1964-04-15

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present to the house the second report of the special committee on procedure and organization. At this time I would like to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is chairman of the subcommittee on procedure of the general committee which prepared the report just tabled.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of giving oral notice, which I will later give in writing, that on Friday on behalf of the committee I shall move that the house concur in the second report which Your Honour has just tabled. I give this notice now so that hon. members can read the report in Votes and Proceedings and, we hope, be ready to concur in it when it is moved on Friday.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Ricard: What standards were used to determine and justify the amount of the increase granted December last to the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, when his salary was raised from $20,000 to $40,000 per year?


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer this question in some detail.
The board of directors of the C.B.C., on October 30, 1963, unanimously recommended that the salary of the president of the corporation be established by the governor in council at $50,000. In support of this recommendation, a number of considerations were adduced:
(1)	In the absence of any action by the governor in council to establish a salary for the president, as was required under section 25(1) of the Broadcasting Act of 1958, the present incumbent from the time of his appointment in 1958 continued to receive only the salary of $20,000 which had been
approved for him in 1954 when he occupied the lesser position of general manager of the corporation, under a full time chairman of the board;
(2)	The Fowler commission had judged the salaries of both the chairman and the general manager to be seriously inadequate in 1957;
(3)	The responsibilities of the chief executive of the corporation had grown many fold since 1954;
(4)	The Glassco commission has stated that a substantial increase in the salaries of the chief executive officers was needed;
(5)	The prevailing rates of remuneration for positions of comparable responsibility in industry ranged as high as $100,000 per annum;
(6)	The salaries of chief executives in other crown corporations, holding offices of comparable responsibility, were substantially higher; and
(7)	The limitations imposed on other C.B.C. salary scales by the abnormally low salary set for the president placed the corporation at an increasingly serious disadvantage in attracting men of competence and experience to fill senior posts.
In considering the recommendation of the board of directors, the government recognized the force of their arguments. However, in order to maintain a reasonable relationship between the remuneration of the president and that of other senior officers of the public service, it was felt necessary to fix the salary at the lesser amount of $40,000 per annum. This was done by order in council P.C. 1963-5/1855, dated December 20th, 1963.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for the answer he has given, even though it seems it has taken a long time to get it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


CANADIAN RAILWAY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Rideout: 1.	On what date was the present Canadian railway board of adjustment No. 1 constituted?
2.	For what purpose was this board created?
3.	What was the actual cost, per year, per party, during the period April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1963, covering the actual function of the board?
4.	What items would this amount cover?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. The agreement between the railway association of Canada and six trade unions which first established Canadian railway board of adjustment No. 1 was dated

Questions
August 7, 1918. In a further agreement dated April 15, 1921, the board was continued.
2.	The preamble to the agreement of April 15, 1921 states as follows: Whereas the parties hereto, guided by a desire to aid in the preservation of industrial peace in the Dominion of Canada, have resolved upon the appointment of a board composed of members to be selected as hereafter prescribed, which shall have full power and authority to determine all differences which may arise between any of the said railways and any of the classes of its employees abovementioned, and which are not settled between the officers and employees of the railway concerned, including the interpretation of wage schedules or agreements, having due regard to the rights of the several classes of employees and of the railways respectively.
3.	and 4. This information is not available in the Department of Labour.


IMMIGRATION TARGETS FOR 1963
Mr. Hales: 1.	In the month of January, 1963, did the then minister of citizenship and immigration establish any targets or objectives for immigration in the year 1963 and, if so, what were such targets or objectives?
2.	What was the actual immigration to Canada in 1963?
3.	For what reasons was it not possible to achieve the targets or objectives established in January, 1963?


Mr. Tremblay:: 1. Yes. The then minister communicated certain views and an immigration objective for that year in a confidential
document to the then acting deputy minister. So far as the department is aware, the target or objective was not publicized.
2.	93,151.
3.	Without commenting further on the objective referred to in the answer to part 1 of this question, the fact remains that an increased number of immigrants did come to Canada in 1963 as compared with 1962. The government anticipates that a further increase in immigration will occur in 1964, and intends to provide every facility to the immigrant and to the department toward this end.


TENDERS FOR TURBINES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 341

Mr. Howe (Hamilton
South):
1.	Has the government asked for tenders on the building of turbines that have previously been built in Canada by the Canadian Westinghouse Company?
2.	Is there any possibility that these turbines are going to be built in England rather than in Canada, and thereby increase Canadian unemployment by so doing?
Mr. Drury:: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


SALES OF INDIAN RESERVE LANDS
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1963, have any Indian reserve lands in Canada been sold and, if so, by name of each reserve and band so affected, what was the name and address of each purchaser, the purchase price, and the area sold?


Mr. Badanai:: Edwin D. Howell and Kathleen M. Howell, Rome, New York, U.S.A.
Province of Ontario	
Norman K. Fredengurgh, Toronto, Ont..

Not specified
Questions
[Mr. Badanai.I
Indian reserve
Band
w g Ontario (>continued) B. Island No. 54, Township of Eastnor. Li	Saugeen and Cape Croker	
Magnetawan I.R. No. 1	 Eagle Lake I.R. No. 27	 Whitefish River I.R. No. 4	 Tyendinaga I.R. No: 38		Resident Indians	 Eagle Lake	 Whitefish River	 Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte	
Saugeen I.R. No. 29		Saugeen	
Manitoba Salt Channel I.R. No. 21D		The Pas	
Grand Rapids I.R. No. 33	 Gambler I.R. No. 63		Grand Rapids 	 Waywayseecappo	
Brokenhead I.R. No. 4		Brokenhead	
Saskatchewan Thunderchild I.R. No. 115	
Moosomin I.R. No. 112	
Muskowekwan I.R. No. 85	
White Bear I.R. No. 70	
Standing Buffalo I.R. No. 78	Thunderchild	
Moosomin	
Muskowekwan	
White Bear	
Standing Buffalo	Poundmaker I.R. No. 114	
Little Pine and Lucky Man I.R. No. 116	Poundmaker	
Little Pine and Lucky Man	Meadow Lake I.R. No. 105	
Muskowekwan I.R. No. 85	Meadow Lake	
Muskowekwan	Alberta Wabamun I.R. No. 133A	Paul	
Wabamun I.R. No. 133A
Paul
Name and address of purchaser
Ronald Alfred Forbes, Township of Amabel, County of Bruce, Ont.
Province of Ontario	
Province of Ontario	
Province of Ontario	
The Corporation of the Township of Tyendinaga, Ont.
The Corporation of the County of Bruce, Ont.
Province of Manitoba	
Province of Manitoba	
Province of Manitoba	
Province of Manitoba	
Eva Marie Prince, Delmas, Saskatchewan Eva Marie Prince, Delmas, Saskatchewan
The Village of Lestoek, Sask	
Province of Saskatchewan	
Province of Saskatchewan	
Province of Saskatchewan	
Province of Saskatchewan	
Province of Saskatchewan	
Province of Saskatchewan	
Mrs. Dagmar E. Tyrrell, DufSeld, Alberta
Stanley Edward Thompson Mitchell, Duffield, Alberta.
Purchase price Area in acres
$ 60.00	0.4
$ 50.00	1.049
$ 10.00	6.750
$284.00	3.894
$525.00	3.75
Exchange of land	4.01
In exchange for Provincial Crown Land	77.0
$14,840.00	74.2
Without payment of compensation	640.0
$5,976.00	119.52
$644.00	68.0 93.0
$100.00	5.0
$3,603.20	163.4
Without payment of compensation	31.87
$130.20	30.50
$ 52.80	12.21
$422.50	1.69
$1,228.86	52.19
$300.00	0.3
$500.00	0.5
2188	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Wabamun I.R. No. 133A
Paul
Wabamun I.R. No. 133A	
Bushe River I.R. No. 207	
Stony I.R. No. 142, 143 and 144_
Wabamun I.R. No. 133A	
Wabamun I.R. No. 133A	
Cold Lake I.R. No. 149	
Blood I.R. No. 148	
Eden Valley I.R. No. 216	
Stony Plain I.R. No. 135	
Alexis I.R. No. 133	
British Columbia
Nuuautin I.R. No. 2	
Burns Lake I.R. No. 18	
Inkahtsaph I.R. No. 6	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
Shumarl I.R. No. 4	
Aiyansh I.R. No. 1	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
McDonald Lake I.R. No. 1	
Cowichan I.R. No. 1	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
Louis Creek I.R. No. 4	
Paul	
Slave	
Stony	
Paul	
Paul	
Cold Lake.
Blood	
Stony	
Enoch	
Alexis	
Lytton	
Burns Lake Boothroyd
Hazelton.. Gitlakdamix
Gitlakdamix
Hazelton... Atlin-Teslin
Cowichan.. Hazelton... Hazelton...
Hazelton... Hazelton.. . North Thompson
Albert James Owen Mitchell, Duffield, Alberta	$200.00	0.2Albert Edward Mitchell, Duffield, Alberta	$300.00	0.3Province of Alberta	$1,874.20	87.45Province of Alberta	$7,118.00	71.13A. J. 0. Mitchell, Duffield, Alberta	$500.00	0.5A. E. Mitchell, Duffield, Alberta	$200.00	0.2Province of Alberta	$2,017.50	85.5Province of Alberta	$500.00	13.44Province of Alberta	$1,069.50	7.13Province of Alberta	$4,868.00	24.34Province of Alberta	Without payment of compensation	51.68Province of British Columbia	$533.00	7.593Province of British Columbia	$ 78.00	0.39Canadian National Railway Company, Montreal, Quebec	$150.00	3.74Joseph Stevens, Hazelton, B.C	$735.00	0.38Province of British Columbia	In exchange for Provincial Crown Land	178.0Province of British Columbia	In exchange for Provincial Crown Land	275.0Albert William Hetenyi, Hazelton, B.C.	$142.00	1.758Province of British Columbia	In exchange for Provincial Crown Land	39.2Province of British Columbia	$285.00	0.53Mack and Lee Miller, Hazelton, B.C.. . .	$261.00	0.15Charles Richard Snellstrom and LaDoris June Snellstrom, Hazelton, B.C.	$1,100.00	0.81Albert William Hetenyi, Hazelton, B.C.	$1,612.00	1.242Emily Agnes Sargent, Hazelton, B.C-	$844.00	0.494Province of British Columbia	Without payment of compensation	0.218
Questions

Indian reserve
Band
British Columbia (continued)
Spuzzum I.R. No. 1A	
Hazelton I.R. No. 1	
Inkluckcheen I.R. No. 21... Inkluckcheen I.R. No. 21B.
Boston Bar I.R. No. 1A....
Boston Bar I.R. No. 8...
Tuckkwiowhum I.R. No. 1.
Campbell River I.R. No. 11 Khyex I.R. No. 8	
Drew Harbour I.R. No. 9. . Cape Mudge I.R. No. 10....
Lytton I.R. No. 26A	
Spuzzum	
Hazelton	
Lytton	
Lytton	
Boston Bar	
Boston Bar	
Boston Bar	
Campbell River	
Port Simpson and Metlakatla
Cape Mudge	
Cape Mudge	
Lytton	
Matsqui Main I.R. No. 2
Matsqui
Skwayaycope I.R. No. 26
Lytton
Name and address of purchaser	Purchase price	Area in acresProvince of British Columbia	$ 10.00	0.269Ardyth Naomi Bennett, Hazelton, B.C.	*504.00	0.33Province of British Columbia	
Province of British Columbia	*320.75	4.452 9.098Province of British Columbia	
Province of British Columbia	
Province of British Columbia	$3,499.25	16.79 13.23 7.99Province of British Columbia	*7,560.00	8.77Canadian National Railways, Montreal, P.Q.	$200.00	1.6Province of British Columbia	
Province of British Columbia	$666.00	8.27 6.07Canadian National Railway Company, Montreal, P.Q.	$289.90	2.24Canadian National Railway Company, Montreal, P.Q.	$715.00	2.83Canadian National Railway Company,	$2,671.10	8.67
Montreal, P.Q.
2190	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


EXPENDITURES, OPERATING COSTS AND DEPRECIATION, MACKENZIE HIGHWAY
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What were the capital expenditures in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Mackenzie highway system in each fiscal year since 1958-59, under each of the following headings (a) machinery including staff vehicles, parts tools and equipment (b) buildings, including workshops, warehouses, garages?
2.	What has been the total annual operating costs of all vehicles, machinery equipment and buildings (other than staff housing) for each year since 1958-59, under the following headings (a) parts and repairs to equipment, vehicle, machinery (b) heat, light, power, water and maintenance to buildings?
3.	What is the estimated depreciated value of all buildings materials and equipment now in use on the Mackenzie highway system?


Mr. Laing:: 1. (a) August 1, 1961, March 31,
1962,	$470,340.31; April 1, 1962, March 31,
1963,	$82,400.00; April 1, 1963, March 31,
1964,	Nil.
(b)	August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, $154,856.26; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $271,161.00; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, Nil.
2.	(a) August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, fuel and lubricants, $17,233.60; repair and labour, $6,293.84.
April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, fuel and lubricants, $24,801.45; repair and labour, $20,297.72.
April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, fuel and lubricants, $20,664.24; repair and labour, $23326.93.
(b)	August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, $6,977.88; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $25,121.00; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, $29,506.16.
3.	$674,152.76.
Note: maintenance and operation of the Mackenzie highway system was not assumed by Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources until 1961. All costs therefore are from that year only.



MACKENZIE HIGHWAY SYSTEM


Mr. Rheaume: 1. How many persons are employed by the federal government in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Mackenzie highway system in each of the following categories (a) classified civil service positions (b) prevailing rate employees (c) casual labourers?
2.	What were the annual expenditures for wages including northern allowances in each fiscal year from 1958-59 to the present, for each of the above categories of employee?
3.	What were the total expenditures for travel and removal, annual leave, transportation for medical or dental care, for all such employees and their dependants in each fiscal year since 1958-59?
4.	What has been the total annual costs for heat, power, water and sewage and other services for all crown dwellings occupied by the above employees for each fiscal year since 1958-59?
5.	What has been the capital cost of construction or acquisition of buildings and land for
Questions
housing Mackenzie highway staff, including costs of furniture and supplies for each fiscal year since 1958-59?


Arthur Laing: 1. (a) Classified positions: Engineer 3, 1, (approximately half time); Tech, officer 4, 1, full time.
(b)	Prevailing rate: 19, full time; 4, seasonal.
(c)	Casual: Nil.
2.	(a) Classified: August 1, 1961, March 31,
1962,	$23,611.00; April 1, 1962, March 31,
1963,	$25,100.00; April 1, 1963, March 31,
1964,	$24,632.00.
(b) Prevailing rate and seasonal: August 1,
1961,	March 31, 1962, $84,712.38; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $153,095.65; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, $182,783.52.
3.	August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, $1,393.48; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $2,870.91; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, $2,608.79.
4.	(a) Heat: August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, $1,644.72; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $3,574.78; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, $4,821.74.
(b)	Power: August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, $323.40; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $2,163.63; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, $2,185.63.
(c)	Sewage and water: August 1, 1961, March 31, 1962, Nil; April 1, 1962, March 31,
1963,	$209.60; April 1, 1963, March 31, 1964, $177.48.
(d)	Maintenance: August 1, 1961, March 31,
1962,	under construction; April 1, 1962, March 31, 1963, $1,137.40; April 1, 1963, March 31,
1964,	$1,137.40.
5.	All staff housing was completed and furnished during fiscal year 1961-62 at cost of $133,958.68. No furniture has been purchased or replaced since the original purchase.
Note: maintenance and operation of the Mackenzie highway system was not assumed by Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources until 1961. All costs therefore are from that year only.



