1964-04-07

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to an answer given yesterday to question No. 431 as found on page 1810 of Hansard. This answer is wrong. The first part of the answer states that a site consisting of two parcels of land for a public building at Britt, Ontario, is being acquired by the government from G. M. Taylor. The second part of the answer states that Mr. Taylor is not a consultant of the Minister of Public Works or of the Postmaster General.
This latter answer is in error, because I asked a question on December 4, 1963, which is to be found on page 5409 of Hansard, relating to the consultants of the Postmaster General. The third part of that question was as follows:
From whom were recommendations for this appointment solicited by the Postmaster General?
This was the answer:
District director of postal service. North Bay, and Gerald M. Taylor.
This gentleman is a twice defeated Liberal candidate. My reason for raising a question of privilege with regard to the question answered yesterday is to indicate that he has used his position and knowledge to go out and take an option on a public site required by the government and then resell the property to the government. I am directing this matter to the attention of the minister and I would ask him to look into it, correct the answer and possibly also get a new consultant.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table an exchange of letters constituting an agreement between the United Nations and the government of the republic of Cyprus concerning the status of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In regard to the Alberni
valley-


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, underfText]


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26 I should like to ask leave to adjourn the business of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, the extension of the winter works program past April 30, in the areas adversely affected by a more severe climate.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the motion is quite in order and ought to be accepted by all members of this house.
It deals with a very specific question: the extension of winter works, after April 30, in areas where the climate is more severe. The matter is one of public importance. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) himself stated recently that unemployment was the number one problem facing the government today. Now, unemployment is especially high in areas which have to put up with a severe climate. At the present time it represents Canada's most acute problem.
It is obviously a matter of general interest, since it concerns a large number of regions, in all parts of the country, especially Newfoundland, New Brunswick, the province of Quebec, northern Ontario, a large part of Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba and northern Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, it is also a very urgent matter in view of the fact that only three weeks remain before the end of the winter works

Labour Conditions
period, that is April 30; there is barely enough time to select the regions adversely affected by the climate and prepare a program to extend the winter works period in such regions.
To support my request, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a telegram sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) by the economic council of the Saguenay-Lake St. John region at the request of its chairman, Mr. Raymond Lanctot, and signed by the secretary treasurer, Mr. Thomas Eugene Simard, following a proposal made by mayors Georges Hebert, of Arvida, and Alfred Hamel, of St. Felicien. I quote:
Economic council of the Saguenay-Lake St. John region at its annual meeting yesterday in Jon-quiere resolved unanimously to ask you to reconsider your decision about the extension of the winter works program until May 31.
Several mayors attending this meeting stated that the people in their municipalities would suffer severe hardship if period-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Have you a motion to introduce?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am allowed under the standing orders to state the reasons for introducing my motion. Standing order 26 (3) reads as follows:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, here is the text of my motion.
I move, seconded by Mr. C. A. Gauthier, member for Roberval:
That the house do now adjourn in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is: "The extension of the winter works program after April 30 in areas handicapped by a more severe climate.
Mr. Speaker, since the debate on the supplementaries for the Department of Labour is completed and the discussion on the remainder of the budget can be delayed; since, on the other hand, this question is of extreme importance and urgency, we appeal against your ruling.


Mr. Lambert:: You cannot do so.


Mr. Habel:: You are out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: One can appeal when ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to decide whether the ordinary proceedings before the house should be adjourned under standing order 26, and to determine whether the motion moved by the hon. member for Lapointe is in order. The three essentials, of course, are that the question must be national in scope, there must be extreme urgency, and there must be lack of other opportunity to debate the matter.

It seems to me that with certain estimates under discussion later this day and with the budget debate just around the corner, so to speak, there will be ample opportunity before April 30 to discuss this interesting matter. At the moment there is not sufficient urgency or lack of opportunity for debate to set aside the ordinary business of the house and receive this motion.
Under the circumstances I regret that in my opinion the motion should not be received.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as a precedent was set in February 1963- under similar circumstances the question was put to decide whether we were entitled to appeal against the ruling of the Speaker, the house voted yes and you did so yourself on that occasion-we appeal against your ruling to the effect that we are not entitled to appeal-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may say so, I understand the great interest the hon. member has in this subject, in fact that all members have, but I may call to his attention Beauchesne once more, citation 100(7):
The house affirmed, on the 19th of February, 1932, that there is no appeal from the Speaker's decision, that a motion, to adjourn the house for discussing an urgent matter of public importance, cannot be made unless the member's statement shows that there is actual urgency for debate. The Speaker decided that his decision on this particular point was final. Mr. Ralston appealed from the "Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision." The Speaker was sustained by a vote of 72 to 47.
In the circumstances I can only suggest to the hon. member that in view of the precedents and in view of the reasons given, he might consider very carefully abiding by the Chair's decision.


Gilles Grégoire: You all voted in favour last year.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Lapointe has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will pleased say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.

Division
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
"The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows:
"The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) having asked leave to adjourn the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance"-


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: No, read it.


Mr. Speaker:: -"namely, that the house do now adjourn to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is the extension of the winter works program, after April 30, in areas handicapped by a more severe climate.
The Speaker decided that, since an opportunity to discuss this matter could arise in the near future on the budget debate, there was no urgency of debate as understood under the terms of standing order 26. Whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.
The Chair then decided that in accordance with certain past decisions of the house the Speaker's ruling in this regard was not appealable to the house. Thereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the latter decision of the Chair.
The question the house is called upon to decide is whether the ruling of the Chair in such cases can be appealed to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's decision be sustained?


