power to legislate on old age pensions and on what is mentioned here as-
-survivors' and disability benefits irrespective of age.
And now, on the occasion of the presentation of a specific piece of legislation on old age pensions, the federal government, without the
[Mr. Chapdelaine.l
consent of all provinces, but of the majority of them, wants to pass a pension scheme directed to the majority of provinces.
Then, in order to amend the constitution, the agreement of all provinces is necessary. All provinces have given their consent, but some of them want to continue to be masters in that field.
I agree that the legislation indicates clearly that:
-it shall not affect the operation of any law, present or future, of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter.
Mr. Speaker, if it becomes more complex, it is because of the amendment to the constitution: the federal government is requesting privileges acquired through the constitution, through the British North America Act, in fields already reserved to the provinces, in order to legislate in a very specific and very precise field, that is to bring in a new act concerning old age pensions.
When the federal government wishes to amend the legislation it may bring in this year or next year, then, a new legislation will become unavoidable. But this new legislation, without affecting any act to be presented by the government of the province of Quebec, may not suit the province of Quebec or another province, but the amendment to the constitution, as proposed now, will nevertheless authorize the federal government to bring forward an amendment or a new piece of legislation to amend the act concerning old age pensions without having to consult a province. The government will have the authority to do it.
It was mentioned a while ago,-I think it was by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) or the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul)-that if the ten provinces have accepted the amendment to the constitution that is proposed today and, consequently, gave one more responsibility to the federal government, it is only because of the new old age pension plan that the federal government intends to set up. But every time the federal government will wish to bring an amendment to its legislation, it will require the passing of a new act. Then, the provinces will have no say in the matter; the federal government will hide behind the amendment we are voting today and the parliament of Canada will have authority to legislate on old age pensions.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke mentioned that it should not affect the operation

of any act present or future passed by a provincial legislature. But let us suppose that in two years from now, the federal government should decide to raise the taxes by 2 per cent and to increase by so much the pension paid out, that will not aifect at all the present or future legislation, but nevertheless, the provincial government will have nothing to say.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that when the federal government infringes upon a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, it goes all the way out, even if such jurisdiction is guaranteed by the constitution because there is no court to which an appeal could be made with respect to such interferences. There is no remedy to the situation and the record is there to prove it.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec had no need for this amendment to the constitution. It can and it is going to legislate on its own in the field of old age pensions.
Why has the Quebec government decided to join in with the other governments with respect to the amendment under consideration? It is merely to oblige the nine other provinces which prefer a federal pension scheme. Since the Quebec government has so graciously co-operated: why do we not give it in return the necessary guarantees so that, later on, the provinces will not regret having agreed to this amendment, as was so often the case in the past when they relied on the good faith of the central government. It may be that the present government deserves the confidence of the province but, in the future, in 20 years from now, another government may not be as worthy of their confidence or may not be as kind.
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.
We dread the results of the amendment to section 94A and that is why the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Ville-neuve is drafted in such a way that the legislation might not intensify the current disunion concerning the constitution.
British North America Act
I think there is enough of that already. The subamendment is constitutional and comprehensive. It is all the more constitutional, let us not forget it, because it stems from a privilege exclusive to the provinces, and since we are then giving to the federal government part of the rights and prerogatives which, under the British North America Act, belong to the provinces.
If the provinces agree to allow the federal government to legislate for the benefit of the other provinces, it does not mean that they want the federal government to obtain, under the constitution, all the rights and every latitude. I think the federal government should be satisfied with the permission it obtained this year from the provincial governments to legislate in those fields.
On the other hand, it should give the provinces the assurance that, in the future, federal government legislation will not encroach upon provincial fields. It is a privilege which belongs to the provinces, and Quebec has agreed to part with it out of kindness for the other nine provinces.
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 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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the hon. member's statement that what section 94A is doing is giving something to the federal parliament-surely he agrees that that is what it does; it does not give anything to the provinces-