ORDER OF PRINCE HENRY THE NAVIGATOR

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What citizens of Canada have been awarded the order of Prince Henry the Navigator by the government of Portugal?
2.	What were the dates of such awards?
3.	Are Canadian recipients of this order accorded in Canada the designation "sir"?
4.	Was approval of the Canadian government obtained prior to the conferring of the awards?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned?
1.	Mr. Paul Bouchard, president of the centre Espagnol in Quebec.
2.	May 6, 1961.
3.	No.
4.	No.

Questions
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned:
1.	Commodore Frank B. Caldwell, R.C.N.; Commander William S. T. McCully, R.C.N. (deceased); Commander Christopher G. Smith, R.C.N.; Commander Harry Shorten, R.C.N.
2.	August 8, 1960.
3.	No.
4.	No. The awards were made by the Portuguese minister of foreign affairs and the Portuguese minister of the navy without prior warning to the officers concerned on the occasion of the visit of the fifth Canadian escort squadron to Lisbon to participate in the fifth centenary celebrations of the death of Prince Henry the navigator. Similar awards were given to the commanding officers of all the other navies, including the Royal Navy and the United States navy, taking part in the celebrations.



* SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM CONTRACT

Mr. Cooper: In connection with the last signed contract tor the Saskatchewan river dam (a) what was the amount of the contract (b) who signed the contract on behalf of the government (c) on what date was the contract signed?


Mr. Beer:: (a) As of March 20, 1964, the last signed contract for the Saskatchewan river dam was for the supply of fly-ash material from the Saskatchewan Power Corporation in the amount of $204,315; (b>
S. C. Barry, deputy minister of agriculture; (c) February 18, 1964.



RENOVATION OP AGENT'S OFFICE, SAUGEEN INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. Loney: 1.	What additions and renovations are being made to the agent's office at Saugeen Indian reserve No. 29?
2.	What is the name of the contractor for this project?
3.	Was the contract let by public tender?
4.	What was the price quotation submitted by the successful bidder?
5.	At what date was the contract let and when did the project commence?
6.	What is the name of the inspector and what are his qualifications?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Construction of an addition to the existing office to provide additional working space.
2,	3, 4, 5. The work was performed on a day labour basis. However, orders were placed in accordance with the government contracts regulations with a number of firms for special items such as heating, plumbing and electrical work. The total cost of the project was $7,712.48 and the work commenced on December 6, 1963.
6.	The project was under the supervision of Mr. F. C. O'Keefe, regional construction supervisor, southern Ontario region, Indian affairs branch. Mr. O'Keefe is well qualified
[Mr. Lamontagne.l
for the position having some 20 years of experience in the construction field in a supervisory capacity.



ADVISORY COMMITTEE, P.F.R.A. AND ARDA

Mr. Siefanson: Has an advisory council or committee, to assist P.F.R.A. and ARDA, been established and, if so (a) when was it set up (b) who are members of this committee (c) when and where were meetings held (d) are any meetings planned for 1964, and if so, where and when will they take place?


Maurice Lamontagne: In so far as the question relates to the Department of Agriculture:
1.	(a) Under provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act a P.F.R.A. advisory committee was established in 1935. This committee became increasingly inactive during the mid-1950's, but was re-established as the P.F.R.A. rehabilitation committee in October 1962.
(b)	Mr. Norman Roebuck, 63 Haultain, York-ton, Saskatchewan; Mr. Roy Clark, 117-20th Street, Brandon, Manitoba; Mr. Fred Croy, Stonewall, Manitoba; Mr. Harry Shearer, Elm Creek, Manitoba; Mr. James Cameron, Youngstown, Alberta; Mr. Arnold F. Christie, Grande Prairie, Alberta; Mr. Deane Holroyd (deceased), 1737-15th Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta; Mr. Boyd Anderson, Fir Mountain, Saskatchewan; Mr. W. H. Hollier, 1618-100th Street, North Battleford, Saskatchewan; Mr. Ed. Wright, Eastend, Saskatchewan; Mr. H. J. Collison, Star City, Saskatchewan.
(c)	Meetings of the committee were held in Regina on December 6 and 7, 1962.
(d)	At the present time there are no definite plans for the holding of a meeting during 1964.
In so far as the question relates to the Department of Forestry: no.



IMPORTATION OF BATHROOM FIXTURES, TORONTO

Mr. Howard: Does the government or any agency or branch thereof have any knowledge that American Standard Products (Canada) Ltd. of Toronto is importing bathroom fixtures into Canada for the purpose of having them given the Canadian standards association (CSA) stamp of approval so they may be used to circumvent the effect of a strike at its Lansdowne plant by the international brotherhood of potters and, if so, what action does the government contemplate taking to prevent this?
Answer: The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) stamp of approval is indicative only of conformity with a set of voluntary standards established by the particular industry itself. The government of Canada does not enforce the provisions of the code with respect to the entrance of imported goods. The code becomes mandatory only by action by provincial or municipal authorities.

The government of Canada has no knowledge of the purposes of the importations in the instance cited.



POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, P.E.I.

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What are the reasons for delay in the construction of post offices at Mount Stewart and North Rustico in P.E.I.?
2.	When is it now planned to commence construction?
3.	Has land for such buildings been obtained and, if so, from whom and at what price?


Mr. Deschatelets:: 1. Site problems and cost and staff limitations prevented undertaking the construction this year at many locations including Mount Stewart and North Rustico.
2.	Decision as to future programs has not been made.
3.	No.



* ARMS AND AMMUNITION REMOVED FROM HIGH SCHOOLS, BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.

Mr. Loney: 1.	Were orders issued by the Department of National Defence to remove the small arms and ammunition of the cadet corps from the high schools in the county of Bruce and, if so, from which schools were the small arms and ammunition removed?
2.	When were the orders carried out at each school?
3.	Who was in charge of the removal operations and when will the small arms and ammunition be returned to each school?


Mr. Cardin:: 1. Small arms ammunition was withdrawn from the following cadet corps in the county of Bruce: 246 Kincardine district high school; 411 Walkerton district high school; 730 Lucknow district high school; 2391 Hanover high school.
2.	26 February 1964.
3.	The area cadet training officer. Some small arms ammunition has been returned to the corps at Walkerton and Lucknow. The ranges at the Hanover corps are undergoing repairs therefore no supplies have been reissued. The corps at Kincardine has been inactive since 31 December 1963 and no reissues have been made there. Additional supplies are issued on a demand basis with one month's supply only being held in stock.



RESEARCH PROGRAM, URANIUM CITY

Mr. Cadieu (Meadow: Lake):
Does the international atomic energy agency, to which Canada annually contributes, plan a technological and research development program at Uranium City?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: We have been informed that the international atomic energy agency is not planning a technological and research development program at Uranium City.
Questions



&quot;HANSARD&quot; PUBLISHING COST, MARCH 27, 1964

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 602
Mr. Caouelte:: What was the cost of publishing Hansard for Good Friday, March 27, 1964?

Answer: It cost the public printing bureau $4,258.55 to publish in English and in French all parliamentary papers such as the House of Commons Debates, Votes and Proceedings, Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, Debates of the Senate and Minutes of the Proceedings of the Senate.
The public printing bureau called in the required staff to publish the parliamentary papers. Those employees put in a full day's work in their respective occupations and they did supplementary work which cost $4,988.36. That expense was charged to other government departments.



ROADS TO RESOURCES, GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY, N.S.

Mr. Armstrong: 1.	What work was done in 1963-64 in Guys-borough county, Nova Scotia, under the roads to resources program?
2.	What was the cost to the government of Canada of this work?
3.	What work remains to be completed in the county under any prevailing contract?


Mr.   Lair.g@: 1. Four miles of grading and ten miles of paving was completed.
2.	$76,757.62.
3.	Forty six miles of road to be paved.



LAKE ONTARIO WATER LEVELS

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What was the water level in lake Ontario in March 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964?
2.	What have been the causes of the present low water level of lake Ontario?
3.	Has lake Ontario reached its lowest water level for 1964?
4.	To what extent is lake Ontario expected to rise this year?


Arthur Laing: 1. The March monthly mean water elevations of lake Ontario at Kingston referred to the international great lakes datum (1955) are as follows for the years indicated:
Year	Water Elevation (Ft. above sea level)
1959	243.81
1960	244.10
1961	243.61
1962	243.26
1963	243.26
1964	242.33
2. The low levels of lake Ontario have been caused primarily by abnormally low precipitation. During 1962, precipitation over the great lakes basin was about three inches below normal while in 1963 it was over five inches below normal. This abnormally low

Questions
precipitation was accompanied by increased rates of evaporation due to higher than normal temperatures, thus further aggravating the low level condition.
3.	Yes. On March 1, 1964 the water elevation at Kingston was 242.01 feet above mean sea level. On April 1, 1964 the water elevation had increased to 242.58 feet above mean sea level.
4.	Based on the March level of the great lakes above lake Ontario and assuming average run-off in the basin of the latter, it is forecast that lake Ontario will achieve a maximum water elevation of approximately 244.50 feet above mean sea level in July 1964.



WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.

Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many requests were made, in 1963-64, under the terms of the winter works program by Chapleau county municipalities?
2.	How many of these requests were accepted, and what was the amount approved in each case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Thirty three applications were received from municipalities in the county of Chapleau under the municipal winter works incentive program 1963-64.
2. Thirty three applications were accepted. The municipalities participating and the estimated federal government share of payroll costs are as follows:
No. of		Estimated federal
[unicipality projects		share
Amos (town)	1	$ 53,880Amos Ouest	1	12,000Barraute (village)	1	3,600Barville (village)	1	33,000Belcourt	2	9,600Chibougamau (town)	2	29,916Clerval (parish)	1	15,000Fiedmont and Barraute	1	9,000lie Nepawa	2	6,000Lac Castagnier	1	2,100La Reine (parish)	2	12,000La Sarre (parish)	1	36,000La Sarre (town)	1	13,800Launay (township)	1	24,000Macamic (town)	1	9,000Normetal	3	3,649Palmarolle (parish)	1	3,000Poularies (parish)	2	28,800Roquemaure (parish)	1	21,000Senneterre (parish)	2	41,760Taschereau (parish)	1	12,000Trecesson (township)	1	12,000Ste Gertrude-de-Ville-neuve (parish)	2	6,000Champneuf	1	3,000Totals	33	$400,105



BUTTER OIL SALES

Mr. Rondeau: 1.	To whom has butter oil been sold since 1954?
2.	What was the cost price per pound?
3.	Has any butter been thrown away, destroyed or rejected in the province of Quebec and the county of Shefford since 1954 and, if so (a) what quantities were involved (b) to whom was the rejected oil sold (c) at what price was it sold?


Mr. Hays:: 1. There were no butter oil sales prior to August 1960. From that date to March 31, 1964, butter oil has been sold to the following firms:
Co-operative Agricole de Granby, Granby, P.Q.; Central Creameries, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Kraft Foods Limited, Town of Mount Royal, P.Q.; Palm Dairies Limited, Edmonton, Alberta; Fraser Valley Milk, Vancouver, B.C.; Shefford Dairy, Lawrenceville, P.Q.; Olive & Dorion Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Milk Products Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Dominion Dry Milk, Montreal, P.Q.; R. A. Chisholm Limited, Toronto, Ontario; United Dairy & Poultry, Toronto, Ontario; Birks-Crawford Limited, Vancouver, B.C.; Geo. Hodge & Son Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Black Diamond Cheese Co., Belleville, Ontario; L. Shapiro, Toronto, Ontario; Lovell & Christmas, Montreal, P.Q.; Weddell Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Legrade Inc., Montreal, P.Q.; Canada Cold Storage, Montreal, P.Q.; Swift Canadian Company, Toronto, Ontario; Beaver Trading Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Balfour Guthrie, Toronto, Ontario; Eastern Townships Produce, Sherbrooke, P.Q.; Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, Ontario; World Food Program, Rome, Italy; Grace, Kennedy & Company, Montreal, P.Q.
2.	The sale price per pound basis Montreal has been: export, 27 cents; domestic up to May 1, 1963, 78J cents; domestic since May 1, 1963, 65 cents.
3.	As of April 1, 1964, there has been no loss of butter or butter oil in the county of Shefford.
3. (a) In the province of Quebec 6,578,942 pounds of butter and butter oil were involved in a fire at St. Denis Sur Richelieu during
1963.	(b) Salvageable butter and butter oil were sold to Shefford Dairy, Lawrenceville, and Longueuil Meat Exporting Company, Lon-gueuil. (c) The sale price for salvaged butter was $17 per box. The sale price for inedible butter oil varied between i cent and 5J cents per pound.
In addition to the loss at St. Denis the board lost, through a fire at Montreal in 1960, 6,608 pounds with no salvage value. An additional 8,064 pounds were salvaged and sold at 44| cents to Henri Laurier & Fils of Montreal.



IS, 1964 NATIONAL DEFENCE DISMISSALS BECAUSE OF AGE

Mr. Churchill: Are civilian employees of the Department of National Defence dismissed from employment on the grounds of age before reaching 65 years?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The normal retiring age for civilian employees of the Department of National Defence is 65. There is provision in the Public Service Superannuation Act and regulations whereby a deputy head, with the concurrence of the civil service commission, may at any time, for reason only of age, terminate the employment of a contributor who has attained 60 years of age. It is the policy of the Department of National Defence to retire persons between age 60 and 65 years, by reason of age, only in unusual cases where continued employment involves a serious problem.



NATIONAL DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS, OTTAWA

Mr. Mather: 1.	Are plans for the construction, on the Le-breton flats property in Ottawa, of a national defence department headquarters being prepared by private development interests and, if so, are these plans being prepared on instructions of the government?
2.	Have other competent developers been asked to submit proposals for the use of this property as a national defence headquarters and, if not, for what reason?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. and 2. No.



FREE TRADE BETWEEN CANADA AND BRITISH CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	Has the government considered the advisability of joint studies with British Caribbean governments respecting the mutual advantages to be gained by the establishment of a free trade area between Canada and the British Caribbean?
2.	Does the government plan to initiate discussions on this matter with the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago during his visit to Canada?
Answer: 1. There has been no recent initiative for a joint study of a possible free trade area between Canada and the British Caribbean. This question, as the hon. member will be aware, has come up from time to time and we, of course, are constantly reviewing various ways of expanding the present close relations between Canada and the West Indies. With the dissolution of the federation an added complexity arises, since we continue to need to deal individually with members of the British Caribbean, some of whom have recently reached full independence.
2. The visit to Ottawa of Dr. Eric Williams, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, has been arranged for a general review of the relations between our two countries and our mutual concern in world trading developments. Dr. Williams comes here after an extensive tour of the African continent and we will be interested to gain his impression of
Questions
these areas. It is certainly my intention to meet with the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, if this is possible, and to have a general discussion on trade.



POST OFFICE SITES, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names of the individuals contacted at Advocate Harbour, Collingwood, Southampton, and Wallace, by officials of the Department of Public Works, or their agents, regarding the securing of sites for proposed post offices for these areas?
2.	What were the offers made to the individuals in question for the proposed sites?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Advocate Harbour, no site was investigated. Collingwood, a site owned by Mr. E. Colburne and another site owned by Mrs. Hodgson were investigated. Neither site was suitable for our purposes. Southampton, Mr. Arnold Goodwin was contacted. No suitable site was found. Wallace, a suitable site owned by Mr. William C. Reid was investigated at this location.
2. Wallace, the department accepted Mr. William C. Reid's offer to sell for $1,000 and this is now in the process of acquisition.



M.M.R.A. MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, CUMBERLAND, N.S.