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

Inquiries of the Ministry


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


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


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane. Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lapse of time since I rose originally I might direct a question to the Secretary of State regarding a pronouncement made yesterday by him to the effect that the federal government has decided to establish a special committee of inquiry.
Among other things he said that we have adhered much too closely to the American tradition of non-intervention in broadcasting by government. Does this mean that a method is being sought by the present government to be in a position whereby there can be greater governmental interference in broadcasting? What is the nature of this peculiar statement that ought to have been made in the House of Commons?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech I made yesterday in Quebec city I listed certain problems faced by broadcasting in Canada at the present time and, if I may quote from what I said, I added:
With this in mind and wishing to end the uncertainties in Canadian broadcasting the government now feels that the time has come to provide for an inquiry into those matters through a committee on broadcasting to be set up by the government.
I want to add today that when the terms of reference and the composition of that committee have been decided by the government I will be very pleased indeed to make a statement to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister what right he has to make an announcement like this outside of the house, particularly when a broadcasting committee is going to be set up. In any event, what did he mean by the words I placed before him, in which he indicated there should be greater intervention on the part of the government. What did he mean by that?
[Mr. Grcos.l


Maurice Lamontagne: I merely said, Mr. Speaker, that I thought the government should play a greater role in the cultural affairs of our country.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister what justification he had to make an announcement like that outside of the house when parliament is sitting, with the result that parliamentarians have to become aware of his considered opinions by reading what he has said outside of parliament.


Maurice Lamontagne: I think it was quite proper for me to make this statement to those people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pigeon:: The same old gang.


An hon. Member:: Contempt of parliament. [Translation]


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Is it not true that it is precisely the right hon. Leader of the Opposition who asked the government to intervene just a few weeks ago?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Quite true; here, in the house. [Text]


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Will the minister give his assurance that the proposed changeover of Toronto radio station CJBC from English to French, about which there has been so much protest, will not take place until the question has had a thorough examination by this committee?


Maurice Lamontagne: I cannot give this undertaking to the house.


An hon. Member:: Where are you going to give it?


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. To what intervention was the minister referring in his statement?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to any government intervention in radiobroadcasting, but I did mention that it would be advisable and entirely desirable for the government to play a greater role in Canadian culture, a role which would enhance our culture.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell us

what kind of committee will be set up and whether the committee will have the opportunity of making a complete inquiry within the C.B.C. in so far as its budget and expenditures are concerned?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have
already stated that the membership and the terms of reference of the committee would be announced in the house shortly.


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if the assumption of the Leader of the Opposition that there is going to be a parliamentary committee is correct. It seems to me that was assumed in the question of the Leader of the Opposition. Is this correct or not?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, that position will be made clear when I make my statement to the house regarding the terms of reference and composition of the committee.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Ba-goi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Was the Prime Minister aware of and did he discuss with the Secretary of State the terms of his speech before the speech was delivered?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):: Yes, I was aware he was making the speech. I discussed it with him in general terms. I suggest that my hon. friend should read the text and he will find it very enlightening.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the setting up of this committee will preclude the setting up of a parliamentary or House of Commons committee on broadcasting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State?
In the speech he made yesterday the Secretary of State mentioned the fact that a committee made up of Messrs. Stewart, Ouimet and Jamieson had been making studies about radio and television for almost a year, at the request of the government. Could he tell the house when a report will be submitted to the house about that investigation and if it will be referred to the committee of the house so that its conclusions may be studied?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, those three gentlemen were asked personally by my predecessor to review the matter of television in order to reach some conclusions.
They agree on some points and disagree on others, but I expect to receive a report before the end of the month. We will see then what can be done.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the joint statement issued by the board of trustees of the maritime unions and the S.I.U. of North America to the effect that control of the S.I.U. is now going to be turned back to its constituted officers, may I ask the minister if the notorious "do not ship" lists will continue to be issued, if there has been any accounting of the moneys which were turned over by the government of Canada for holiday pay to the union, and whether the statement that there will be an assimilation of all maritime employees into one union means that these unions are going to be merged into the S.I.U. I think these are questions which are perturbing the people of the country and members of this house, and I wonder whether the minister can clarify the situation.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the last part of my hon. friend's question, I undertook to secure that information for him but I have not received it yet from the trustees. I believe the other parts of his question are covered in the report of the board of trustees in a general way, but I will make specific inquiries and advise the hon. member just as soon as I receive the information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister this question some time ago and I repeat it now. Would the minister consider having the board of trustees of the maritime unions meet with the industrial relations committee of the house so these questions could be put to them, rather than our having to ask the minister questions which he naturally cannot answer without communicating with the board of trustees? It seems to me that such a meeting would be extremely useful. It would help the board to appreciate the point of view of members of parliament, and also help members of parliament to understand the policies which are being pursued by the trustees.
1848	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give consideration to this proposal. I will communicate with the trustees to secure from them their views as to the desirability of making an appearance before the industrial relations committee, and I will so advise the house.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Would the Minister of Labour also inquire whether the hiring halls of the S.I.U. will still be used, and whether the same methods of providing employment will be carried on; or have any changes been made?


An hon. Member:: Ask Paul Hall.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think this has already been announced. A representative of the board of trustees has been placed in each of the hiring halls to ensure that proper procedures are followed.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question.
Would the minister clarify the words "proper procedures"? Does this mean that the old method of referring an employee to a shipping company for hiring by that company without any other choice will still be maintained?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to take that question as notice.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection I should like to ask the minister whether Mr. Leonard McLaughlin, the heir apparent to Hal Banks, is one of 15 defendants facing a charge of conspiracy, with the preliminary adjourned until June. Does the minister feel that a man with these qualifications should be placed at the head of the S.I.U. and enabled thereby to carry out the policies of his master, Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would expect that my right hon. friend would permit the court to make a finding with regard to these charges before he would find the man in question guilty.