Mr. Benidickson:: Not very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -can he not see our problem in that his amendment does not seem to make any sense? 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.
4480	HOUSE OF
British North America Act [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I shall answer the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the subamendment of the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) maintain for the federal government the privilege and power of legislating in those fields. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Ville-neuve does not deprive the government of that power to legislate. Yet, the power to legislate in the matter of old age pensions will now only apply to the provinces which accept it.
I want to tell the Minister of Justice, as well as the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne)-who advocates co-operative federalism-that if we accept this today, it will be a precedent which may repeat itself in many other fields under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, even in the nine provinces which would like the federal government to enter certain fields. The federal government may legislate on behalf of all provinces which are willing, but not for those who are not. This will facilitate amendments to the constitution as nine provinces will welcome them, while respecting the rights of the provinces which do not want those amendments. This will be a precedent which will more easily justify any future amendments to the constitution and which will be a new means of repatriating the constitution. At that time, the amendments will only apply to the provinces which are willing to accept them.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) frequently stated that Quebec was not a province like the others. Almost everybody agrees on that. Therefore, let us put those words into practice and try to agree on the constitution, so that if it suits nine provinces, all the better, and if it does not suit the tenth, it will not apply. By doing so, I think that we will attain the best kind of confederation which will satisfy everybody.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this answers the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I might point out to hon. members that since royal assent is about to be given perhaps it would be wise to wait until tomorrow before the Chair renders a decision. I might also point out that the remarks and comments made on the point of order by several hon.


members have related exclusively, to my mind, to the question of the constitutionality of the amendment, which really does not assist the Chair in reaching a decision. What the Chair has to decide is whether the amendment is acceptable from a procedural standpoint, and very little has been said by hon. members on this point. I must say that as far as the Chair is concerned this is a difficult question to decide, being a borderline case, and in view of this I am sure that hon. members will not mind waiting until tomorrow before the Chair give its decision, in view of the fact that we are just about to have royal assent.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 18, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the, Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 18th June, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether we could have the order of business for tomorrow and Monday while we are waiting?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if I may first be allowed to say so, I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent of the house once we return from the Senate, to complete the proceedings on the motion to amend the resolution, so that tomorrow we can proceed with the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? I understand we still have to get a ruling tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: I thought that the Speaker meant that because it was adjournment time he could not render his ruling until tomorrow. I did not understand that he was asking for time to consider the matter. I withdraw my suggestion if that is the case.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will complete the debate on the resolution concerning the constitutional amendment, after which, because of the arrangement which has been made among the parties, we will dispose of second reading of the bill concerning the Roosevelt-Campobello international park. Then we will resume the debate on the flag resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought it was the understanding that we would not take the flag resolution on any day when it would only be for a limited time, that it would always be a full day's debate. I thought it was the understanding that if we were on legislation and there was some period of time left, an hour or an hour and a half, we would proceed with other legislation.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the understanding was that we would not resume the debate on the flag resolution in the middle of the day or at an indeterminate moment. However, I must say that I tried to get agreement today-it is not my hon. friend who did not agree-to fill the day completely in case we had some time left, and I could not get agreement, so I suppose we will have to go on with the flag debate. But I must say that the lack of agreement did not originate with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a red letter day.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:
An act to amend the Farm Credit Act.
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act respecting the Payment of Certain Provincial Taxes and Fees by Crown Corporations.
An act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
An act to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river
18, 1964	448I
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
between the city of Ste. Foy. in the county of Quebec, and the municipality of St. Nicolas, in the county of Levis, both in the province of Quebec.
An act to incorporate Canadian Conference of the Brethren in Christ church.
An act respecting the General Accident Assurance company of Canada.
An act respecting Scottish Canadian Assurance Corporation.
An act respecting Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting The Dominion Life Assurance Company.