Mr. Coates: How many motor vehicles were purchased by the M.M.R.A. in Cumberland from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964 and (a) from what firm, or firms, were these vehicles purchased (b) what was the amount of the lowest bid (c) was it submitted by the successful tenderer and (d) what other firms were invited to tender in each instance?
Answer: Four.
(a)	1. D. A. Casey Ltd., Amherst, N.S.;
2. Cameron & Wilson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.;
3. Cameron & Wilson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.;
4.	Rivers & Dickinson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
(b)	1. $1,998.70; 2. $2,250; 3. $2,250; 4. $1,997.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	1. Cameron & Wilson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; Tantramar Motors Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; Cumberland Equipment Co., Amherst, N.S.; Rivers & Dickinson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; Claude W. Carter Ltd., Springfield, N.S.
2.	Cumberland Equipment Co., Amherst, N.S.; Tantramar Motors Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; Rivers & Dickinson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
3.	Cumberland Equipment Co., Amherst, N.S.; Tantramar Motors Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; Rivers & Dickinson Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
4.	Cumberland Equipment Co., Amherst, N.S.; G.M. Harrison Ltd., Amherst, N.S.



*FARM LOANS IN QUEBEC COUNTIES

Mr. Pigeon: For the fiscal years 1962 to 1964 inclusive, what was the total number of loans made by the Farm

Questions
Credit Corporation to the provincial counties of (a) Joliette, (b) L'Assomption, (c) Montcalm, (d) Chicoutimi?


Bruce Silas Beer: The Farm Credit Corporation reports that the number of loans approved for the following municipal counties is as follows:
(a)	Joliette	1962-63 13	1963-64 17(b)	L'Assomption	3	5(c)	Montcalm	1	2(d)	Chicoutimi	16	18



* NATIONAL FLAG


Mr. Coates: What is the total number of signatures affixed to letters and petitions received since September 5, 1945 by the Secretary of State's office urging the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag?


Mr. Stewart:: 98,798 signatures.



GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What was the gross national product for the years 1925, 1935, 1945, 1955 and 1963?
2.	For each of those years, what was the net amount of dividends paid to foreign shareholders?

Answer: 1 and 2.
Gross national
product	Dividends*
	(in millions	of dollars)
1925	(1)	(1)1926	5,152	951935	4,315	1151945	11,835	1201955	27,132	3561962	40,401	4961963	(2)	525(1)	Figures previous to 1926 not available.(2)	Figures for 1963 available about April 17, 1964.
*Net dividends are the dividends paid to foreign shareholders after deducting tax deducted at the source.



METHOD OF ESTIMATING UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 679
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Have any changes been made in recent months in the method or manner of estimating the number of unemployed in Canada and, if so, what are they?
Answer: No changes have been made in recent months in the basic method of estimating the number of unemployed in Canada. However, a revised sample, of improved design, using the latest information on popu-

lation distributions, is in course of preparation for use in the labour force survey. It will be introduced progressively, province by province, as the revised sample for each province is completed. The revised sample will not involve any change in the wording of the questionnaire used or in the enumeration procedures followed. A revised sample for Alberta was completed last November and field trials have been carried out since that time. This revised Alberta sample was brought into use for the March 1964 survey.



* SPACE RENTED IN TERON BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Is office space rented by the government or by a crown corporation in the Teron building, corner of Elgin and Nepean streets, Ottawa and, if so, what Is the total area of the building in question?
2.	What is the total area rented by the government or crown corporation?
3.	What is the yearly rental?
4.	What is the term of the lease?
5.	Who is the owner?
6.	If the owner is a corporation, what are the names and addresses of the directors?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Yes, the building has a total floor area of 30,054 square feet. (Note: Known as the Humson building, it is situated at 180 Elgin st., in Ottawa, and was built by Teron Construction).
2.	The net total area rented is 16,521 square feet.
3.	The rent is $57,823.50 per year.
4.	From March 1964 to January 31, 1969 with an option to renew for a further period of two years.
5.	Mr. Thomas L. Hum.
6.	Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Smith: 1.	Broken down into departments of government, what is the total number of persons employed in information or public relations divisions of the public service of Canada?
2.	What is the total salaries paid to such persons in each of the departments?
3.	Broken down into departments of government, what is the total expenditure of such divisions in advertising, films, and in other forms of paid publicity?
Return tabled.


THEFTS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM NATIONAL DEFENCE PROPERTIES
Mr. Churchill: What items and quantities of military equipment, exclusive of arms and ammunition, have been stolen

from national defence properties since September 1, 1963; and on what dates and from what properties?
Return tabled.
^FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON DENTISTRY AND DENTAL RESEARCH

Question No. 317-Mr. Slogan:
1.	What departments of the federal government spend money on dentistry or dental research?
2.	Who is responsible for the making of policy regarding dentistry in each of these departments?
3.	Does the head of the dental division of the Department of National Health and Welfare coordinate all the dental programs in that department?
4.	Who is the representative of the dental division in the policy making body of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or other documents forwarded since April 22, 1963, by any member of parliament representing an electoral district in the national capital region, to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State or any official of these departments or to the civil service commission on the subject of collective bargaining for public servants.
Mr. Slefanson:: I move this resolution for the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood), who is in hospital and unable to be here.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I indicated before in the house that I wish to speak to the hon. member who is moving this motion, and in his absence I hope that both this motion and the next one will be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LUC-GILBERT LESSARD AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between Maitre Luc-Gilbert Lessard, of Blake lake, Megantic county, and the Solicitor General, since March 1, 1963.
He said: I ask that this motion, also No. 37, be allowed to stand until I have seen the minister.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all applications for, and inquiries relating to, the purchase, lease or rental of Indian reserve lands in the Burns lake Indian agency since January 1, 1963.
Motions for Papers
Hubert Badanai: We have no objection to this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any branch office thereof and the Aluminum Company of Canada, or any other person since January 1, 1958 relating to the question of loans under the National Housing Act in the community of Kitimat, B.C.
He said: May I have permission to withdraw this motion, Mr. Speaker?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPRESENTATIVE LISTS OF SUPPLIERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the representative list and/or representative lists of suppliers (now in use) as defined by paragraph 2 (e) (ii) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954 from each department of the goverment.
Mr. Mcllraiih:: May I ask that motions Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81 and 84 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Nielsen:: In so far as these motions are in my name, Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable. There are two other hon. members involved.
Motions stand.



R.C.M.P. SPACE IN MUNICIPAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all observations and reports concerning space or the location thereof for the R.C.M. Police as referred to in the answer given to question No. 300 of the present session of parliament.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, group or organization relating to Indian reserve lands in the Bums lake Indian agency since January 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Gauthier:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents exchanged between Mr. Albert Garant of Roberval, Roberval county, and the Minister of
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Public Works, the deputy minister, or other employees of that department, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Gauthier:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents exchanged between Mr.- Albert Garant of Roberval, Roberval county, and the Postmaster General, the deputy postmaster general, or other employees of that department, since March 1, 1963.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, on December 9 of last year, pursuant to a notice of motion, the correspondence requested was produced for the period April 8, 1963 to October 23, 1963. If the hon. member will limit his request to the period from October 23, 1963 up to the date of his present motion, it will be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion acceptable subject to the reservation of the minister?


Mr. Gaulhier:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95[DOT]-Mr. Gauthier:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents, concerning the Chambord post office, exchanged between Mr. Ludger Bouchard of Chambord, Roberval county, and the Postmaster General, the deputy postmaster general, or other employees of that department, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Gaulhier:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents, concerning the Chambord post office, exchanged between Mr. Ludger Bouchard of Chambord, Roberval county, and the Minister of Public Works, the deputy minister, or other employees of that department, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 98-Mr. Fisher:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of National Revenue and the American authorities under the tax agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the Eaton-Kaye case and any opinions which may have been obtained from the

American authorities on the position of the securities and investment involved in the estate of the late Mrs. Eaton-Kaye since January 1, 1961.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that this notice of motion for the production of papers relates to one estate tax return, and the department is therefore prohibited from giving the information by virtue of section 55 of the Succession Duty Act.


Mr. Fisher:: I would like to have it transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



TERRITORIAL PARTICIPATION IN DOMINION-ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Marlineau:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence including letters and other documents exchanged, on the one hand, between the government, the Minister of Justice or other governmental agencies and, on the other hand, any person or association with regard to the construction of the penal institution for women planned by the government at Cornwall.
Mr. Favreau:: I understand there is no objection to have this motion stand for another week.
Motion stands.



TERRITORIAL PARTICIPATION IN DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Nielsen:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all replies by the premiers of the provinces to the letter of the Prime Minister directed to the premiers respecting the participation by the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories in future federal provincial conferences.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable subject to the consent of the premiers of the provinces concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the Prime Minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to ask has to do with the critical situation with regard to the water levels on the

great lakes, a matter that greatly affects potential shipping this year, as well as carrying with it detrimental effects in various fields of endeavour.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the situation is most serious-for example, the lake Huron water level being at its lowest since records were first kept in 1860-any negotiations are being undertaken at present with the United States with respect to the Chicago conduit which draws off 3,000 cubic feet per second of drainage from the great lakes, and whether there is any co-operative plan now being considered by the governments of Canada and the United States with regard to this very important matter that will effect the economies of our two countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I share the right hon. gentleman's appreciation of the seriousness of this situation that seems to be cyclical on the great lakes, but which is certainly very serious at the present time. I am not aware at the moment of conversations which may or may not be going on with the United States concerning this matter, but I will be glad to look into it and make a report to the house at the earliest possible date.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES SUBMISSIONS TO ROYAL COMMISSION BY MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
. may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Could the Prime Minister assure the house that federal civil servants can, without danger of retaliation, submit briefs or reports to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into this situation and give the hon. member a reply tomorrow or the next day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question? Could the Prime Minister consider at the same time the reports submitted personally by members of the Canadian armed forces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to inquire into that also.
15, 1964	2199
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



MARITIME UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received any protests from the Canadian Labour Congress regarding the ascension to the S.I.U. presidency of Mr. McLaughlin.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.
May I take this opportunity to answer a question asked the other day by the hon. member for Ontario regarding the operation of seamen's hiring halls, in which the hon. member inquired whether employers have the privilege of rejecting an employee referred to them from the halls. I am advised by the board of trustees that the answer is yes.
I undertook to inquire further from the board of trustees regarding certain questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. First, with respect to the d.n.s. list of seamen, I have again been informed by the chairman of the board of trustees, Mr. Justice Dryer, that no list exists either in the form of a "do not ship" list or of a "registry of charges" list. Furthermore, the trustees have informed me that they have had a complete check made in all S.I.U. port offices from Halifax to Vancouver, including the fourth floor of the S.I.U. building in Montreal, and are fully satisfied that no such lists exist in any of these offices.
As I mentioned on Thursday last and again on Monday, the trustees are prepared to have the claim of any seaman whose name appeared at any time on lists that were in existence in earlier years investigated, and are presently endeavouring to have the facilities of the appeals board extended to adjudicate such claims. Commander Robertson, who presently constitutes the maritime appeals board, has limited powers covering cases extending back to a period of not more than three years. These powers are being exercised and the trustees are taking steps to have them extended, as I have indicated.
Another matter raised yesterday concerns S.I.U. fees and dues. As I indicated, provisions are set out in the constitution covering these matters. Probationary members are required to pay a probationary fee of $240 including six months' regular dues at the rate of not more than $40 per month for the six months. The constitution further provides that the payment of dues and initiation fees may be waived or reduced for organization purposes in accordance with such rules as

Inquiries of the Ministry are adopted by a majority vote of the executive board. Applicants for full membership are required to pay an initiation fee of $100 after the probationary period. This amount may be changed only by a majority vote of the membership. The monthly dues of $4 may be changed only by a majority vote of the membership.
I might add that I am assured by the trustee in charge of S.I.U. administration that reform of union financing is now under active consideration.
Right Hen. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Has the minister not received communications recently with regard to this list? Has he not, within the last two or three days, received a letter from Toronto in this connection? Will he look this up and see whether it is so? Second, will he tell us the name of the trustee in question who is in charge of S.I.U. operations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to check into the matter of the letter. The trustee in charge of S.I.U. administration is Mr. Charles Millard, a member of the board.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is taking steps to ask the trustees whether they will inquire into the statement made by my hon. friend from Port Arthur last night to the effect that if they would look in a particular place on the fourth floor of the S.I.U. building in Montreal they would find the famous list which is now said to be non-existent; at least it was there yesterday evening if steps were not taken to remove it.
I should also like the minister to find out from the trustees if Mr. John Wood and Mr. Michael Sheehan, who were members of the S.I.U., have applied for reinstatement. If they have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is already quite long. I suggest that if the hon. member wants all this detailed information he should put the question on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of external affairs. In view of the opening this morning of the new and most impressive British high commission building which is located around the corner on Elgin street, on a most valuable and convenient piece of real estate, does the minister have any plans for his most important Department of External Affairs building or for new housing


facilities in an equally valuable and convenient location? I am particularly concerned that as Canada reaches toward final autonomy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is of great interest to all hon. members, I am sure, particularly if there is an opportunity of getting the east block; but would the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  DISCUSSIONS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it true that secret negotiations are going on at the present time between the Quebec provincial government and the federal government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are always taking place between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada on a variety of subjects.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has Mr. Lesage informed the right hon. Prime Minister or the Canadian government that he might impose double taxation in that province? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Can he tell the house if he would let the Quebec government's actuaries meet with the officials of the federal government to discuss both the provincial and federal pension plans?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this seems to me to be a very good suggestion. As a matter of fact the experts have been looking at the plans of both governments.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Following press reports from the province of Quebec today, will the Prime Minister say whether he has offered a package deal on cost sharing programs to the premier of that province?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows we are having discussions with the government of Quebec and with other provinces on pension plans and related matters. I hope to be able to make a full statement on this matter in a day or two, but pending the completion of these discussions it is very difficult for me to say anything in the house.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Will the Minister of Industry give serious consideration to increasing the volume of overhaul and repair work to the Enamel and Heating Company of Amherst, Nova Scotia, in view of that company's intention to lay off 100 men in the next week as a result of lack of this type of work?


Mr. Speaker:: There is great importance to this question, but I think it should be on the order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a most serious matter. Cumberland county has been designated a depressed area, and if the Minister of Industry can take some action immediately these men might not be laid off.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the importance of the question has now reached the Minister of Industry.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. With regard to the comments he made in his budget speech about unemployment in designated areas, does the minister intend to co-operate with his colleague the Minister of Labour in order to find a solution which would extend the winter works period in designated areas?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is perhaps unnecessary to say that the members of this government co-operate with each other on all occasions and on all subjects.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to continue to pursue that practice.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that the Minister of Finance co-operates with all his colleagues, but I would like to know whether he will co-operate with the Minister of Labour, in order to find a specific solution to that urgent important and current problem, to wit the extension of the winter works period in designated areas?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour has had an opportunity to check into his files to see if he has had a submission from the Canadian mayors and municipalities regarding the extension of the municipal winter works incentive program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm my understanding that no representation has been received from the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities with respect to an extension of the program.


Mr. Nowlan:: They must have fallen down on the job.


ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY IN EASTERN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Industry a question. As the minister recently visited the eastern townships, in order to get some first hand information on the industrial position of that district, does he have any statement to make with regard to the help extended in a general way to industry in that part of the country?


Mr. Pigeon:: Abolish the tax on building materials.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Could he inform the house whether unemployment will be fought on a regional basis?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Abolish the tax on building materials.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not quite sure how I should describe this question, but it is far too vague and wide.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. On February 25 the Secretary of State advised the house that he would consult with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as to whether they would hold a public hearing in Toronto before radio station CJBC was converted to an all French station. Is the minister now prepared to advise the house of their decision?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to answer that question tomorrow.