John George Diefenbaker: The royal commission which recommended the ouster of Banks referred to this man in the most disparaging terms. The commission said he was really the playmate of Banks and carried out Banks' work. Does the minister now depart from the recommendations of the royal commission and almost give to this man McLaughlin a halo?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: The Minister of Labour suggested that we should await the decision of the courts to prove this man McLaughlin's guilt or innocence. Is this another way for the minister to say no to the protests of the other unions 

which came under the trusteeship voluntarily and which are now objecting to this procedure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that was more of a statement than a question.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to respectfully request the Chair to call hon. members opposite to order for this persistent hissing while I am trying to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I thought I made it quite clear the other day that as long as this attitude is adopted by members on the government side of the house, I am quite prepared to stand here and await your decision as to whether or not they will be called to order.


Mr. Speaker:: Well the hon. member, I am sure, does not wish to embarrass the Chair. The Chair is not prepared to wait until the hon. member is ready to ask his question.


Malcolm MacInnis: I take it then, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair is fully prepared to embarrass a backbencher on this side of the house who has to put up with that, and I do not think you should place that embarrassment on me or any other member of this house. Further, I call your attention to the fact the Minister of Labour was on his feet and had commenced to answer my question when you decided it was out of order.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What is the distinction which places Mr. Leonard J. McLaughlin in a category different from that in which the government placed Banks when it proposed a trusteeship to take over the S.I.U. and divest him of his office in that union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a matter which has been decided by the trustees, and I have nothing to add to what I stated yesterday in explanation of that decision.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, notice of which I have given to him. Having in mind the current altercations between the Soviet union and the People's Republic of China, I wonder if the minister could tell the house whether in

his opinion this might be a timely period for Canada to work toward a non-aggression pact between the NATO and Warsaw pact countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. The current exchange between the NATO and Warsaw pact countries. People's Republic does not affect directly our attitude toward the question of a non-aggression agreement between the NATO and Warsaw pact countries. Our attitude remains as it was when I informed the house on this subject as reported in volume I of Hansard for 1963, page 420, when I answered a question addressed to me by the hon. member for Greenwood.


GREEK AND TURKISH TROOPS STATIONED ON ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question on Cyprus for the minister of external affairs. Will the minister inform the house concerning the exact status of Greek and Turkish troops in Cyprus? Are there any Greek and Turkish regular army troops in Cyprus; in what numbers are they, and stationed in what localities and for what purpose?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question involving statistics, of course, is obviously for the order paper, concerning what localities and matters of that sort. There are roughly two to one in favour of the troops who have a Greek background.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. I am asking about regular army troops.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the Greek army?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, these are Greek and Turkish Cypriots.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do I understand there are no regular troops from either Greece or Turkey stationed on Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are limited numbers of both, and the question is now being discussed as to their integration into the United Nations force.


REPORTED TURKISH THREAT TO LAND TROOPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is reported this morning that the government of Turkey sent a note to the government of Greece informing the Greek government that if any further killing of Turkish troops took place, Turkey would regard this as an attack on herself and would make landings on Cyprus. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house whether such a note was sent; and if so, the contents -the exact contents, if he is aware of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the government of Turkey sent a note to the government of Greece, not with regard to actions on the island in connection with Turkish Cypriot citizens, but with regard to the announced decision of Archbishop Mak-arios to abrogate the 1961 agreement.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs is informing us that no notes have been sent by the Turkish government to the Greek government concerning the killing of Turkish troops and the possibility of a Turkish invasion of the island?



THE VATICAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the Vatican will have a permanent observer at the United Nations, does the Canadian government intend to initiate diplomatic relations with the Vatican state?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I merely repeat the answer that has been given to that question over the years, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I put that question, it is because during many previous election campaigns, several Liberal members such as the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member knows the rules as well as the Chair.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If I put that question, it
1850	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry is because during the previous election campaigns the Liberal candidates made formal promises on behalf of their party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the increasingly serious situation in Cyprus, is the minister now in a position to inform the house how the Canadian troops in Cyprus are getting their supplies, and particularly whether the supply line they are using will be adequate no matter what circumstances may develop there?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the commander of the United Nations forces has made arrangements to use the British supply line. This is being used for the Canadian forces, and I am sure it is adequate to meet any emergency.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to reply to the question which was asked him a week ago today with respect to the disbandment of 410 squadron?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A week ago-I think it was the last day on which the hon. gentleman was here- he asked me a question with regard to the disbandment of R.C.A.F. No. 410 all-weather fighter squadron at R.C.A.F. station Uplands. This action was the outcome of the consolidation of air defence squadrons announced January 10. Previously the relatively small number of Voodoo aircraft belonging to the R.C.A.F.'s air defence command had been dispersed through five squadrons in five different locations. Although they were called "squadrons" they had a unit establishment of only 12 aircraft each, and this was long considered to be an expensive and not too efficient way of operating such a small force. Such an arrangement inevitably means a great deal of administrative, technical and support overhead for the amount of fighting effectiveness produced.
After studying the cost-effectiveness of this arrangement, I accepted the R.C.A.F. recommendation that the Voodoo aircraft could be more effective grouped in three squadrons


rather than five. No. 410 squadron was selected by the R.C.A.F. as one of the two squadrons to be placed on the inactive list. The other would be No. 414 squadron located at North Bay, effective July 1 this year.
I am sure hon. members will join me in thanking the fine officers, N.C.O.'s and men of this proud squadron for the outstanding service they have given to our country.