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion)
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: While this might be a frivolous matter for discussion in parliament, I am sure all Canadians across Canada would be shocked to learn that the Department of Trade and Commerce is putting out, publishing and giving away, not only in Canada but all across the world, at trade fairs throughout the world and in New York at the present time, games of chance, games of cards in particular, which to some extent deface what may well be Canada's national flag-Canada's national symbol. Surely, the Canadian public expects more of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
At various times members of parliament use various methods to draw attention to the misguided efforts of government and departments of government. Certainly this is a good example, and I should like to be given some pertinent answers with regard to the publishing of these cards by a spokesman for a government which has a history of being against lotteries and games of chance.
The playing cards are needed to play a game described as "The Canadian Maple Leaf" and a game called "Canadian Timber". These games have similar sets of rules. The rules are published and a copy is included in each pack. This has a direct bearing on a subject which the house has lately been considering, a subject to which the government itself has given priority in debate. The pack consists of four sets of 13 Canadian tree cards -and the three maple leaves are jokers. That is what it says: The three maple leaves are

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion jokers. The significant thing about these cards is that the maple leaves on them are an exact replica of the design which it is now proposed shall constitute the design of Canada's national flag.
I do hope that if this emblem of three maple leaves is accepted as the flag of Canada, or even if one maple leaf is accepted, the Department of Trade and Commerce will immediately cease to publish decks of cards of this kind. For the trouble of asking, I got 100 decks of these cards from the Department of Trade and Commerce. I still have lots of them in my office.


An hon. Member:: Do you like the game?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The game is a simple one related to the game called "Old Maid", when I was a boy. If the hon. member would like to join the old maids, or play "Old Maid", that is his privilege. According to what one reads in the press, it will not be long before the three maple leaf design constitutes our national flag and, as I say, the emblem on these cards is an exact replica of the design proposed for this flag. It is noted on the joker that it is put out by the Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada; it says, "Printed in Canada on Canadian paper". You would almost think this was a theme song for Canada-printed in Canada; made in Canada. The only thing they have not got on it is "Made in Canada". However, I would hope the Department of Trade and Commerce would have most of their work done in Canada.
I would certainly like to know how long they have been distributing these decks of cards, this game of chance, with the exact replica of the proposed maple leaf design. I would like to know what has been the cost to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Is this the way they are promoting Canadian trade? Certainly most Canadians think this is not the way the department should be promoting trade.
I would ask, what has been the cost; how much are Canadian taxpayers being asked to pay to promote this game of chance distributed by the Department of Trade and Commerce? I might go on to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the winner of the game called "Canadian maple leaf" is the one who has the one remaining maple leaf, the one remaining joker.
partment of Trade and Commerce proposes to continue to distribute this game, perhaps this should be brought to their attention. I think it has been a direct waste of the taxpayer's money and has placed shame upon the Canadian maple leaf, which has always been, and will always remain, an emblem representing Canada, whether or not the flag gets the approval of parliament. In addition, I would like to know for how many years this game has been distributed and at what direct cost to the Canadian taxpayers; and will distribution be continued? I add this last thing: Will it be continued after the flag with three maple leaves on it is approved. If this happens, will the department continue to distribute this game and describe the three maple leaves as jokers? Will they continue spreading this impression across the world, to the detriment of the Canadian public?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It sounds like the colouring books, the pigeons and the truth squad.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Exactly.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I might perhaps commend the hon. member who has just concluded his speech on his acknowledgement of the maple leaf not only as the emblem of Canada but, in his words, as representing our national flag. I am glad to see there is at least one convert on the other side of the chamber as a result of the debate so far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Unfortunately, this opportunity does not permit me to ask the hon. member a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ask it anyway.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: But I was fascinated to learn that he had secured from the Department of Trade and Commerce 100 of these decks of cards and that he had already used a number of them, apparently, in playing a rather simple game which he described as "Old Maid". I would hope he would have more to engage his attention than this undoubtedly fascinating game designed by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have not used the cards. I obtained 100 decks to see whether it was possible to obtain them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.	j^r. p)rury; The "Canadian timber game",


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This may please some to which reference has been made, was a sales members in the house. It may not please the promotion distributed and designed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and if the De- trade publicity branch of the Department of
[Mr. Horner (Acadia) .1