REFERENCE TO MORNING NEWS BROADCAST THIS DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, who answers in the house for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In view of the contents of the C.B.C. national news program broadcast at 8 a.m. this morning, eastern standard time, and heard over station CBO, Ottawa, would the Secretary of State inquire from the C.B.C. if that corporation has decided to declare political warfare on the government of the province of Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will, Mr. Speaker.



REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAM PUBLICITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Secretary of State. Could the minister report on his inquiries or on the representations that might have been made by organizations such as the Jeanne d'Arc or Lacordaire societies concerning the nature of beer ads shown during T.V. programs on the C.B.C.


Maurice Lamontagne: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously there is a spirit of co-operation in all parts of the house with a view to shortening the question period. But today we had from the same minister two examples showing why it will be difficult to attain our objective if ministers will not answer the questions put to them.
On two occasions today, and apparently with some satisfaction, the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) gave an answer which did not satisfy the members of the house when he said he would reply later or make inquiries, because most of the time he does not give an answer in the house, even two or three weeks after the question has been asked.
That happened in my case on several occasions for questions I had asked at least three weeks or even a month before. I did not get the answer which was promised me.
I think that the ministers should be the first to co-operate if we want to shorten the question period, but this applies more particularly to the Secretary of State who often acts with arrogance, as shown by his smile in the house.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I must register my disagreement with the statements of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked me whether I would agree to inquire from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I replied I would. In the circumstances, I could give no other answer.
When the hon. member for Lapointe asked me to make a statement, I answered I was not ready to do so. On the other hand, had the hon. member given me notice of his question, I probably would have been able to answer satisfactorily.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerned similar questions asked in the past, which have not yet been answered. If the minister so desires, I may refer to numerous instances in that respect.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question?
Would the minister consider my question of a few minutes ago as notice?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.

In view of the importance of the matter and of public reports, can the Minister of Justice confirm whether a constitutional conference is going to be held in Canada later this year? If so, where and when, who will participate, and what will be the agenda of such a conference?


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


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the ruling Your Honour just made on my question to the Minister of Justice. I would appreciate your advice, but I had always understood that a minister decides whether to take a question as notice, not Your Honour. You may rule me out of order by suggesting that my question be placed on the order paper, but in this case the minister was rising to reply to my question when Your Honour made that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Then in order to be doubly sure may I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of an acute labour shortage in agriculture, particularly on beef and dairy farms?


Harry William Hays: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation. We have been doing some studies recently and have found that over the last 10 years we have been losing about 3 per cent of our farm labour force each year, and we are now down to about 600,000. We are considering this very serious problem. I cannot say anything further than that at the moment, but we do recognize that this is a serious problem.


Raymond Langlois: A
supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I asked him the other day whether he had any intention of setting up the standing committee on agriculture soon. Is the minister ready today to give us a date as to when that committee will be operating?


Harry William Hays: I can only assure the hon. member again that it will be very soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry



LEGALITY OF ACTIONS DURING TRANSFER OF DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could the minister tell the house whether he has now received a report from his legal officers concerning the orders in council dealing with the respective powers of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Minister of Forestry and the signature of both ministers for the period of February 3 to February 20? If so, could he inform us as to when he intends to report to the house on that subject?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have started getting preliminary reports but I will have to study them myself before I form a final opinion. I will be in a position to report to the house next Tuesday.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister of defence. Is it a fact that some personnel in the R.C.A.F. are being retired before the expiry of their normal service term? If so, is any arrangement being made for compensation in this regard?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true; but perhaps I should take the question as notice and give a more detailed answer tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked a question with regard to the reduction in rates of pay and allowances for sea cadet officers. I am now in a position to give the hon. member the following information.
As part of the over-all reduction of defence expenditures, and to bring the pay and allowances received by sea cadet officers in line with the reduced amounts available to Royal Canadian Navy reserve active list officers, the number of days pay and allowances that a sea cadet officer may receive for the performance of divisional drills has been reduced

Inquiries of the Ministry from 30 to 20 days per training year, normally September 1 to August 31. As this change is only effective from April 1, 1964, there is no question of taking away pay for work which has already been performed. Sea cadet officers will be paid for the total number of days pay and allowances, up to a maximum of 30 days, earned from September 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964. However, those who have already earned 20 or more days pay and allowances prior to April 1, 1964 will not be eligible for further pay for divisional drills for the balance of the training year.
I can also inform the hon. member that necessary instructions are being issued to all sea cadet corps in order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding as to the effect of the foregoing change.



BLANDFORD, N.S.-CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL RADIO STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. On March 11 the associate minister informed the house that his department would investigate the possibility of having the proposed Blandford radio station facilities located at Beaverbank. In view of the unemployment in this area and the uncertainty caused by the fact that tenders have already been called for the construction of a receiver building at Blandford, will the minister inform the house whether a final decision has been reached regarding the placing of these facilities in this particular area?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the department has looked into the possibility of using the facilities that we have in Beaverbank. It was found that from a technical point of view the radio station contemplated for Blandford could not be placed at Beaverbank. However, the department is still looking into the possibility of using the facilities at Beaverbank for other purposes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that the development will proceed at Blandford, as originally planned, for the radio receiving station?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he intends to place before the house very shortly the resolution in his name for the setting up of the special parliamentary committee on defence, in the


light of the complexity and importance of the tasks assigned to it. How soon, in other words?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it would be the hope of the government that we could bring forward the resolution to set up the committee very soon, and perhaps almost simultaneously with that introduce the legislation amending the National Defence Act so that this bill could be referred to the committee for study.



INQUIRY AS TO RECOVERY OF STOLEN ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question, of which I have given him notice in order to comply with requirements. Can the minister tell the house whether the arms and munitions stolen from armouries have been recovered?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that, at the time the last were seized, practically all arms stolen from the Shawinigan armouries had been recovered. Other developments will soon be announced, but all reports published in the newspapers with regard to the recovery of the arms stolen from the Shawinigan armouries are true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has anybody been arrested in this regard and charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada? I wish to pose this question to the Minister of Justice.


Guy Favreau: Yes. At the instance of the attorney general of Quebec, who is responsible for the administration of justice in his province, three persons have already been arrested and charged.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the level of unemployment is quite alarming in eastern Canada and especially in Quebec, does the government intend to abolish the 8 per cent tax on building material as soon as possible, in order to boost the Canadian economy?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is not urgent in itself although I realize its great importance.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked this question because it is very urgent, since the Canadian economy is unsteady at present. In addition, taxpayers, home builders, municipal authorities and school boards are complaining against this discriminatory tax which is crippling the Canadian economy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already told the hon. member that the question is very important; but I believe the question was asked yesterday or the day before, and it seems to me the order paper is the proper place for this type of question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the question I asked him the other day regarding the drying up of mortgage loans from approved lenders, and his reply that this matter was being given immediate and urgent consideration at the present time, I wonder whether he can report any progress on this question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the government is considering urgently and almost daily certain proposed amendments to be presented in connection with the National Housing Act. I would not want my hon. friend to think that my answer of the other day encompassed any immediate change or any prospective change in the rate of interest on National Housing Act loans. This is a matter, however, that the government has under consideration all the time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Are the small post offices formerly built under the winter works program in all areas of Canada now being 20220-1391
Inquiries of the Ministry constructed only in so-called designated areas? If so, when and in what way was government policy changed in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, last summer a special vote was provided in the estimates of the Department of Finance to provide for accelerated winter projects not otherwise provided for in the main estimates. These accelerated projects had application to areas designated by the Department of Industry and the Department of Labour as areas of high winter unemployment. I would have to make further inquiries with respect to the post office aspect of that general program.



REQUEST FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that later this week we may be discussing the resolution in his name on the order paper, I wonder whether the Postmaster General could indicate when the report of his department for 1963 will be tabled in the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it was to have been filed some time this week, and I am surprised if it has not been.


James Alexander McBain: I did not hear the answer.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As far as I know it has been filed. If not, it certainly will be within the next day or so.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I should like to ask him whether representations have been received from the government of the province of Alberta suggesting or requesting the transfer of Wood Buffalo national park to provincial jurisdiction.


Arthur Laing: No representations have been made to me, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO DEVELOPMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said that he would be presenting a new statement

Inquiries of the Ministry of policy respecting the development of tourist accommodation within the national parks. Can he tell the house when that statement will be available?	.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have almost completed a general statement in respect of the objectives and principles of our national parks management, and I hope to place it before the house at a very early date.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that he has undoubtedly received the telegram from the Quebec Catholic teachers corporation protesting against social security numbers, could he tell us whether he has given instructions so as to enable those who had already completed their cards to withdraw them if they so desire, since they were in no way obliged to do so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROTEST FROM SECRETARY OF ALBERTA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have done quite a few push-ups trying to be noticed. I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a protest in the last few days from Mr. S. C. T. Clarke, executive secretary of the Alberta teachers association, protesting against the fact that the teachers of Alberta are being required to apply for social insurance numbers. If he has received this telegram, will he inform the house what he proposes to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: If I remember correctly, it seems to me that I suggested to many members who had similar telegrams from their geographical localities, they should put these questions on the order paper.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Prime Minister. Can he tell the house if he will follow up the report submitted by the national federation of metallurgists about building up a Canadian merchant marine?


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



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether any negotiations have yet been commenced with the government of the United States, or have there been any requests for such negotiations, concerning a joint cost sharing program involving the paving of the Alaska highway?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question a few days ago when I said that at this time officials of the department are making studies and surveys with regard to the cost and the economic benefit of this project. Until a complete report is made no negotiations will be entered into with the government of the United States.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I also asked the minister if he had received any requests from the government of the United States for the commencement of such negotiations.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. With the transfer of authority for the maintenance of the Alaska highway from defence to public works, does the minister have anything to report on the resumption of negotiations between the United States and Canada for the completion of the highway?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question a few minutes ago. May I say to the hon. member that as soon as the surveys now going on are completed I will gladly report to the house on the decision which will be taken in respect of any negotiations with the United States government.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether he is yet in a position to implement the promise he has made to me on two occasions, first on February 27 and again on March 20, to make a report to the house on the possibility of improving the pensions of Canadian National employees already retired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman, who is usually very accurate, has somewhat abbreviated what I said. I said I would make inquiries of the railway about the matter. I am going to see the president of the C.N.R. this week and I will raise the question with him at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's accurate memory, does he not recall that on March 20, when he last made that promise, he said he would report on the matter at an early date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will report on it at an early date.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickersgill (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to deal with one aspect of the question of redistribution, Mr. Speaker, which has not been mentioned too frequently in the house. I am not going to deal with the question of rural versus urban ridings, but I should like to deal with the disparities which exist between various urban ridings. I am referring particularly to the difference in population which exists between the old city ridings and the new suburban ridings, the places where the greatest growth in the country has taken place. This condition applies right across the country whether you pick Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton or
15, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission Vancouver. You find a number of ridings which have existed for a period of time within a city and you find the suburban ridings which have had a marked increase in population in recent years.
One of the members taking part in this debate earlier said you could tell the constituency from which a member came, by what he said on the redistribution bill. I shall not pretend to be any different from the rest in that connection. I represent a riding in which there has been a 100 per cent population growth since the last redistribution. I should like to deal particularly with the distribution of parliamentary seats in the lower mainland area of British Columbia, that is the area around Vancouver, bearing in mind that the same sort of situation exists in other major centres of the country. It exists in Ottawa, for example. The ridings of Carle-ton and Russell have grown a great deal, while some of the older city seats have not grown to the same extent.
In the lower mainland of British Columbia, that is the greater metropolitan area of Vancouver, there are 11 representatives in this house, six of whom come from the city of Vancouver and five from what I will call the suburban ridings. Each member from Vancouver represents, on an average, 64,500 persons, if I have done my calculating correctly. Each member from a suburban riding represents an average of 107,000 persons. If you make the same sort of calculation for the city of Toronto and the areas surrounding it, you will find the same disparity. I have looked at the population figures for surburban ridings and I find that in almost every case between 1951 and the present time they have grown by over 100 per cent.
These are the areas, Mr. Speaker, which are continuing to grow, so that the longer redistribution is postponed the more out of date will be the figures we arrived at a number of years ago. These ridings which have grown 100 per cent in population in the last ten years will continue to grow, and in perhaps two or three years time the populatior will be 150 per cent of what it was at tht time the last redistribution took place. I believe it was the hon. member for Carletor (Mr. Francis) who, earlier in this debate, said perhaps there should be a growth factor taken into account in determining the allocation ol members within a province and around the major metropolitan centres. I do not know whether or not this is possible, but I think in order to be fair to these places something of that sort should be considered by the commissioners when they begin their work.
If the bill passes in its present form, I understand the province of British Columbia

Electoral Boundaries Commission will gain one member in this house. Obviously, this member should represent a new riding in the lower mainland area. Apart from that, if we are to come anywhere close to representation by population-I say that deliberately because I know we will never achieve that-there will have to be other members added to that particular area as a result of redistribution within the province, and perhaps the amalgamation of some of the ridings which have decreased in population or which have not grown. In the very few remarks I am making, I want to underscore the need to give adequate representation to the suburban areas around the major metropolitan centres of Canada.
I should like to suggest also that, contrary to what has been said by many members, the 20 per cent disparity in the average riding in any particular province which is mentioned in the bill is a figure with which I agree. This is the figure which was used in Australia. I mention Australia because it is like Canada in many ways, in that there are large rural areas and the Australians seem to have worked this out quite satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, in Australia they have a party called the country party, and I understand that in recent years this party has been in coalition with the Liberal party to form the government of that country. Perhaps at some future date in this country we will have a coalition of the country party and the Liberal party to form a government, and we will have a better government.
I should like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this redistribution which we are considering is long overdue. I hope this bill will not be held up too long, so that the commissioners can be appointed in each province. Then, possibly 12 months from this time they will have completed their work and a bill will be before the house to complete this redistribution. It would be a great shame to go through another election in this country based upon the 1951 census and the improper distribution which exists now. I again urge that the 20 per cent allowance is good enough and you can get a great deal of variation with it.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, before going any further, I want to tell the house that the political future of rural constituencies is at stake as soon as we start dealing with the motion now before us. Furthermore, I wish to put on record certain comments which, in my opinion, can apply to all rural ridings in my province, the province of Quebec.
I should like all hon. members to listen to me closely, because our action in supporting
[Mr. Prittie.l
the bill to come will influence the political future of rural ridings and the quality of the work to be done by each representative of those constituencies.
While conceding that the saying "rep by pop" must be put into practice, we should not lose sight of geographical considerations, the high and the low density of population and all those factors to be taken into account when the time comes for redistribution.
I agree with part of clause 13 of Bill No. C-72, except for the percentage. In that matter, I differ with the hon. member who preceded me, perhaps because I represent a rural riding, but also because we should keep the proportional representation as efficient as possible in view of the future of those rural ridings. To my mind-and according to several hon. members from all political parties-the percentage of 20 per cent would not be high enough. Some will say that there is no difference in representing an urban population or a rural one.
Let us say, for instance, that this percentage of 20 per cent is applied. It would mean that, in the province of Quebec, we would have 70,123 as a quotient after dividing the total population by the number of seats in the house. There would be ridings with a maximum population of 84,147, and others with a minimum population of 55,100. A county like Nicolet-Yamaska, a population of 45,192 which I represent in the house-and this applies to several other rural ridings in the province of Quebec, of which there are 13- should have a minimum population of 55,100.
Therefore, first of all, 12 to 15 parishes would have to be added to the 36 already included in that riding; second, to the 57 municipalities of the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska, there would have to be added another score, which would mean 75 to 80 municipal councils; third, some 15 to 20 post offices would have to be added to the 40 already existing in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska, which would give a total of 55 post offices, fourth, to the 62 rural mail carriers of this riding 20 should be added to bring the total up to 82; fifth, at present, the rural riding -the example I offer is that of Nicolet-Yamaska-is being served by four offices of the unemployment insurance commission and four national employment offices. It would be necessary to add parishes which would be served by a fifth national employment office and a fifth office of the unemployment insurance commission; sixth, to the parishes of that part of the riding located in five provincial ridings should be added parishes which would be located in a sixth or a seventh