REPORTED ADOPTION BY CANADA OF FREE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Marvin Howe: have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. According to a news report in this morning's Globe and Mail, Under Secretary of State Norman Robertson, who leads a Canadian negotiating team to trade talks in Geneva in May, is likely to have a strong free trade mandate from Canadian business. Is this an indication that the government has adopted a free trade policy?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am glad the hon. gentleman asked this question, because it gives me an opportunity of reporting in a brief way on what has been going on in this field.
First of all, in reply to the particular question which he raised arising out of the report in the Globe and Mail, I may say this report was apparently written as a result of repeated questioning by representatives of the press of the acting chairman, Mr. Hector McKinnon. He, in reply to these questions, had emphatically and frequently stated that since all submissions to the committee are regarded as confidential, no specific information could be supplied regarding the representations made by any industry or any industries.
In reply to frequent further inquiries as to whether the general trend of the submissions was in the direction of no reductions on Canadian tariffs, the committee has answered in general terms as follows. First, Canadian industry, contemplating the Kennedy round, appears today to be seized of the possibilities and potentialities in export trade and is providing to the committee many specific requests regarding concessions desired in the tariffs of other countries. Second, in many instances submissions state that provided the concessions requested are forthcoming, the applicant industry or company would be prepared to forgo at least part of the protection afforded by the Canadian tariff. On the whole the submissions reaching the committee are helpful and constructive, but by

no means could it be said that, again on the whole, they favour or suggest the adoption of a policy of free trade.


William Marvin Howe: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that some business was for and some was against this new policy of negotiating, would a list of exemptions be submitted to the house before the GATT negotiations in May?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations will proceed over a very long period of time. The general position the Canadian government will take at these negotiations has been stated by me on a number of occasions, but so far we are not even sure what general position is going to be taken by the other countries participating on a linear basis. Until they have declared their position the Canadian government will not be in a position to make a response. It will be some time, I think, before we are able to make any further advance on the position I have already stated.



REPORTED TJ.K. PROPOSALS RESPECTING PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While we are on this topic, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question regarding the speech made by Mr. Edward Heath, the minister for trade and industry in the government of the United Kingdom. Has the minister had an opportunity to study the text of that speech which, according to press reports, is to the effect that the government of the United Kingdom is prepared to extend the commonwealth preference to underdeveloped countries? I think there is much to commend such a proposal, but I am wondering whether the government of Canada was consulted and concurs in offering this proposal to the underdeveloped countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests that since I was making inquiries in regard to these consultations, I might deal with this question. There were consultations. Mr. Heath discussed this matter with our delegation and other commonwealth delegations in Geneva on April 4, and there was a discussion two weeks ago in London with commonwealth countries on the general question of preferences.
tJ.S. TARIFF COMMISSION FINDING RESPECTING STEEL REINFORCING BARS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister comment on recent press reports 20220-117
Inquiries of the Ministry regarding the finding by the U.S. tariff commission that continued sales of steel reinforcing bars on the west coast of the United States by Vancouver rolling mills would be likely to injure United States industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the recent finding of the United States tariff commission that under United States anti-dumping legislation sales in the United States at less than fair value by Vancouver Rolling Mills Ltd. are likely to injure United States industry.
Representatives of the Vancouver firm have discussed this matter with officials of my department. We are considering the implication of this finding for Canadian trade with the United States in the light of certain special features of the case, and also the question of what might be done to assist the firm to mitigate the impact of this finding on its trade with the United States.



TARIFF POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Fred E. Sfenson (Peterborough): I
would like to rephrase a question which I addressed yesterday to the Minister of Industry and put it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is, what steps is the minister taking with regard to the announcement by Canadian General Electric last Thursday that tariff philosophies are not conducive to making needed investments in export facilities in Canada, and that they are setting up plants in Europe and Latin America rather than investing in export plants in this country? I feel this question is important because it relates to our exports, and the situation will certainly affect them very soon.
Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is certainly a question for the order paper.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question?
It stems from a report recently published in a Quebec newspaper to the effect that more than 200 students from Glasgow university would come and work in Canada this summer.
Does the government intend to contribute in any way to the visit of those students by paying, for instance, their fare or by finding them a job?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard this report and I know nothing about it. I shall look into it, but I think it would be very unusual indeed for the government to contribute to the expenses of a journey of this kind to Canada. However, I shall have inquiries made.



REASON FOR LOWER PRICE THIS YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose jurisdiction the Canadian wheat board comes. Since the minister is aware of the fact that this is the week that final payments for barley for the crop year 1962-63 will be going out, could the minister inform the house the reason for the 15 cents lower price this year than last year, so the farmers can use this information as a guide when deciding on the kind of grain they should sow this year? This information will be very important to the grain growers in the west.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a full answer to this question; therefore I would like to take it as notice.



BAY OF FUNDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the house what further action is contemplated by the Atlantic development board with regard to the harnessing of the bay of Funday tides from a power point of view, as a result of the satisfactory results of the initial investigation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: No, sir, I am not in a position to make any such report now. The Atlantic development board does not feel it should take any decision until the final report is received in May.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Prime Minister on March
[Mr. Laprise.l
30, on which date he told me he might be able to make a statement after the dominion-provincial conference regarding the government's attitude toward the capital costs of hospital construction in metropolitan Toronto. Is he yet in a position to give us a statement as to the views of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are now examining this important matter in the light of the discussion we had in Quebec only a few days ago, and as soon as I am in a position to make a statement-I hope it will not be long-I shall be glad to make it in the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader.
In view of the general interest aroused by the matter, is it the intention of the minister to request, on behalf of the government, the unanimous consent of the house to reserve a whole day for a thorough discussion of Bill C-88 introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to amend the British North America Act?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisler of Justice):: I do not know whether the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has changed his mind since yesterday, but it seemed to me that the vote given yesterday by the official opposition was sufficiently indicative of its attitude on that matter.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has tried to evade the question, I would ask him to give the house an answer to the question I asked.