Trade and Commerce. It was first introduced in January of 1963. The cards were at that time designed and produced.
The purpose of the trade publicity branch was to provide some kind of give-away item, not all over the world and at world fairs but at the trade and commerce exhibits at lumber shows in the United States. To date, and since the cards were first produced in January of 1963, there have been some 12 or 13 lumber shows in the United States of America at which these cards have been given away. They are designed to advertise Canadian lumber products, the fact of their excellence and of their availability in Canada.
If the hon. member complains a little that references to Canada, the quality of Canadian paper and to "Made in Canada" appear to be a little overemphasized on the cards, I can assure him that their purpose is for use on the American market, for propaganda purposes. It seems to me that, even though they date back a couple of years, this is not an unsatisfactory scheme of trade promotion. One of its great virtues is its basic cheapness. The hon. member has 100 decks and has played with them, he will have discovered that they do not last very long. The reason is their very low cost. The cost of producing one of these decks of cards in the numbers which were ordered back in January of 1963 does not much exceed the cost of paper itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES    EMPLOYMENT BY ROYAL COMMISSION OF RESEARCH STAFF

Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I raised this question not only today, when I got no answer at all-perhaps because of what you felt was the unfortunate wording of the question,-but I raised a similar question the other day and got no answer from the Prime Minister. To me at least, it seems no one in this house could take objection to this question. It relates to my contention that the bilingualism and bi-culturalism commission is doing an excellent job of inflaming racial animosity in this country, and that it is in the best interests of Canada for the Prime Minister to call it off and to put an end to what I, in a moment of excitement today, described as the B and B gang. When I used the word "gang" I did so in the context of a group of people who go around terrorizing, and upsetting the equilibrium of the nation, and who do so at the expense of society generally.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Any of the hon. members who listened to the radio broadcast of the B and B session in Quebec City two nights ago would surely have been reminded of the broadcasts which we hear of these "You were there" records- the sort which take us back to the Nazi rallies in Germany before the serious advance of the nazi movement in that country, where people lost control of themselves. I for one categorically reject the impression that the radio broadcast of the proceedings at that hearing represent the feelings of the people of Quebec. They do not, and no hon. member anywhere in this house would espouse that position. However, I do espouse the position that the B and B commission has a greater divisive effect in this country today than any other single force at work, and I think that the onus is on the Prime Minister, if he is sincere-and I suspect him to be since-in his avowed purpose of unifying the country, to do this. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the government that this is the time to place the good of the nation above the good of the Liberal party, because there are those who believe sincerely that the whole purpose of the Liberal party in the bilingualism and biculturalism commission, in the flag debate and in a few other things is to divide the country and ruin it, to pit Catholic against non-Catholic and French against non-French, and that these vehicles do this in an excellent way.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Members opposite can holler "shame" if they wish, but there is a substantial body of opinion in Canada that wants the Prime Minister to stand up and call off the bilingualism and biculturalism commission. All one needs to do, if he wants to be non-partisan, is to read editorial opinion in this country. It is to the effect that the terms of reference of this commission should be reviewed. Today we read that this commission is going to investigate the press, television and radio services of this country. One of the commissioners says that they have to go overseas, take this divisive and disruptive vehicle of theirs to every country in the world and make Canada the laughingstock of the world.
Where will it end? I suggest to the government that it is time they sincerely reviewed this matter. Recall the commission. The commission has suggested that it is prepared to submit an interim report. Now is the time for the government to have the courage to ask
4484	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the commissioners to present an interim report, then review it in the light of experience so far and decide if at this particular time it might not be better to call the whole thing off, at least until Canadian passions have been allowed to settle in the wake of the disturbance this particular commission has caused.


An hon. member:: Two flags, two Canadas.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that the purpose of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in establishing the bilingualism and biculturalism commission was to promote national unity in Canada and to save confederation. As far as newspapers are concerned, the commissioners appointed by the governor general in council by P.C. 1963-1106 of July, 1963, were given certain terms of reference which refer inter alia to the role of the mass communication media. The performance of the duties conferred upon them by those terms quite conceivably might lead them to study newspapers, etc. The decision whether or not to do so extensively would be one to be made by the royal commissioners.