provincial riding; seventh, this would considerably extend the mileage, the distance between the limits of the riding, and render difficult the communications between the member and his electors. As the rural telephone lines are shared by several parties in a rural constituency, there is no question of confidential conversations over the telephone. Moreover, the elector must always pay for long distance calls when he wishes to speak with his representative.
The members for rural ridings have a lot to do. The people in these ridings rely on their member; often times, he is the only channel through which they may communicate with their fellow citizens belonging to other classes of society.
Let us avoid passing a measure which could only muffle the voice of this section of the population which is too often overlooked.
These added parishes would mean extra work for the member of a rural riding who is already burdened with other official functions. This would compel him to spend more time visiting community centres, for such centres wish to keep their own entity, of which they are proud-and I do understand them. The member would then have to meet with more municipal authorities, to look into a greater number of postal problems, and so on, and this would apply in every field. In a word, the member for an overly enlarged rural riding would have less time to devote to his legislative duties.
As a concrete proposal, I ask the government-not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of the representatives of rural constituencies-to include in this bill a tolerance of 33J per cent instead of 20 per cent. With such a margin, in a Quebec constituency the maximum population would be 93,500 and the minimum about 46,750. This maximum number would enable to divide in half some constituencies now overpopulated while increasing only by a few thousands the population of rural constituencies.
The representatives of urban ridings will object and maintain that there is too much difference between the population of urban and rural constituencies. Quite frankly, we must admit that this is a very important improvement and I intend to prove it with a few figures taken from the last census of the province of Quebec.
But before having a quick look at the constituencies of the province of Quebec, may I submit another argument in favour of the widening of that margin. If that tolerance remained at 20 per cent, several rural constituencies would disappear. Is that the wish of the house? Or is it the wish of the government? I do not think so, at least, I hope not. Our duty, as members of parliament, and the duty of the government, is to protect those
15, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission constituencies in order to avoid too great a decrease. We will all have to answer for the action taken in the next few days or weeks. If the margin was set at 33J per cent, 47 constituencies with more than 46,750 people but less than 93,500, would not be affected.
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to read the list of those constituencies but, with the consent of the house, I should like to have it printed in Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to have this table printed in Hansard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize to the hon. gentleman for not catching what the table was about, and I would be grateful if he could indicate precisely what it is.


Clément Vincent: This is a list of the ridings in the province of Quebec that would not be affected by the margin of 33J per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman say who did the arithmetic?


Clément Vincent: The census of 1961.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I am only too happy to have it put in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, Beauce, Beau-harnois-Salaberry, Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere, Chambly-Rouville, Champlain, Chapleau, Charlevoix, Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie, Chicoutimi, Drummond-Artha-baska, Gaspe, Gatineau, Hull, Lake St. John, Lapointe, Levis, Matapedia-Matane, Megan-tic, Cartier, Hochelaga, Lafontaine, Outre-mont-St. Jean, Papineau, St. Antoine-West-mount, St. Denis, St. Henry, St. James, St. Mary, Verdun, Portneuf, Quebec East, Quebec West, Quebec South, Richelieu-Vercheres, Richmond, Wolfe, Rimouski, Roberval, St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville, St. Maurice-Lafleche, Saguenay, Shef-ford, Sherbrooke, Riviere du Loup-Temiscou-ata, Three Rivers, Villeneuve.


Clément Vincent: While this margin of 33J per cent would affect these other ridings by increasing or decreasing their population, whichever may be the case. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I request permission to place on record a list of the ridings the population of which would be less than 46,750 or more than 93,500.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Electoral Boundaries Commission
[Editor's note: The report above to is as follows:]	referred
Bellechasse	32,513
Bonaventure	42,962
Brome-Missisquoi	43,217
Compton-Frontenac	42,366
Dorchester	38,953
lies de la Madeleine	12,479
J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm	102,717
Kamouraska	35,312
Labelle	45,701
Longueuil	107,318
Lotbiniere	38,529
Montmagny-L'Islet	40,987
Dollard	107,394
Jacques Cartier-Lasalle	163,148
Laurier	45,652
Laval	193,437
Maisonneuve-Rosemont	108,023
Mercier	233,964
Mount Royal	128,524
Notre Dame de Grace	100,719
St. Ann	38,173
St. Lawrence-St. George	34,020
Nicolet-Y amaska	45,192
Pontiac-Temiscamingue	41,069
Quebec-Montmorency	138,030
Stanstead	43,309
Terrebonne	102,450
V audreuil-Soulanges	38,756


Mr. Vincenl:: A few moments ago I was saying that the member for a rural riding has a lot more representation work to perform, more organizations to meet, and this, I believe, everybody will admit. In cities or in urban ridings, there is often only one municipal council, one post office, one mail distribution, one unemployment insurance office and one national employment office. The distances are shorter and communications easier when one travels or phones. Many constituents work in the same locality and they have the same problems. Therefore, less work is required on the spot from the member.
Far from me to suggest that even if a member for a rural riding has more representation work to do, he actually works more than the representative of an urban riding, or even that the urban representative works less than his colleague from a rural riding. No.
What happens is that the member representing a rural riding has less time to study legislation and the general problems of his country. That must be taken into account because the political future of rural ridings, I say it again, depends on that margin of 20 or 33J per cent. Besides, if I am not mistaken, Hon. Jean Lesage himself stated, when he was elected Liberal party leader in Quebec, that as leader he preferred to represent an urban riding because he thus had more time to himself.


What about the defeat at the polls of a former premier of Quebec, Hon. Adelard Godbout, who represented a rural riding. He confirmed himself later that had he represented an urban riding he would have had more time to look after his party's business and that it was the lack of time which led to his defeat, because he could not be in his riding often enough.
Another example 1 could quote is the case of two ministers who succeeded each other in the federal electoral district of Lotbiniere. Both of them, although of different political parties, were defeated in this rural constituency, and the main reason given by the voters is the following: "We have not seen them often enough in our parishes, at our ceremonies", or else, "they were incapable of maintaining an office in their riding on account of their duties and obligations as ministers".
Furthermore, whether we impose upon the commission or commissions-I have not yet had time to study this aspect of the matter, but I shall go back to it at the committee stage-a tolerance of 20 per cent, it would mean that, in some cases, where for reasons pertaining to geography, economy or others, even if they had good reasons to do so, the commissioners wanted to fix the limit at 21, 22, 23 or even 26 per cent, they would be required under the law to retain a tolerance of 20 per cent. The commissioners would, therefore, be required to ignore some geographic or economic factors, because the law of this parliament would compel them to fix this limit at 20 per cent.
I should now like to outline two situations that members of the electoral boundaries commissions will certainly meet with.
Let us take a rural riding where, for certain economic reasons, the population is expected to increase considerably. In spite of this expectation, electoral districts will have to be redistributed temporarily and later on, that is, in five or 10 years, other major changes will have to be made. This example applies to several rural constituencies located in the vicinity of cities, and more especially to the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska, whose population is expected to increase considerably in the next five or 10 years due to the setting up of steel complex in the near future.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell you that the question we are dealing with at present is very important, since we have to decide whether we should accept a 20 per cent tolerance or a 33J per cent tolerance. If we accept a 20 per cent tolerance, it will be absolutely impossible for us to take a reverse action. On the other hand, if we accept

the 33J per cent tolerance, we shall not regret it, because in 10 or 20 years time, we can always change it.
Finally, I wish to repeat the assertion I made earlier. Whether we accept the 20 per cent or the 33J per cent tolerance, the political future of rural counties is at stake. Let us not be mistaken; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tisdale):: As one who comes from the province of Saskatchewan, the province which according to the bill before us is supposed to lose more ridings than any other province in Canada, I feel it is my duty to take exception to this measure.
I am not asking that special consideration should be given to the province of Saskatchewan, but I should like to bring the case of this agricultural province to the attention of the house and compare it with the situation in other provinces where the population is more condensed and where such a high proportion of the electorate live in industrial cities. To say that the vast area of Saskatchewan can be represented adequately by only 13 members is almost ridiculous. Some of our ridings are immense in extent; they stretch many hundreds of miles in every direction. If redistribution takes place according to the bill, then many municipalities will be cut up even more than when there were 17 ridings in Saskatchewan. School districts will also be affected, many of them to the extent that they too will be cut up and divided. The same applies to hospital areas. According to the bill a 20 per cent tolerance in this respect is allowed; but in an area like Saskatchewan I think 20 per cent is not the right percentage, that it should be at least 33 J per cent. The problem is roughly the same in the province of Manitoba, with 14 members compared with Saskatchewan's 17. Nevertheless we must take into consideration the fact that the province of Manitoba is far more industrialized than the province of Saskatchewan. We have in Saskatchewan large cities, like Saskatoon and Regina, which may also have more than one representative. This will mean that here, too, more members will lose their ridings, mainly in agricultural areas.
I think that when the commissions are set up they should consider that, instead of having 265 members of parliament as we have at the present time, it might be justifiable to increase the number so that these large agricultural areas or other large areas which were previously represented in this house are not cut up to the extent that hardship is created. As I have said, municipalities, 20220-140
15, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission school districts and hospital areas are going to be affected.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I am not pleading for Saskatchewan, but I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that if this redistribution bill is brought into force these areas I have mentioned will have to be given special consideration. Saskatchewan has the largest number of agricultural areas in Canada. It is not my intention to delay the debate on Bill No. C-72, but I thought I should, as a member from Saskatchewan, take this opportunity of bringing forward the special case of the province of Saskatchewan to the attention of the house.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, coming from the province of Saskatchewan, would like to join my colleague from that province in a few short comments on this Bill No. C-72 which has been introduced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). It is a bill to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions, and under this proposed legislation I feel that Saskatchewan does require some special provision or consideration. This point was considered when the question of redistribution was discussed in this house in 1952, when the then government under the leadership of the venerable and capable prime minister of the day, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, felt justified in giving Saskatchewan such consideration. This consideration was supported at that time, I think, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whose remarks were recorded at page 1143 of Hansard for April 21, 1952. Some of his remarks were referred to by my colleague the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden); I do not intend to read them again but his comments are worth noting.
The situation in the west is such that approximately 30 per cent of the members of this house come from Manitoba and west of Manitoba, the other 70 per cent coming from eastern Canada. Therefore, with this distribution of our population I feel that western Canada has always had one strike against it as far as representation of areas is concerned. Singling out Saskatchewan by way of example, if the formula proposed in this bill were implemented Saskatchewan, as it has been pointed out, could lose four members. To Saskatchewan this would be approximately a 25 per cent loss of representation, and this to an area of great importance to Canada. As my hon. friend from Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale (Mr. Rapp) pointed out, the importance to Canada's economy of this part of the country is tremendous. Saskatchewan is known as the bread basket of the world, and

Electoral Boundaries Commission the loss of four seats would be a tremendous blow to the province unless special consideration were given.
Just to put the matter into perspective, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the possible gain to other parts of Canada, such as an urban centre like Toronto. It has been suggested that this great urban metropolis might gain four, five or possibly six seats, bringing its total representation up to, say, 26 members. Let us compare the representation of this one urban centre to that of a whole province, such as Saskatchewan, which might be confined to only 13 ridings. I think that this puts the problem into perspective on a geographic basis. True enough, Toronto has a large population; but looking at that population and comparing it to the population of Saskatchewan, and looking at the economic problems of that condensed area of Toronto, I feel in all justification that it could be represented by less rather than more members. I also feel Saskatchewan should at least maintain as many as it now has.
Another factor which should be considered in the present scene as we see it today is that the responsibilities of this great nation of ours in world affairs mean that, figuratively speaking, the world is becoming smaller and our contribution more complex. With our entrance into external affairs and world problems this means that this House of Commons has to sit sometimes six, seven or even eight months in the year in order to carry on the nation's business. This means that members from large rural areas, such as those in Saskatchewan with large geographic boundaries, have no time to get back home and meet personally representatives from the municipalities, which representatives are like ourselves elected, discuss with them the problems in their various municipalities, and meet one's constituents personally.
If the boundaries are enlarged this will mean that greater hardship will fall on the members representing these larger constituencies and it will have an adverse effect on the welfare of their constituents. True enough, people will argue that with modern means of transportation we can get around more quickly. That is true, but we must compare this state of affairs with members who represent ridings such as mine. Or let us take the constituency of Mackenzie up in the northeast comer of Saskatchewan or the Meadow Lake area in the northwest. We require transportation by air in order to get around our constituencies.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have to use a motor boat.


Richard Russell Southam: Yes, some hon. members have to use a motor boat. Much time is spent in


travelling. Therefore, this suggestion about increasing the boundary areas should get, as I say, very special attention.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will close; but I again make the plea to the Minister of Transport that the commissions which are to be set up should take special notice of the problems I have mentioned.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say about two words-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the house that if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few remarks to make on the matter now before us.
Surely, great prudence will be required in the consideration of this bill, so that there will be no discrimination on the part of the government on that matter of redistribution. I have great confidence in the civil servants, including Mr. Castonguay who is very able, very dedicated, and who is doing an excellent job. Several criteria will have to be taken into consideration concerning redistribution. First of all, the area; second, the low density of population; third, the geography; fourth, the provincial divisions.
May I point out that as far as certain ridings of the province of Quebec are concerned, there is a quite rigid section in the British North America Act providing that the delimitations of certain ridings must remain unchanged at the provincial level, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, such as the ridings of Pontiac, Hull, Argenteuil, Huntingdon, Missisquoi, Brome, Shefford, Stanstead, Compton, Wolfe, Kichmond, Megantic and Sherbrooke. Those are permanent ridings which cannot be changed. Their delimitations cannot be changed by the province of Quebec for redistribution purposes, without an amendment to the British North America Act. At that time, those provisions were made to give justice to English speaking minorities in the province of Quebec which had settled in certain particular ridings.
I want to mention this fact in the house, even if it does not come under federal administration. In any case, with regard to redistribution, the government has to consider the English speaking minority in the province of Quebec, but also the French minorities in the various provinces of this country.