RESUMPTION OF SITTINGS OF AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the committee on agriculture resume its sittings fairly soon so that we may terminate the work we had started last fall, before Christmas?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would expect this committee will be set up as soon as possible. I realize there are many hon. members

Inquiries of the Ministry
anxious to get ahead with the work, and I shall make every attempt to see this is done as quickly as possible.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader, and I do so because two or three questions have already been put today about house committees. In view of the fact that the striking committee has already agreed on the apportioning of the membership among the various standing committees, is there any reason why the names of the members of those various committees cannot now be reported to the house by the striking committee?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this a very timely question, and I am pleased to advise the house that we are waiting to obtain the final lists of names from the various groups within 48 hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This has been the answer given several times. What groups have not given their lists? We have.


Gilles Grégoire: And we
have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as house leader, a supplementary question.
A very important committee, the consumer credit committee, was formed to which the bill has been referred.
Can the house leader tell us when the subcommittee will begin its work?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the chairman of that committee to call the sittings. I shall discuss it with the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When will the chairman of that committee be appointed?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe will perhaps allow me to discuss it with him. To my mind, it is a matter of internal administration which would not be of general interest to the house, more particularly after the general reply I made a few moments ago with regard to the setting up of all committees.
20220-117J



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question to direct either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Transport based on a recent press release by the minister of northern affairs stating that crash position indicators would be required to be fitted on all aircraft contracted for in future by his department. Is it the intention of the government to adopt as a matter of policy a requirement that crash position indicators be fitted to all chartered aircraft contracted for by any department of the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question of which I would require notice. Notice having been given, I will try to get an answer.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister whether a request has now been received from the government of British Columbia for federal assistance in connection with the Al-berni valley and west coast tidal wave disaster; and, if that is the case, whether the government will assure the people in this area that financial help will be forthcoming to assist the smaller businesses to get going again, and to assist the private individuals who have suffered very serious material loss.
I am aware of the Prime Minister's general view on this subject, but I wonder if he is now in a position to give an assurance that action will be taken immediately in this connection. Mr. Macadam looked over this area on my behalf; he has now returned and made his report to me. I think the situation there is one which demands the earliest possible assurance from the government that the people living in the area will have the benefit of everything this government can possibly do to assist them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government has already stated that it will do everything it can to assist them in a situation of this kind, and if any request is made by the government of British Columbia, with an indication of the damage and an indication, too, that this damage is beyond the means of the locality and the province to deal with, then help will be given. Perhaps my colleague the minister of northern affairs
1854	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry may have had more recent information, but to my knowledge no such request has yet been received from the provincial government.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the right hon. gentleman if it is not the case that the deputy provincial secretary, Mr. Wallace, has asked the federal government for assistance and that this request was made four days ago.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, sir; the deputy provincial secretary has made no request. We have received a wire from Hon. Wesley Black advising us that a firm of assessors in the city of Vancouver by the name of Earle and Associates have been appointed to make an investigation and an estimate of all damage. This report will be available, it is hoped, within a week or ten days, and at that time the provincial government will advise us further. They stated in the wire "It would appear that we will require your assistance".
May I say I have been in touch with the mayors of the two cities concerned. I have been in touch twice by telephone with the hon. member representing the riding affected. He has advised me, as have the two mayors, that everything we have done thus far, including the procrastination, if the right hon. gentleman would like to call it that, or the delay in respect of making a contribution to the disaster fund until such time as a cabinet meeting has been held by the government of British Columbia, has met with approval. All concerned have agreed that this was the best policy and have commended us on the course we have taken.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can he tell us why his department intends to give two or three bus tickets a day to its letter carriers rather than having them keep on travelling free of charge on Ottawa buses?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: If the hon. member would let us have particulars of the municipalities concerned we would be able to give a better answer. Let him put the question on the order paper, with particulars, and I will be glad to answer him.



COST OF SENDING NEWSPAPERS TO TROOPS OVERSEAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I wonder if he will give some consideration to the effect which the recently announced increases in certain postal rates have had on the cost of sending newspapers to members of our armed services overseas. I understand that the cost of sending these papers has doubled, or almost doubled.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I shall be pleased to take the question as notice.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MAIL TRUCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. Last week several questions were asked in the house concerning the robberies of mail trucks that occurred in the Montreal and Three Rivers areas, and the Acting Postmaster General suggested that probably the minister would make a further reply on his return this week. I wonder whether the minister would give that reply today and tell us how much money was involved and just how many arrests were made.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In view of the time lapse, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the question be put on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old bunch.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of week end reports of serious bird killing and water pollution by oil tanker discharge in the bay of Fundy, will the minister say what action we may expect from his department and the other departments of government involved?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will see that the matter is looked into at once, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS	Mr. Bell: Strange bedfellows.



POSSIBLE LAY-OFFS OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY WORKERS IN MARITIME AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is based on urgent and disturbing reports that the C.N.R. in the maritime area is now planning a revision of maintenance of way methods which will result in the loss of jobs by over 200 sectionmen. Will the minister look into this matter with a view to preventing a further increase in the already large number of unemployed in our area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the hon. gentleman's speech to the attention of the C.N.R.


Mr. MacEwan:: It is about time you did something about it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and arises from the remarks made by him in the house yesterday. Does the Prime Minister not realize that his administration has deprived thus far all the 1963-64 class of 17 year old pupils of the benefits of the extension of the family allowance to those of that age still in school, because of the indecision and procrastination of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is certainly out of order.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It may seem a strange one for me to raise, but I do so in fairness to Your Honour and because I think the record should at all times be as straight as we can possibly keep it. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) earlier today said that in a division on a Speaker's ruling made in January, 1963, like the ruling that you, sir, made today, Your Honour voted against sustaining the ruling. I noticed your embarrassment at the time; you were not in a position to do any research. I have done it. The records are to be found at pages 3299 and 3300 of Hansard for January 31, 1963 and you, sir, did not vote either way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How did you vote?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want at this time to apologize most sincerely for the error I have made. I made this error by including you with the rest of the Liberal party, which as a whole had voted against the decision it made this afternoon.