TRANSPORT-DELAY IN SHIPMENTS OF FREIGHT TO NEWFOUNDLAND

Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) a question as to what steps the government was taking in order to alleviate the great backlog of freight that exists now on the run between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The problem of freight moving to Newfoundland by that run is one that has been quite difficult for a great many years, and the service provided to consumers in Newfoundland all the way from Port aux Basques to St. John's is hampered by the lack of what we feel are badly needed facilities on the run between the two ports of North Sydney and Port aux Basques.
This, of course, is only one part of the over-all problem that concerns us in Newfoundland in respect of a co-ordinated federal policy on transportation. During the past year we have been greatly encouraged by the arrangement whereby the federal government will pay 90 per cent of the cost of building the trans-Canada highway, thus coming in line with the recommendation of the Mac-Pherson report.
We are also encouraged by an earlier announcement last fall concerning additional
[Mr. Bheaume.l

ferry service to Newfoundland. At that time-reference was made to an east coast ferry,, an automobile ferry, and also an additional rail car ferry to go into service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. This problem has existed for some time, but it has been accentuated in recent weeks in a temporary way by the unfortunate waterfront situation in St. John's.
There is a general feeling abroad however that we cannot wait until these new ferries are constructed. There must be some immediate action taken because of the seriousness of this problem. I point out that this question is again part of the over-all problem we have in Newfoundland. In particular, the MacPher-son commission did recommend that there be a full transportation study, especially in Newfoundland, of its transportation problem. Action is necessary on this particular question because of the very recent waterfront situation in the port of St. John's and the declining business in the port.
It has been pointed out that one of the things that may in some way contribute to this is the lack of a co-ordinated federal policy. It was for this reason I did rise this afternoon to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) a question on this one aspect of transportation policy for Newfoundland. In the past year particularly we have been encouraged by the initiative taken by this government, it is still a fact we cannot wait for the completion of the long term plan. We do feel there should be some immediate action taken on these points.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in order to meet the critical traffic problem foreseen to develop this summer and next winter, and for the next two or three years, the government has purchased and undertaken to convert the ferry New Grand Haven. This ferry was built in 1951 by Canadian Vickers Limited at Montreal, and until recently has been operated by a United States company between Florida and Cuba.
To meet the particular traffic requirements of the Newfoundland service certain modifications will be necessary and they will be undertaken in an eastern Canadian shipyard. The vessel will be ready for freight service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques early in 1965. The total cost, including conversion, will be approximately $2,250,000, which I think makes this vessel, at today's prices, a bargain.
It is also going to meet an urgent need until such time as the rail car ferry can be con-

structed, which will be several years. I may say that I had intended, in any event, to announce tomorrow, and the hon. gentleman's question gives me an opportunity to anticipate the announcement, that the contract for the new ferry to operate between North Sydney and Argentia has been let to Marine Industries of Sorel. This vessel, of which an interesting description will be issued tomorrow, is expected to be in service by November, 1967. I think this underlines the importance of acquiring this ferry which happened to turn up in Florida and which I believe is going to meet a very real and urgent need.
As for the broader study mentioned by the hon. gentleman, it was part of the settlement which was made of the longshoremen's strike in St. John's by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) the other day. There was an undertaking given by the government that not only would we set up an industrial inquiry commission to look into the problem, but that we would inquire into the whole problem of transportation between the mainland and Newfoundland, as forecast as being
18, 1964	4485
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion necessary by the MacPherson commission. The groundwork for this study is already under way in my department, and the study will be undertaken shortly.


Reid Scott: Is it possible to ask the minister one question?


Mr. Speaker:: I think we could afford one question.


Reid Scott: Could the minister tell us the specifications of the ferry just announced to carry freight train cars across, and whether the freight handling will be done on the Newfoundland side or the other side?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is rather ahead of me because the specifications for the rail car ferry have not yet been completed. That is one reason we have not called for tenders for this, and it is one of the reasons we are buying the second hand ferry to meet the gap; but I may say the second hand ferry will not be carrying rail cars.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.



END OF VOLUME IV