If, for instance, in provinces like Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, there are important communities of French speaking Canadians, the fact should be definitely considered in a redistribution, so as to avoid discrimination and to enable those homogeneous groups, with the same culture, language and traditions, to be represented in Ottawa by a member meeting those requirements, if they so desire.
This also applies to the English minorities in the province of Quebec. It would be unfair to the French minorities in other provinces of this country, as well as to the English minority in the province of Quebec, to cut up ridings so as to deprive those minorities of their right to adequate representation.
The English minority in the province of Quebec should not be absorbed by the French majority, no more than the French minorities in the English provinces of this country should be absorbed by the English majority.
To my mind, there should be a special clause stipulating that the rights of the French speaking minorities in the other provinces, as well as those of the English minority in the province of Quebec, be considered.
As I said a moment ago, the British North America Act contains a section which, as regards redistribution in the province of Quebec, provides for counties whose limits or frontiers cannot be changed. That should also apply to constituencies in certain parts of the country where there are French Canadian localities.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passing of this bill and I will only ask the minister to bear that point in mind, a point which I consider of the utmost importance, at the time of the redistribution of ridings. I would be pleased if the minister could say a few words on the subject.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a very brief word before we complete the discussion at this stage. I certainly will not take up many minutes of the time of the house. I think the minister in this instance will perhaps be eligible for some sort of award when we complete the consideration of the bill, because it will be the first bill the government has not pulled out of on its own, amended, changed-


George Clyde Nowlan: Or ruined.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is correct, or ruined, before bringing it back into the house. The point I should like to make is in conjunction with what I said earlier this week in the house with 20220-140i
15, 1964	2213
Electoral Boundaries Commission regard to redistribution. I think the minister and the government should consider very, very seriously the point in regard to the tolerance figure now contained in the bill. I believe that in a country such as Canada we cannot have representation by population right at the basis of our thinking. This cannot be an exact basis for consideration. I believe that the confusion-and I say this very honestly-which the government has created and which exists in the country today in many other fields will only be compounded if they endeavour in the first instance to start off from a very, very narrow base such as the 20 per cent they have indicated or the 10 per cent that someone else has indicated. I think it should not be any lower than 33J per cent; then as the years go by and this question comes back for consideration this figure can be reduced and the people of Canada will understand the function of the bill as it follows each census.
We know that in Great Britain there is no tolerance figure; this situation is left entirely in the hands of the adjudicators in regard to setting the areas of population and territory as well. Therefore I suggest very, very strongly to the minister that he should consider this point before we reach the committee stage; that he should be prepared to amend this figure to 33J per cent. I say this on behalf of his own well-being as the minister presenting the bill, and also as a politician. I think he may have some other point in mind here in the way the constituencies will be established. We do not believe for one moment that he is going to eliminate a constituency, but he may contort it sufficiently that somebody will be placed in a position of disadvantage; and you can be very sure, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be the minister or any of his supporters.
We want him to know that we are cognizant of these things and we plead with him at this stage-I personally plead with him-to adopt a tolerance figure of 33J per cent to begin the function the bill is supposed to carry through, or eliminate it and leave the matter entirely in the hands of the commissions concerned.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak briefly, and put a point of view to the minister before we pass this bill. I have listened to this debate and followed it up by re-reading the presentations that have been made to this stage. I found some very interesting things in those presentations. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who now supports a limited tolerance, in 1952 when his party had a large representation from the rural areas of the country did not have this view. It is

Electoral Boundaries Commission quite apparent that the changed circumstances have changed his view. His confrere, who spoke about rural tyranny, had nothing much to support that point of view. I do not know whether it was rural tyranny when the farmers of the country supplied grain to Britain under a fixed price agreement initiated by a Liberal government which did not bring them the returns they could have obtained by selling in the world market as did the Americans. On the other hand, industry in this country had cost-plus contracts for defence needs while the farmers provided grain at a fixed price. It has been argued that they lost millions of dollars by doing so; in fact, some say as high as $600 million. If that is rural tyranny perhaps we should have more of it to help to build up this country and to support the efforts that Canada makes to keep the world free.
I suppose it was rural tyranny that produced the great abundance of wheat which has lifted our economy at the present time. I say that our farmers have played their part in building the country since confederation, will continue to do so and deserve a proper voice in the government of the country. All arguments in favour of representation by population fall flat because, in the case of certain provinces there is a floor so far as representation is concerned below which the number of their members cannot fall.
In view of the great extent of Canada I think a tolerance of 20 per cent by way of variation is completely unreasonable and cannot be argued to be sufficient. I do not think that a larger voice for rural Canada as opposed to representation by population produces tyranny at all. It has not produced it in this house or in government measures in any way, shape or form in the history of the country. When one considers the obligations of those who represent rural areas and the problems they meet in consulting with their constituents, I think the figure of 33J per cent which we have put forward is very reasonable.
I represent a strictly urban community. The only complaint I have had from these people is that they would like to know when the boundaries are going to be changed so that people whose interests are centered in the city of Regina can vote for a representative or representatives of the city of Regina. I have not tried to find out what the 20 per cent figure might do to my constituency and the whole area of the city of Regina. I have not tried in any way to get prior information, for the sake of argument, with regard to what might have been developed on certain bases, but I do submit that the tolerance of

20 per cent ties the hands of this non-political commission.
I fully agree that the commission should be non-political. I think it is time we had such a commission, but such a figure does not give the commission enough leeway with regard to the situation in Regina where we have a population of 120,000. The city is not large enough for two members and if the figure of 20 per cent is used and Regina is carved up to meet that tolerance the result will be that areas will be taken in that have no relationship at all to the city, and no great interest in the problems that the residents of the city want their representative to deal with.
That is the only representation that has been made to me. The people who live in the burgeoning areas outside the old city boundaries all vote in the constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I believe, and they all complain that their voice is therefore not heard so far as the affairs of the city are concerned. It is also passing strange in my opinion that in 1952 the legislature of Saskatchewan, composed wholly of Liberal and C.C.F. members, adopted a resolution unanimously with regard to the situation in Saskatchewan, which was forwarded to a Liberal government in Ottawa and, in the words of the then prime minister, was given attention; but at the present time they have not raised their voices at all. I can only think the reason is that they would like to have fewer than 17 Conservative members from Saskatchewan and they think the only way they can accomplish this is by remaining silent and letting the over-all number of members be reduced.


Robert William Prittie: Would the hon. member
answer a question?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I will answer if I have time when I finish. I do not intend to be interrupted now. This is a passing strange situation. I do not speak politically because I do not know whether I would be returned if all of the city of Regina were in one constituency, but I believe that these people have a reasonable claim when they wish to be represented by someone who knows what their interests are.
As I say, it is passing strange that the matter has not been raised in the Saskatchewan legislature. We were only going to lose three seats in 1952 and now we are going to lose four, but nobody in the Saskatchewan legislature is paying any attention whatsoever. There is no move on the part of the federal Liberal government to consider this factor. I think it is evident that the figure has been placed at 20 per cent because both the C.C.F. and the present government believe that their

strength lies in the urban areas and they believe that such a tolerance will give them the best break in those areas.
When the 1952 redistribution took place the area north of the tracks in Regina was considered to be strong C.C.F. territory. They had a Liberal representative for Regina and that area was carved off because it was thought this would make the riding safe for that representative. That area was put into Moose Jaw-Lake Centre which was represented by an unbeatable man as a C.C.F. member by the name of Ross Thatcher, who I think has something to do now with the Liberal party so far as the present campaign in Saskatchewan is concerned. The Liberals conceded that area to him and added north Regina to it, thinking that it would be a safe C.C.F. seat and that they would get rid of John Diefenbaker. He was the man at whom all this carving was really aimed. He was the man they wanted to get rid of. They wanted to assure the election of a Liberal in the one riding while conceding the other area to Thatcher. But this political manoeuvring did not work out. Neither of these ridings is represented by a Liberal and they have not been for some time. John Diefenbaker is still here. This kind of monkey business failed.
I am glad to see the matter of redistribution being referred to a non-political commission headed by a distinguished public servant in whom I have every confidence. However, I say his hands are being tied too much by the figure of 20 per cent and I hope the minister will tell the house that the government will give consideration to changing the 20 per cent to 33J per cent.


Robert William Prittie: Will the hon. member permit a question now?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Yes.


Robert William Prittie: Does the hon. member realize that there is nothing in this legislation causing a reduction of seats in Saskatchewan, but that it is an automatic operation under the British North America Act?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: There were changes made in the B.N.A. Act in 1952. No changes to help Saskatchewan at this time have been mooted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should caution the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I really apologize to hon. members when I say that although it is customary in closing a debate to deal with all points that have been raised during the debate I am going to refrain from doing so on this occasion. I would not have risen at all except to say two things. One I had not
Electoral Boundaries Commission intended to say until the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), the chief whip on the other side of the house, spoke. He spoke as though in some mysterious way in what we were doing the government was going to have something to do with redistribution. It is not. I think we have given every possible evidence that any government could give in the kind of legislation we have introduced and in the kind of suggestions we have already entertained for improving that legislation, that what we want to be sure of is that the government will not, any more than the opposition, have any influence on this redistribution, that the redistribution will be done by commissions that will be set up, I hope, as a result of this legislation and that it will be done fairly, bearing in mind the point I made a long time ago when we first started this debate, that after all our duty in distributing the representation in this country is to see that the people of Canada are represented, not to elect John Diefenbaker or Ross Thatcher, to mention the last two people referred to, or anybody else.
Every elector in Canada, whether he is a Tory or a Creditiste or a Liberal or a Social Crediter or an N.D.P. or a C.C.F.'er or even someone who will not join any party is just as much entitled to be represented in this house, as long as he has a vote, as any other citizen of Canada. I think we have paid far too much attention in the past, and I hope we will not in the future, to this argument about whether one party or another may get some transitory advantage. I think the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) did us a service in pointing out that a lot of these calculations have rather gone awry.
I might also remind the hon. member for Regina City, because I think it is only fair to recall the facts, that the amendment that was made to the British North America Act in 1952, to which he referred, was made at the instance of Mr. Louis St. Laurent and Mr. J. G. Gardiner. This amendment was made for the purpose of taking account of the very fact to which the hon. gentleman referred, namely, that the rapid urbanization that had resulted from the war had resulted in the growth of Saskatchewan not comparing with that of the other provinces, and the loss in membership that would have taken place at that time would have been inequitable, so a period of time should be allowed to elapse to see whether or not that trend would be changed.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I should like to say to the minister that I support him wholly. I did not want to give any idea, as a result of my remarks, that this was not so. I said the resolution came from the legislature and that

Electoral Boundaries Commission the former prime minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had paid attention to it, so there was a change made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not seeking to quarrel with the hon. gentleman. I was seeking to agree with him. Outside of the house I nearly always agree with him about everything. He is one of those members, and I wish we had more colleagues over there, with whom it is rather hard to disagree even in the house.
The point I was making is one which I made before, namely that we are going into committee in a very few minutes on this bill and I want to emphasize once more the position which has been taken by me and by my colleagues on the treasury benches. This bill, although in form it has to be a government measure under our rules, is one for which the government feels it has no more responsibility than any other member. Any improvements that can be made to it from any quarter of the house will not be cast aside without a hearing. I hope that if we do make any changes they will not be described as somersaults or referred to by some of the other descriptive phrases that are used in this house. I hope they will be accepted in the spirit in which we have approached this from the beginning.
I hope there will be in all quarters of the house an effort to make this measure fair and make it workable. Both things are important. A measure can be theoretically fair, but because it did not follow the proper, traditional geographical boundaries in this country, it may be quite unworkable and create anomalies. I agree with the hon. member for Regina City that, as far as possible, we want to avoid constituencies being half urban and half rural. This is not a very satisfactory situation, but it cannot always be avoided. Where it obviously can be avoided, it is certainly better because it is easier for a member to represent the specialized interests of his constituency. He can be just as good a Canadian if he represents Regina City as he can if he represents Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.
There is one point I think I should like to make. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made by hon. gentlemen of the official opposition. They have suggested they would prefer to have one commission. I might say that if hon. gentlemen wish to move an amendment, of course we will not attempt to have it ruled out of order. However I do not believe I could vote for such an amendment, and I will tell you why. I do not believe I could vote for it because I do not believe the job could be done in the time that we feel it ought to be done, that is to say as nearly a year as possible, with one commission. It is felt this legislation should come into effect in 1966

which is, after all, five full years after the census. The commission which was set up in Ontario nearly two years ago has so far only succeeded in dealing with metropolitan Toronto, according to reports I received. It is expected that this commission will take at least another year to complete its job. The commission now functioning would not have any more difficulties than our commission for Ontario would have. I believe this experience bears out what I have said.
I have also read recently about the latest efforts of the commission in the United Kingdom. There are four commissions there, one for England, one for Wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. Of course the English commission has a much bigger job than the other three put together. There is no doubt that the commission in the United Kingdom was rather pressed for time because of the magnitude of the problem.
This is the reason we feel this job can be done better by ten commissions. There is no question but that we are very fortunate, and I say this without hesitation, because this and the other place put a stamp of approval upon Mr. Castonguay by legislating him as the representation commissioner. I feel we are very fortunate in having a man of his ability, background and experience to serve on all ten of these commissions. I think everybody understands he is not going to attempt to do the detailed work on any one of them. The reason we want him to be on all of them is to make sure they will be moving in step, that they will be following substantially the same rules.
Apart from the one point I have mentioned with regard to the ten commissions, and I think I would vote against any amendment to reduce the number, I would hope my views on this subject would commend themselves to a majority in the house. I would even hope that upon reflection they would commend themselves to virtually everyone in the house. Apart from that, any other suggestions for amendment to any other section of the bill, will be considered on their merits. I am speaking for myself, as sponsor of the bill, and I do not feel I should attempt to speak for anyone else in the house. I intend to look at these things dispassionately and if I think any amendment is an improvement, I am going to say I would vote for the amendment. I can do that because the Prime Minister, technically, is the sponsor of this bill. I am not sure I even have the right to be speaking now.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not want to raise the point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, since I have started, it is too late to raise the point now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not believe we should allow the Minister of Transport to carry on in sin, if that were the case. Actually, according to the order paper, we are resuming a debate on the motion of the Minister of Transport, so on this interesting and rare occasion he is in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, one always feels happier to be legitimate. I thank the hon. gentleman for rendering a judgment in this case.
I do say again, as I said earlier when introducing this bill and in referring to the bill we put through in the last session of parliament to set up the office of representation commissioner, I greatly appreciate the manner in which all parties and members in the house have approached this subject and I hope that we can now fairly quickly bring it to a conclusion in the same non-partisan way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we begin the discussion on this clause, Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make to the committee. It is quite evident from the speeches made throughout the period of second reading, including those made today, that the most controversial clause in this bill is the one relating to the tolerance figure. We might make much better progress if we could agree, when we reach that clause, to allow it to stand, go on with the other clauses of the bill and later return to it.
The reason I make this suggestion is because occasionally, when a clause is very controversial, a lot of time is spent considering it, with the result that hon. members think they may have spent a lot of time considering the bill, and may not give the scrutiny they otherwise would to the other clauses. I think we would make better progress if we could agree to deal with all the other clauses first.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


George Clyde Nowlan: So long as it does not preclude anyone from making references to the quotas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I do not think anyone could expect clause 1 to go through without some discussion of the general features of the bill. I am sure the Minister of Transport has been pleasantly surprised this afternoon with the progress already made, and we would not
15, 1964
Electoral Boundaries Commission want to put too much of a strain on his emotional capacities by passing clause 1 so quickly.
As the minister has pointed out, there are some clauses of the bill which are more controversial than others that can be dealt with very quickly, and it is a matter of the record that we shall deal with the quota clause later on. That is an excellent suggestion and we should proceed on that basis.
It is also a very happy thing that apparently we have a high degree of unanimity on the fact that we are dealing with this matter in a non-political manner. Those of us who have been members for a long while and have gone through redistributions in bygone days, realize the difficulties a political committee has in trying to deal with this matter. One of the fundamental problems in trying to draft a bill such as this is to leave a substantial authority with parliament and, at the same time, not have the matters referred to a commission coming back to a parliamentary committee and there going through the log-rolling and the political mill which is inevitable.
I can speak with some feeling on this matter because I had something to do with trying to draft a bill in former years that would meet this requirement. I remember the heated discussions we had in various committees, and in other places which I am not reporting on at the moment, as to whether one could draft a bill which would maintain that parliamentary control and at the same time remove this from the parliamentary committee. This bill purports to do that in a rather ingenious way. It is, of course, bypassing parliament, once parliament approves it, to something like another place where they can debate or reject, but they cannot amend. Frankly I think this is the best solution that could be arrived at.
It is an absolutely impossible problem which is involved in the passage of a bill such as this, if you are going to take it out of the political arena and, at the same time, have any report that comes back referred to a parliamentary committee. There may be better solutions. The mind of man runs to great solutions when he is under enough pressure, but personally I am prepared to accept this solution as one that reasonably meets the situation.
I also want to join with the minister, as I have on other occasions, in his tribute to the representation commissioner. I think the House of Commons is very fortunate in having the gentleman who has been named take over this office. Speaking personally, and for all my colleagues, in fact I am sure for all hon. members, I think it augurs well for this bill that we have a gentleman of his experience, ability, character, and tradition of elections and political pressures accepting this office.