MR. RICARD    OMISSION OF FORESTRY MINISTER FROM DIVISION LIST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, to keep on with these questions of privilege, I believe I should call your attention to the error that seems to have been made yesterday when the question was put, as I cannot find the name of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) among those who voted for the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think that the Minister of Forestry was here at the time and that an error was made.
[TextJ



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to report to the house on the crash of a T-33 jet trainer at Primrose lake, killing a Canadian and an American officer, particularly as to the reason for the flight and, if he can, the reason for the crash?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, at approximately 12 noon on April 6 an R.C.A.F. T-33 aircraft crashed at the upper end of Primrose lake, Alberta, while on a low level pacer exercise. The pilots, Flight Lieutenant Grant, R.C.A.F. and Captain Johnston of the United States air force were killed in the crash. The aircraft was destroyed.
There is no information yet as to the cause of the accident. The aircraft and pilots were at Cold Lake on detached duty from the central experimental and proving establishment, Uplands. The aircraft was on a position error calibration flight in order to test the accuracy of the instruments so that it

Supply-Justice
could be used as a pacer for F-104 aircraft. Investigation is under way to determine the cause of the accident. I am sure all hon. members of the house would wish to join in an expression of deepest sympathy for the bereaved families of the deceased men.



DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
le. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $10,000.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, last night prior to the adjournment of the house, I directed a few questions to the Minister of Justice in order to clarify a situation which, I think, is detrimental to my constituency.
I am asking the minister if he had the opportunity of looking into the matter and if he is in a position to supply the information I asked of him. I think the minister has some information to give me.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, in order to be in a position to give the hon. member an answer this afternoon, I had a talk with the officials of my department and I obtained certain information. As I expected and mentioned yesterday, I felt sure that we could dismiss political considerations as motives for the decision taken.
I know, for instance, having checked on it myself, that in the case of the Drumheller penitentiary located in the riding of my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), the decision was reached by the previous government. While my immediate predecessor was pressed by certain societies and organizations to have the penitentiary built somewhere else than in Drumheller, he had taken the necessary steps to maintain the decision taken and in the same way, the reasons behind the decision concerning the penitentiary originally projected for St. Pie de Bagot, were serious.
It is clear that the decision taken by the government to build a penitentiary in Drumheller was far from being based on political arguments and, particularly on Liberal political reasons.
May I say, for the information of the house, that the construction of that penitentiary might have been delayed if there had been political decisions, but this construction will start in April 1964 and will be completed by March 1966.
In the same way I knew that the decision taken by the previous government to build
[Mr. Hellyer.l
a detention unit in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, a decision by which my immediate predecessor, Hon. Mr. Chevrier, abided, was not maintained because of partisan political reasons. That decision of the previous government was maintained for serious consideration. Construction of the institution will start in June 1964 and will be completed in March 1965.
In view of those facts I was convinced that serious motives must also have determined the decision of my immediate predecessor not to proceed immediately with the construction of a medium security penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot. Following a decision of the previous administration, two pieces of land were purchased. Since both were to be used for the establishment of two similar institutions, one in St. Pie de Bagot and the other in Cowans-ville, I must inform the house that construction at Cowansville of the medium security penitentiary proposed by the former government was undertaken in November 1963 and will be completed in January 1965.
Since it is the former administration that purchased two plots of land in the province of Quebec, there can be no question of political partisanship, in the case of Cowansville. As for St. Pie de Bagot, we reconsidered the decision merely because of the serious incidents which took place on June 17, 1962, in the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, which is a maximum security institution. It then became evident to this government that an addition to this penitentiary, or if you prefer an additional maximum security detention unit had become necessary, and this is more urgent than building a medium security detention unit.
For those reasons, my predecessor examined the circumstances and factors which had to be considered in that case; he consulted his advisors and asked them whether or not a medium security institution would be useful to supplement the staff or the available facilities at St. Vincent de Paul. Naturally, the answer was no.
Then the question arose as to whether another maximum security penitentiary should not be built instead of that medium security institution. It became clear, on examining the relevant circumstances and factors, that such a thing would be extremely dangerous, because of the relationship which would necessarily exist between the St. Vincent de Paul complex and that additional complex. Well, to establish a system in the public interest, this additional complex would have to be situated, not on the south but on the north shore of the St. Lawrence and this sufficiently near St. Vincent de Paul to avoid any possible danger in the regular transportation of prisoners at least from an institution