Electoral Boundaries Commission
As the minister says, there are two avenues which we could travel on this road. The former government of the Leader of the Opposition (right hon. Mr. Diefenbaker) brought forward a bill which proposed one commission. This present bill follows very closely the principles which we laid down, except that in place of one commission it proposes a commission for each province. Arguments can be made for either course.
The argument in favour of one commission is that you would have a higher degree of uniformity than by having ten separate commissions, and the principles applied in one province would have effect in all provinces, whereas with ten individual commissions you might have differences arising between the provinces. As against that you have the argument that one commission would take more time to carry out its work than ten commissions. Further, and this is both the strength and the weakness of the proposal, ten individual commissions will be able to apply their knowledge of the conditions in each province in bringing forward a report which would be perhaps more acceptable to an individual province than would be the case if there was only one general commission.
Against that you might have differences of approach, and differences in application of principles which would create confusion. The one guard against that is the fact that we have the representation commissioner on each of the ten commissions, and with his knowledge and experience we would probably get a high degree of uniformity in the commissions' application of principles. Though I would have preferred only one commission, I am not going to quarrel very strongly at this time with the proposal to have ten individual commissions.
There needs to be a great deal of explanation given in connection with this matter. We have had some misunderstanding in the house as to the effect of the bill and as to the effect of the British North America Act regarding the proportion of provincial seats. Unfortunately there will be a reduction in the membership of the house elected by some provinces, provinces which would naturally resent the fact that they are going to lose members. The province from which I come is going to lose one member. At one time in our history that province had a solid 18 Liberal members but that, of course, is a memory it would like to forget. Its membership will now be reduced to 11 and if the senatorial floor were to go, which one hon. member tried to remove the other day, its membership might go down to less than that in the future. In any event, there is a great deal of explanation which needs to be given when we discuss the bill in greater detail.


I do not intend to deal with the principle of this measure any further at this time. I presume other hon. members will wish to speak briefly on the first clause. I agree with the minister that we should get on with the consideration of these clauses-not rapidly but giving them careful scrutiny-and I think the Canadian people will look upon the passage of this bill when it is finally passed, as I am sure it will be, with a great deal of pride and satisfaction.
There has been a good deal of complaint about this institution recently. Parliament it has been said, is going to the dogs. We have had commentators who could hardly find their way to the House of Commons if they arrived in Ottawa with a map and compass, pointing out to us the error of our ways. It is true we have had our difficulties-and we shall have them again. But this is what parliament is for. Most of these commentators forget that the word "parliament" is derived from the word "talk". It may be we talk too much-and perhaps I am doing that at this very moment-but we must never forget that members are sent here to express their views. When the time comes, it will be found that parliament gets along fairly well, and when members of the House of Commons are prepared to change the course which has been followed for a century as far as representation is concerned and leave the representation of their constituencies and the boundaries of those constituencies to be determined by an independent commission over which they would have no control, except to approve the findings or send them back for review in certain circumstances, I think it speaks well for the Canadian parliament and that the Canadian people can derive some satisfaction that we have achieved such a high degree of unanimity on this matter.
As far as we on this side are concerned, we will give full support to the general principle of the bill. We ourselves brought in a bill which, apart from the number of commissions envisaged, was almost the same as the measure now before us. This has been a fundamental principle with us for a long while, as it has been for the government, and I am glad to see that we have finally got the bill through second reading and are at the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I do not often get the opportunity to be an echo to him, so when the opportunity does come I grab it.
I think it is fair to say that the attitude shown toward this legislation is a credit to the House of Commons. As the hon. gentleman has indicated, we do not often get

patted on the back by others, so perhaps it will not do any harm if we pat ourselves on the back today. The fact is that we are dealing with a subject matter which for nine decades or more has been a most explosive one. I suppose few issues have generated as much ill-will in parliament as has the question of the redistribution of the seats in the House of Commons. For it now to be clear that we are capable, with the concurrence of all parties, of approving a bill which refers this matter to a group of independent people is, as I say, a credit to parliament.
It is true it ought to have been done long ago. As the Minister of Transport has pointed out, what we are dealing with here at this time is not the seats of particular members who happen to be here but the representation of the Canadian people. This way of doing it is a proper way, and I am sure we are all glad we have reached this red letter day in our history. As the previous speaker has said, there will be differences over some of the details. I welcome the suggestion of the Minister of Transport that clause 13 be left until the others have been disposed of. Actually, my colleagues and I do not quarrel with the 20 per cent figure which is contained in that clause but I recognize it is a subject of contention, so let us dispose of all the matters we can agree on and then have the battle, if battle there must be, over that particular clause.
There are one or two other clauses concerning which we think amendments ought to be made, and in at least one case I have the necessary amendment ready. I should like to say one word to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings by way of correcting a reference he made a short while ago. He intimated that Nova Scotia might soon be protected by the senatorial floor and he made a reference to someone-I gather it must have been to me-as wanting to remove that floor in an action taken a few days ago. I would remind the hon. gentleman that I did not seek to remove the floor at all. I may have tried to remove the Senate, but in the bill I put forward I retained the floors which the Senate now provides. In others words, I may have tried to do away with the cat but at least I tried to preserve the grin, and maybe that is what counts in this matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the baby would go out with the bath water.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is only a grin that is left it could not swallow the baby, anyway.
Most of what needs to be said can be said on the various clauses. We join with members of all parties in the house in welcoming this opportunity for parliament to show its
15. 1964
Suggested Reduction of Pension Age sense of responsibility toward this very important matter. There are details which remain to be considered, but the main point of what we are now doing is that we are making a decision to have the redistribution of constitutencies done by an independent body. This is a most welcome step.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are only 30 or 40 seconds left until five o'clock. All I want to say is that we join with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in saying that the passage of this bill to set up this commission will indeed be a red letter day and a proud day for parliament.
I sincerely hope this parliament will show the same spirit and attitude toward the recommendations of the commission when they come back to us as has been shown here this afternoon.
May I call it five o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being five o'clock and in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' bills, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again?
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.



PENSIONS


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of reducing the qualifying age for old age pensions, without a means test, to 67 years by 1967.
He said: I think the purpose of the proposal which stands in my name is so easily grasped that it is not necessary for me to devote any great length of time to outlining it. The intention is clearly outlined in the resolution which is now before us-to reduce the qualifying age for old age pensions, without a means test, to 67 years by 1967, that being of course our centenary year. As I put it, we are aiming at age 67 by 1967.
In my view there are two good reasons why this should be done, or at least why the principle of the resolution should be sent to an appropriate committee for study. In the first place I am sure it is well known to every hon. member in this house that there are many thousands of families across the country with senior citizens in the 65 to 70 years of age brackets, who do not have quite enough to live on and who have a little
2220	HOUSE OF
Suggested Reduction of Pension Age bit too much to die on. In effect, they have to eke out their existence until-if they survive-the age of 70, and then can qualify for a pension without the means test.
On that point I am encouraged to note, particularly in the last few days, that the department of health and welfare, in its outline of the proposals of the Canada pension plan as they may affect the flat rate pensions which now exist, says that it is the intention of the government to make the pension available in time to come at any age between 65 and 70 on what is called an actuarially reduced basis. If taken at age 65 the amount, I understand, is to be $51 a month. For those who choose to receive old age security on the actuarially reduced basis prior to age 70 there will be no means test. If this proposal is carried out I think it will be a worth-while, progressive social step. However, had that provision or anything like it been put into effect in years gone by, how many tragic homes would have been saved from the poverty stricken conditions which exist in them today due to the existing regulations, which condemn people to live until 70 before they can qualify without a means test to receive the $75 a month pension?
The resolution before the house, as we have heard, proposes that by our Canadian centennial year, 1967, which is only 33 or 32 months away now, we as a people should be prepared to pay the maximum pension of, say, $75 a month to all Canadians at age 67, which is in effect going a little more than half way between the ages of 65 and 70. This will, as I said, be taking a progressive step to aid in the comfort and security of our senior citizens.
Hon. members might be interested to know how many citizens would be affected if this were done. The last census figures I have for June 1, 1963 show that there are 99,000 Canadians aged 67, that there are 95,000 aged 68 and 91,000 aged 69. These are round figures. There is a total of approximately 286,000 in the age groups I seek to have pensioned at $75 a month. Of that total it is estimated that about one fifth are already on pension. The over-all percentage is 21 per cent for the age group 65 to 70. The percentage of those on pension gradually increases, of course, with age. In broad terms there are something like 200,000 senior citizens in the bracket which would be benefited by the no-means-test pensionable age of 67 by 1967.
It is my opinion there is even greater need to reduce the qualifying age of the pension and to increase the amount of the pension itself. Thousands of our older people are in effect eating their homes, which in many cases constitute their sole wealth and their sole bar to pensions. It is a question which 

is sometimes resolved in favour of death and sometimes in favour of pensions. In the meantime, everything that we learn about automation and the material abundance which modern production is ready to shower upon us indicates that there is a greater need to find useful jobs for our middle aged workers, and again underlines the need for a progressive revision in the qualifying age for pensions.
It is worth considering, Mr. Speaker, that in almost all other lands the pension age is now lower than 70 years. That is so whether the country concerned has a universal pension, a contributory pension, one based on years of service, or a combination of those and including a means test. The principle of a lower retirement age has been established in most countries, regardless of the type of pension and other social legislation which they have. In Great Britain, for example, the pensionable age is now 60 for women and 65 for men with a means test. In Switzerland it is 63 with no means test. In New Zealand it is 60 with a means test. In Denmark it is 62 and 67 with no means test. In the United States it is 62 and 67 with a means test. In the U.S.S.R. it is 55 and 60 with no means test. Canada, ranking very high in the world's industrial production and national wealth, has a pension age too restrictive to meet modern circumstances.
Second, in urging that this resolution be passed or sent forward to a committee for study, I might say it is very timely in view of our approaching centennial celebrations. At that time, and as I say it is only a few months away, we will undoubtedly be doing many things and undertaking many projects and a large group of our citizens, including our young people, will be involved. Therefore I think it is very fitting that at that time we should also do something for our older people. I think the centennial gives us a very appropriate opportunity in this connection. It would be very timely in our history to make this gesture on behalf of our older people, who after all are responsible in so many cases and in so many ways for much of the wealth and well-being we have in Canada at the present time.
In taking my seat may I say to hon. members that if they cannot agree to come to a vote today on this measure I would very much appreciate, as I think would many thousands of the people in this country, the principle of this resolution being referred to an appropriate committee for study.


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I can see that a reconciliation is taking place.

First, may I congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Mather) who spoke before me, for his generous intention in introducing this resolution. However, in spite of the figures he quoted and the situation which prevails in the various countries that he mentioned in order to draw a parallel between the security system in Canada, I do not believe that, under the present circumstances, we ought to envy any other nation because, if there is a country where social legislation is well advanced, I think it is certainly Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there are some people-and I do not pretend to share necessarily their opinions-who are not much in favour of the universal pension plan, because they claim that many people who would be in receipt of a pension do not need it at all, and I really believe that at the present time we cannot claim that there are people so unfortunate that they cannot find the necessary subsistence.
I realize that our social security system is especially concerned with old age security, and the efforts to set up a pension plan in this country, efforts which continue-one has only to refer to the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister-are precisely aimed at solving the particular problem mentioned by my hon. friend.
The Canada pension plan provides for standard old age security allowances for 65 year old people. However, besides that, an allowance related to the gain should be provided, and the Canada pension plan has been designed to include this supplementary allowance. One has only to consider briefly the results of such a scheme to see how a participant can take advantage of it, if he decides to retire at age 67.
If his average contributory gains entitle him to a pension of $100, first he is eligible to the pension related to the $20 gain, to which $61 are added for old age security, which gives him a total pension of $81 per month.
In the case of an older citizen who wishes to retire, if his average income is $200, his pension based on his taxable income will be $40, plus $61, so that he will receive a total of $101 as old age security pension-and this is in the case of a 67 year old retired citizen.
On the other hand, if such a citizen has average monthly earnings of $300, he will be entitled to a pension based on those earnings amounting to $60. This person will thus receive total pension of $121, in view of the monthly amount of $61 that must be added as old age security payment and, here again, this is in the case of a 67 year old pensioner. One could keep on this subject-
Suggested Reduction of Pension Age


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member quotes those figures, does he mean the provincial pension plan of Quebec or the Ottawa plan?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the pension plan I am speaking of is the national pension plan of Canada. My hon. friend, having heard the Prime Minister's statement must know that negotiations are now under way to carry out that national pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, to prove to the mover of this resolution that this pension plan more particularly aims at helping the people of the 65 to 70 age group-and I shall more particularly discuss the case of those of age 67, because this resolution would grant a pension to people of 67-I shall say that, if the contributor had a wife the same age as himself, that is 67 years, the combined monthly pension would be increased by another amount of $61. Thus, the old age security pension for the wife and the combined amounts of the monthly pension which I just mentioned would amount to $142, that is $60 plus $82, and $197 respectively. The benefits paid to a 67 year old person would therefore be much more generous, under the proposed plan, than if the people of 67 were only to receive the $75 old age security pension.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a moment ago the statements of the right hon. Prime Minister, who said that the government was studying the details of a pension plan which the government of the province of Quebec intends to submit on a provincial basis. Without waiving the principles on which the Canada pension plan is to be based, the federal government can consider the opportunity of making a few changes in its pension plan which would ensure that, once passed, it would be the same for the whole of Canada, which is obviously desirable.
Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to quote a few figures to show to what extent the old age security system has evolved in this country. If we consider the number of pensioners aged 70 or over, there are in Canada, 971,123 beneficiaries which represents an expenditure of about $885 million. As far as old age assistance is concerned, that is the help granted to indigent people in the 65 to 69 age group, there are 105,000 beneficiaries, which means an expenditure of $20 million for the federal government as well as for the province, as it is a joint plan where each government contributes an equal share. Therefore, we can say that 105,000 Canadian citizens get this old age assistance provided for those who are 65 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, in the field of social security, the government does all in its power to help

Suggested Reduction of Pension Age those in need and to give the minimum required to all citizens. I said and I repeat, without any shortsighted partisanship, that anyone sitting on this side of the house can be proud that he stands for a political philosophy which provided for the setting up of the finest social security system one would find. When the national pension plan comes into force-I know it is the deep desire of any hon. member that this plan should have national scope-it will be a crowning piece of which any Canadian can indeed be proud.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, we must commend the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) for the resolution he brought before the house, which provides us with an opportunity to state a point of view which I think is shared by all hon. members.
When I heard the hon. member for Lotbi-niere praise this government without any reservation, I looked back to the amendment moved by the official opposition, to grant a $10 raise to our senior citizens, starting April 8. Well, the hon. member for Lotbiniere voted against that proposal.
Such is not the case with the resolution now before us, because the hon. member for New Westminster introduced a motion to the effect that the house should consider the opportunity to grant an old age pension to any person having reached the age of 67. It goes without saying that our senior citizens, considering their contribution to the development of our economic resources, for the greatness and the prosperity of Canada, are expecting, and rightly so, a generous treatment from the federal government.
But, on the other hand, I feel we should not think only of older people but also of those who are not yet old enough to be entitled to the old age pension. Even if the principle set forth by the hon. member for New Westminster is acceptable to all members, we still must not forget that those who are in need and between 65 and 69 years old can receive the old age assistance pension.
Today, because of mechanization or automation, people 60 years of age and over find it rather difficult to get a job. Now, would it not be better if the government, instead of paying a universal old age pension to all persons 67 years of age, would spend that money on those who are 62 years old and in need, so that the maximum or minimum age at which a person is entitled to an old age assistance pension could be reduced by two or three years? There is another point to consider, and it is the difference between the old age security or assistance pensions received by married couples and unmarried persons. If the husband and wife are both [Mr. Choquette.l

70 or over, they actually get $150 a month. This amount enables them to meet the bare necessities of life.
On the other hand, a widow or an unmarried person only gets the $75 now provided under the act. This is not enough, because the expenses for rent, heating and essential requirements have soon taken up all this sum which is really inadequate for a person living alone. Therefore, I wonder whether the government, through social legislation, should not consider providing more assistance to those people, as the Quebec government has done. As a matter of fact, the Quebec government presented a social security measure whereby widows and single persons 60 years old or over would receive an old age pension of $75 a month, effective April 1. The situation of those people should retain the attention of all hon. members.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) spoke enthusiastically about the national pension plan. Everybody shares his opinion, but the Canadian people and hon. members are anxious to know when the government will come forward with a definite pension plan since, during the past two weeks, the government withdrew twice. And again this afternoon, the premier of Ontario stated in the Ontario legislative assembly that the Prime Minister of Canada had asked him, and the request had also been made to Quebec, to reconsider the possibility of adhering to a new pension plan likely to satisfy most of the requirements of the Canadian people.
No doubt, all those provisions will some day apply throughout Canada, and at that time, we will perhaps have to give some thought to this social security system which should be extended to the most needy people who would not be able to benefit from this new provision if they exceed the age limit provided for in the act.
If the hon. member for New Westminster is to be commended for introducing this motion, we must consider his comments and try to find a means of analysing the needs of the various classes of society, of those who have reached retirement age, so that we may offer to the rest of the world the example of a country which has devised a social legislation that will meet the needs of all classes of society.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) on introducing this motion. I think it is fair to say it is very short, clear, simple and in a very few words states exactly what the intent is. As

far as this party is concerned, we would hope that this kind of motion would be supported for several reasons.
I believe that if it were accepted and the government did in fact change the old age security qualifications by reducing the age to 67 it might in fact be an economic asset to the country, rather than costing money. I say that for this reason. Every year for the past number of years we have had an unemployment problem in the country and a large number of those on the unemployment rolls, to whom we must make payments through the unemployment insurance commission, are younger people just entering the labour market. So, Mr. Speaker, while we agree that the age limit could and should be lowered and that the means test should be removed, we think there is perhaps some merit in suggesting that one qualification should remain, namely that persons in this age group be retired. At the present time we know that there are two considerations so far as the means test is concerned. One is income and the other is assets. I have no objection at all to removing any consideration of the assets a senior citizen may have acquired in his lifetime from what is now considered to be the means test.
However, I think it would be well to retain as a qualification for receiving this pension that the applicant be retired. This would, of course, open up additional opportunities for the younger people to move into the labour market. I am thankful to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) for providing us with statistics. He said there were something like 286,000 Canadians in this age group. I do not believe there is any way of knowing, at least the hon. member did not provide us with this information, how many of the people in this age group are today holding jobs. If these people were eligible for pension when they retired, these jobs would become available to younger Canadians. Surely every hon. member in this house would agree that it is far better to have a large number of people at the upper end of an age group receiving a pension than to have those people at the lower end of the age group receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have long disagreed with some of the provisions in this means test. As the hon. member for New Westminster pointed out, the people who are subject to it are required to dispose of all their assets, their homes and everything accumulated during a lifetime before they become eligible for a pension. I know on a number of occasions I have had to advise senior citizens in my own constituency who had reached the age of 65, who did not have a job
15, 1964
Suggested Reduction of Pension Age but were not eligible for old age assistance because of the means test, to dispose of their assets for living expenses. I assured them, of course, that after they had reduced those assets to a certain figure they would then become eligible for this payment. It is very difficult to convince elderly people to dispose of their home and spend the last few dollars in their bank account. It is difficult to convince them they should dispose of a farm, for example, and everything they have saved for their old age. In many cases these people on farms have actually retired, but they do have these few assets and the only way in which they can qualify is to dispose of these assets. I feel this is wrong.
If this motion is not going to be accepted in its entirety, Mr. Speaker, and I do believe it is a very reasonable motion because it only reduces the age limit by three years, some very real and important changes should be made in the means test. One other thing that is important to people in this age group is the medical card which is provided by some of the provinces. I certainly urge that some arrangement be made between the federal department of health and welfare and the provincial authorities responsible so that something can be done to make sure these senior citizens get a medical card. Many of the people with whom I have discussed this question are not nearly as interested in the few dollars they may be able to get under old age assistance as they are in the security that comes from having a medical card they can present to a doctor in the event they become ill. Perhaps some consideration, therefore, could be given to this question at the same time.
These are all the remarks I want to make at this time. I hope this matter comes to a vote so that we can at least obtain the consensus of the house, and I can congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster upon raising this question.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words about this motion.
I am pleased that we are asked to examine a measure whose purpose is to help our senior citizens. However, I would have preferred that the mover provide for pensions at the age of 65 instead of 67. I feel that the government should consider the possibility of introducing before 1967 some legislation in favour of the aged.
First of all, we could find some means of setting up a pension which would be paid to those who have reached a reasonable age, while they are still alive and not too close to the grave, to enable them to spend their last days on earth under decent conditions.

Suggested Reduction of Pension Age
Moreover, we could give them an adequate amount to meet their needs, without fear of spoiling them; we could provide them with free medical and dental care, free transportation on trains, and other services, in order that our senior citizens who toiled and moiled to develop the country would be able to end their days with a modicum of comfort.
The motion says:
-without a means test-
This is a very important point because, without that, we would be unfair to those who succeeded with great difficulty in saving up a few dollars for their old age.
Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the centennial we will celebrate shortly, I feel that the government should also think about another group of older people, those between 55 and 65. The government should do something for those people who, for one reason or another, cannot get a pension now and are unable to earn a living because of their physical condition.
Under the present plan, they are too young to get the old age pension and not disabled enough, under the law, to get the pension for the disabled. But those older citizens urgently need a pension just the same because of their poor health. In fact, do you know that a 50 year old man is sometimes in poorer shape than a 65 year old man in perfect health? Many factors are involved and the government should take them into account.
I urge the government to look after the welfare of those people and I trust that it will. There still remain a few years to improve the condition of those aged people, who are entitled to our respect and for whom we must do something on the occasion of the centennial of confederation. Through their work and intelligence, they have contributed to the development of this Canada in which we live and which we want to improve constantly in order to make it a truly wonderful country.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the intent of the mover of this motion, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) stated, is quite clear. However, I think that this motion as a good illustration of some of the general problems of private members' motions in relation to the conduct of the business of the house.
The mover has asked that the subject matter should be sent to a committee. The house has before it a piece of legislation to which it has given first reading, the Canada pension plan, which very specifically deals with retirement age. Listening to the remarks of the hon. member who moved the motion, it was
[Mr. Plourde.l
not clear to me which legislation should be specifically amended for the purpose he has in mind. Did he have in mind the reduction of the age under the federal Old Age Security Act, which is the pension now payable to all after they reach their 70th birthday? Is this the specific legislation he seeks to amend? If so, the Canada pension legislation will amend this legislation, specifically with regard to retirement age.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that this motion was on the order paper before we knew we were going to have a Canada pension plan?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am perfectly aware of the timing of the resolution, but I am calling the attention of hon. members to the fact that the house has to deal in an orderly way with the business put before it. I would have thought, after a piece of government legislation had been laid before the house specifically dealing with the subject matter of this resolution, the mover of the resolution might have withdrawn it, or might have deferred seeking consideration of it until the house was in committee dealing with the Canada pension plan legislation.
If the government had not taken any initiative on this matter and had not presented any legislation to the house, then the hon. member would have been correct in presenting a private member's motion on the matter.


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


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the government's pension legislation is presently being reviewed, so that we are in the dark as to what may come up, does he not think it a good idea to have a suggestion of this kind put forward at this time for consideration?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I thank the hon. member for his question because his questions are usually informative, but may I suggest the next implication of such a resolution is that it should not be implemented by unilateral action of this house. It should be the subject of discussion between the federal and provincial authorities, the very kind of discussion which I presume is taking place now, and which has taken place in recent months.
If the experience of the house on social legislation under our constitution means anything, and it must, I would have preferred the wording of a resolution which would have said something to the effect that the government should initiate discussions with the provincial authorities for appropriate amendments to the legislation now in force. This is not the wording of the resolution before us, and the adoption of this resolution would not

only have implications for the old age security scheme but for the federal old age assistance program, which should be discussed with the provincial authorities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that anything now in existence without a means test is purely federal, and that the provinces do not come into anything without a means test?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I see I am going to have to spell this out in a little more detail for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). There is a piece of legislation which deals with pensions on a means test basis between the ages of 65 and 70 years, and the adoption of a pension program without a means test after the 67th birthday would certainly have an implication for the existing program of old age security benefits, and at the very least would call for discussions with the provincial authorities. I do not think the hon. member would contend otherwise. I would be surprised if he did.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member a question. If he reads the motion on the order paper he will see it says "should consider the advisability." Surely that must answer all the objections he raises so far as consultation with the provinces is concerned, because it would naturally be expected that would be part of the consideration of advisability.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Again, I am following the discussion which was so ably initiated during private members' hour yesterday by a colleague of the mover of this resolution, who raised the fundamental of the functions of private members' hour. I contend that, at this stage, when there is legislation before the house which deals very specifically with the point raised here, it is not a wise contribution to put the house through this form of discussion, which duplicates the work already being done.
My contention is that if the mover of the motion feels this is the most appropriate form of action, then I suggest to him he has an alternative, and I refer him to the Canada pension bill, No. C-75, which has already been given first reading. Clause 33 of that bill says:
Subject to this part, for each month commencing as described in section 43.
(a) an eamings-related pension shall be paid to a contributor who
(i)	has reached 65 years of age and is retired from regular employment, or
(ii)	has reached 70 years of age;
That is the point at which the appropriate amendment could be put in specific terms before the house, and I think this would be a more appropriate form of action for the hon. member moving the motion.
Suggested Reduction of Pension Age
There are two or three other basic questions which give me some concern. I have listened in the house to other motions presented by the hon. member and some of his colleagues, motions for which I have had a great deal of sympathy. They have related to the including of such things as mental and t.b. institutions under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I have listened to a large number of other resolutions, all of which would have the effect of causing very important expenditures in terms of money. I am aware that money is not the only means by which we judge these matters but, by the arithmetic of the hon. member who introduced this motion, 99,000 persons age 67, as well as 95,000 persons aged 68, and 92,000 persons aged 69, a total of 286,000 persons come into this category.
He estimated that under the old age assistance program approximately 21 per cent of those within the ages 65 to 69 years are currently drawing the means test benefit, and he boosted his estimate to say that something like 200,000 additional persons would be eligible for pension as the result of the adoption of his motion. This would cost something like $180 million a year, at $900 a year per person, and it must be remembered that we have the problem of priorities in the expenditure of public funds.
The mover of the motion contended that there was a great deal of hardship, as no doubt there is. There are many families who are too proud to apply for the means test benefit. He is putting forward his proposal that we should extend the federal pension without test of means, without test of retirement, on this basis, and that presumably priority should be given to this action over many other worthy social measures currently before the house.
I admit the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) does not quite agree with this. If I understood him correctly, he said the retirement test would be a legitimate means of restricting some of the persons in these age groups who have accumulated fairly substantial personal resources in the course of their lives. He also seemed to feel that the purpose of a pension should be to aid employment opportunities for people in the younger age groups, and not to keep older people in jobs while at the same time they are drawing pensions. This is what I understood to be the purport of his remarks. He would differ with the resolution as it is presented to us, by agreeing generally to the kind of retirement test which I understand is incorporated in the Canada pension plan.
Again, we must go back to the whole question of what we are trying to do on an age basis with respect to universal retirement.
2226	HOUSE OF
Suggested reduction of pension age The hon. member who introduced this motion might well have presented to us some of the reasons for his selection of the age year 67. The only reason, I gather from his remarks, was that it lends itself to a slogan- "67 for 1967". I wonder if that is really good enough to justify the choice of the base year for retirement benefit. According to statistics which are increasingly available, we can anticipate a continuing increase in the life span. We also hope there will continue to be high levels of employment in Canada and that we shall need the services of as many people as can be properly given employment, realizing that it may well be in the best interests of the health and peace of mind of our senior citizens that they should continue to be employed. In short, we must judge the retirement age on some rational basis. It must be related to the state of health of people in their older years, the life expectancy, employment practice, and so on.
One of the problems we shall have to consider more seriously than we have done so far, is what provision shall be made in our society for the increasing number of people who are able to retire, especially if we incorporate, with their pension provision, compulsory retirement tests. It is of course very nice to retire. I am sure many of us think that when we retire, if we have the resources to do so, we shall be enjoying a pleasant state of affairs. But in terms of public policy and the evidence we have from those who make it their business to study the problems of older people, I think the conclusion is generally held that there is such a thing as an optimum age which we should consider as a basis for our pension program.
It is perfectly clear that many people wish, for good reason, to retire at an earlier age than 67. How far should we extend the operation? How far, and with what financial inducement, should we make it possible for these choices to be made? How far should public policy go in exercising a degree of compulsion through such devices as retirement tests, and what should be done to provide facilities for keeping older people in good health and engaged in useful activity after retirement? What program should we develop along these lines?
I have the feeling that while this is a most desirable resolution, there are other factors to be considered. As my colleague from Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) used to say, supporting it is equivalent to being against sin. No one can object in principle. However, I think we must consider such other factors as priorities in the budget, and the sum of money involved in adopting a principle of universal payments without restriction through means tests. We have to weigh


this expenditure against the cost of other things we would like to bring in by way of welfare measures, and there are many such measures which I think the house would wish to consider. For example, we have extended family allowances in respect of children in school. We plan to spend a lot more money in encouraging young people to choose and fit themselves for careers. More money is to be spent on the development of research, generally, in Canada. All these things are claims on our national income. So we would have to consider very carefully how far we should go in reducing the universal retirement age and bringing in measures which would encourage general universal retirement at an age when men and women are still in good health, and taking them away from activities which may well be an explanation of the levels of health and activity which they enjoy.
One last comment I should like to make relates to what was said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). He referred to measures which he hoped would be forthcoming to encourage the provision of what he called medical cards. Certainly the problem of adequate health services for people in these higher age groups is one which should command high priority. Many provinces, particularly in western Canada, have shown a commendable concern for the development of health services through publicly supported means, by agreement in most cases with the medical profession. In the case of Saskatchewan, I believe this scheme is directly administered by the province. Without question this is one of the fields which should be examined as part of any general examination of matters relating to the retirement age.
I, for one, put a higher priority on the provision of a fund which would give every province in Canada encouragement to enter into agreements with the medical profession which would provide adequate medical care for men and women in these age groups, many of whom are barely self-supporting but who are not self-supporting when an additional burden of ill health is thrown upon them, than I would on the particular motion before us. The recommendation made by the hon. member is something which will, no doubt, come about as we gradually develop the earnings-related pension benefit plans, which I am sure are part of the unfolding picture in Canada today.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock, the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Clyde Nowlan: May I inquire of the acting leader of the house what business we shall be dealing with tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Tomorrow we shall continue with the committee stage of the boundaries bill and, if it is finished, we shall proceed then to the third reading of that
15. 1964	2227
Business of the House
bill. Last night I announced we would take up the resolution preceding the Post Office Act amendment. If that is finished tomorrow, on Friday we would proceed with the second reading stage of that measure and then to the budget resolutions, and on Monday a motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 16, 1964