Supply-Justice
to another, or from the institution to the courthouse or elsewhere in the institution.
It is clear that as far as convicts which have been given comparatively stiffer penalties are concerned, if the institution were situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, it would be a constant threat during transportation, because it is obvious that it would be a frequent and I would even say a constant invitation to underworld characters, to try to escape, or to facilitate the escape of prisoners and to stop cars at any time.
It is obvious that the longer the route followed by vehicles and the more frequent the trips, that is, every day, I believe, the greater the risks I have just mentioned.
But I should like to assure the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and emphasize that the site at St. Pie de Bagot was not subject to a contract annulment and has not been discarded. This site is and will be preserved until it is necessary to build a medium security institution in the province of Quebec.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that the decision made to change the plans in the case of St. Pie de Bagot was no more political than the one made to proceed with the plans of the previous government in Brome-Missisquoi, Bow River and Prince Albert.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister of Justice for his information, but I think that he lacks some and I am going to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the decision not to go ahead with the construction of St. Pie de Bagot penitentiary is a matter of petty politics on the part of the minister's predecessor. I am sorry to have to speak this way but the reaction from the people in my riding and the documents I have before me force me to do so and to show the house that we are confronted with patronage activities-I have no hesitation in saying it again.
May I go back a little over the background of that matter. On September 18, 1961, as I said yesterday, Hon. Davie Fulton announced the construction of a middle security prison at a cost of $4.5 million in the St. Hyacinthe-Bagot riding.
Of course many problems had to be settled before work could begin. However, Mr. Chairman, as I give you various details you will see for yourself that the Minister of Justice lacks a lot of information which I will be happy to give him.
I have here a contract signed on November 30, 1962, under which the Department of Public Works purchased four properties in the riding of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I also have here a letter addressed to the architect, S. A. Cyr, which reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Cyr:
I wish to confirm our telephone conversation and the discussions that you held with Mr. Simpson, at which time it was intimated that the originally intended young offenders institution is now in abeyance.
The department requires the services of a consultant to develop sketch plans and to prepare working drawings and specifications for a proposed maximum security camp and I would like to have your formal acknowledgment that you are prepared to undertake this work.
This was accepted by Mr. S. A. Cyr. Then there is another letter I want to place on the record. It is dated March 1, 1963, and reads in part as follows:
The original announcement that was made was, as you recall, to the effect that the institution to be constructed at St. Pie would be designed to accommodate 450 inmates and would require a staff of from 150 to 175 officers. Events since that announcement was made (including the disturbance that occurred at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in June, 1962) have made it necessary to reconsider the program that was originally planned for this area. Let me say, however, that the reconsideration that has been involved is not designed, in any respect, to decrease the size of the operation that was originally planned. The operation will be at least as large as was originally contemplated and, if any changes are required, they will be designed to increase the size of the operation.
Here we have in black and white the fact that it was the intention of the department to build such an establishment at St. Pie. I know the minister has spoken in good faith. He comes here and stands up and says that the situation is contrary to what I have stated. He speaks in good faith but I say he has not got all the information he should have, and I am glad to supplement the information he needs. In a letter dated January 23, 1963, there is the following:
Construction is to start within three months on the first phase of the project-the construction of facilities to accommodate the more hardened criminals from St. Vincent de Paul institution. Within 15 months construction will start on the main institution along the lines originally proposed.
These are the facts, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry that the minister did not have all the information he needed to have in order to establish the facts as they are before the committee. There is another letter dated April 10, 1963, from Mr. Cyr which reads in part as follows:
Kindly consider the present as my acceptance of the terms of employment of consulting architects as issued by the Department of Public Works of Canada.
I have here a copy of the terms according to which the architect was supposed to act on this project.
1858	HOUSE OF
Supply-Justice

To end my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter dated May 1, 1963, which reads as follows:
Mr. S. A. Cyr,
Architect and engineer,
490 St. Anne Street,
St. Hyacinthe, Que.
Dear Sir:
I have just received a phone call from Mr. Simpson asking that any work related to the proposed penitentiary in St. Pie be stopped.
That is dated May 1, 1963 and clearly indicates that this project for the building of a penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot was suspended in the first weeks after the present government came into office.
I have said and I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we are faced with a disgraceful problem of patronage, as only the members opposite can create.
Mr. Chairman, if you want further proof that the employees of the department concerned had decided to build a penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot, all you have to do is to look over the site where you will find at each end of the piece of ground which was reserved for the construction of that institution, a huge sign about 12 feet by 12 feet, on which one can read: "Here a penitentiary will be erected". And there you will find the names of the then minister and deputy minister. But, strangely enough, immediately following the election of April 8, 1963, an artist-or rather a painter-was sent there to remove the name of Hon. Mr. Fleming and replace it by the name of Hon. Mr. Chevrier. As far as the name of your humble servant is concerned, it was merely painted over and a blank space left in its place.
Perhaps it is childish, but it shows the state of mind of the Liberals.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. member agree with me that after April 22-not after April 8 last-Hon. Davie Fulton, no more than the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot for whom I have great esteem-could hardly claim to speak on behalf of the government?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
whether the minister rose to ask me a question or whether he merely attempted to smother the flame. Yet he should know that it is easily lit up again.
In concluding I may say that last year I tried over and over again to get information on the intentions of the government. 

I always received evasive answers. Yesterday I tried to draw the minister's parliamentary secretary into the discussion. It is peculiar that he was here yesterday but is not here this afternoon, when he could justify the answer he gave. In any case, last year I was completely unable to get any information on the intentions of the government. However, by a fortunate conjunction of circumstances I received a specific answer last Friday. I may thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) for sticking his nose where he should not have, but he told this house that the matter of the St. Pie de Bagot penitentiary was definitely settled, that the problem was definitely disposed of, that there was nothing more contemplated there. And yet, even today, the Minister of Justice says that that land is kept for future use.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the house to the fact that public funds were used for that purpose. A sum of $83,000 was spent to purchase land on which to build a penal institution. Professional people were paid to make studies in that connection. And then everything was cancelled, just to punish the electors of the riding of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot because they had dared to send a Progressive Conservative member to the house.
This is no way to curry favour with citizens of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. The citizens of this constituency are more and more set against the government and they only wait for an opportunity to prove, once more, to those who laughed at the people of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, that they have a long memory and will remember the very undemocratic attitude the Liberal government showed while it was supposed to re-establish on stronger basis the relationship between the citizens of the country.
I may say it is not the proper way to promote goodwill between the citizens of a country. I may add that by cancelling the decision of the former government to build this penitentiary institution, public money has been used to try to promote in a partisan way the interests of a political party which is becoming more and more unpopular among the people.
I am looking forward to the day when the population of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and more particularly that of St. Pie, will have an opportunity to prove publicly to the government what they think about its administration.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I still maintain what I said, but nevertheless I consider the speech of the hon. member to contain a very serious charge of discrimination against himself and the hon. members for Prince

Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), and Bow River (Mr. Woolliams).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I maintain the charge I have laid. The fact that penitentiaries have been built in three or four ridings does not mean that there has been no injustice in my own constituency. I still contend that serious injustice has been committed against the people in my riding.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, last week the Minister of Justice was in Quebec helping to set up a committee when several members, including the Leader of the Opposition, discussed-


Guy Favreau: I do not want to raise a question of privilege here, but last week I was not in Quebec. I was detained here throughout last week by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am sorry; the minister was not in the house, then, when the matter of moving the federal women's prison to Cornwall was discussed. I thought he was taking part in the setting up of the committee, but perhaps he wishes to dissociate himself from that frustrating week-that is, a frustrating week in Quebec, not here.
However, I want to discuss this change in the location of the women's prison. I want to do so calmly, and I want to do so factually. The relocation was announced as a "gift to the people of Cornwall" by the former member for Laurier, Hon. Lionel Chevrier. I think anyone interested in penology or penitentiary reform was as disappointed as I was, and I am sure all hon. members were, at this change of direction in the penitentiary service. I want to make a comment or two about it.
It has been suggested that this was a blatant example of pork barrel politics. These descriptive words are not mine, as a matter of fact, but are from a Globe and Mail editorial on the subject. The Toronto Star puts it just as directly in an editorial on March 11 which is entitled, "The Patronage Prison". Both the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society have protested the Cornwall site in telegrams to the Prime Minister. I should like to quote from the Toronto Star editorial which says that the site is unsuitable on at least three grounds:
It is too far from the homes and families of the inmates, making visits an expense and a burden. The new prison would be 275 miles from Toronto where 33 of the present 122 inmates at the prison for women at Kingston formerly lived.
There are no Canadian universities or social research centres nearby. The nearest is Montreal, 75 miles away.
There are no psychiatric facilities nearby and no psychiatrists.
Supply-J ustice
The editorial goes on to make the following three points:
First, the minister could refer to the Archambault report on prisons which recommended that the jurisdiction over female prisoners should be entirely provincial so that they can be kept in prisons closer to their homes.
Second, rather than building one prison for all of Canada's female prisoners, three smaller prisons might be built, one in the west, one in Ontario and one in Quebec.
Finally, if the decision to build only one central prison is irrevocable, let there be a new women's prison at Kingston, where there has been a tremendous community interest in prison work, where there is a climate of social research and where the academic facilities are available.
I would like to submit that the decision to move to Cornwall was expedient politically but had no justification in good penology practice. It ignores a thoughtful review of criteria for prison location and structure by the Canadian corrections association, dated March 18, 1963. This association, which is a branch of the Canadian welfare council has this to say:
The Canadian corrections association is the national private organization that provides facilities for the inter-disciplinary study of problems associated with crime and delinquency, and for the exchange of information and ideas among those concerned with these major social issues.
The association's membership is made up of staff and board members of the wide range of services in this field: adult and juvenile, institutional and non-institutional, public and private; faculty members from the various university departments; and interested members of the public.
I do not suppose the former hon. member for Laurier was a member of the Canadian corrections association.
As part of its function, the association is directly interested in the developments in Canada's prison system that have occurred so rapidly in recent years-
I am going to interpolate here that this decision to go to Cornwall would be a direct contravention of the good practices set out in this blueprint. In its recommendations the Canadian corrections association has one statement of general principles that I would like to put on the record. It says:
Any building should be designed to serve the program for which it is intended. A prison should be designed to give expression to modem treatment concepts.
It further says:
An examination of what is involved in treatment is set out in the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners and related resolutions adopted by the first United Nations congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, August 30, 1955.
This group certainly would not approve any move to Cornwall on grounds of alleged expediency.
Prisons should be located within the limits or in the immediate vicinity of a major centre that has appropriate clinical facilities; it is an added

Supply-Justice
advantage if the centre also has a university. At the same time, it is desirable to avoid locations where the institution will be surrounded in a few years by a housing development.
The association lists several criteria, and I am going to read only the ones that are particularly germane to this prison.
1.	It should be in a location to attract and hold competent staff.
2.	An urban setting prevents the staff from becoming ingrown. This is a serious problem and, with all due respect to Cornwall, is one that might occur when the prison personnel are isolated, so to speak, from the stream of thought that would be provided in a location such as Kingston or a university centre.
3.	Community facilities, such as clinics, hospitals, technical schools, universities, etc., should be available, and it is again obvious that there is no university complex in Cornwall.
4.	The prison can be used for the field placement of university students, students in medicine, psychiatry, social work, psychology, law, sociology and theology. All these things are available in the city of Kingston but none of them mentioned in the list of criteria are available in the politically expedient location of Cornwall.
5.	The institution and the university can work together conveniently in research, and then there is the one I mentioned earlier that has been referred to by the editorial writers.
6.	Visiting by relatives of inmates is easier.
There is one other aspect of this criteria
blueprint that I would like to discuss, and that is the size. The Canadian corrections association says:
The appropriate size for an institution depends on the program and the type of inmate for which it is intended-
-but it should be-
-as small as possible.
Here is a perfect example where three small institutions across Canada could fit perfectly into the criteria set up by the best opinion in Canada.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox participated in this debate the other day, and since then he has handed me a copy of a letter that the Kingston-Quinte branch of the Canadian association of welfare workers has sent to the Minister of Justice, dated March 30, 1964. I propose to make this letter part of the record:
Dear Sir:
The Kingston-Quinte branch of the Canadian association of social workers passed a unanimous motion at their last meeting that I should communicate to you our concern about the proposed move of the prison for women from Kingston to Cornwall. This group is composed of the majority of the professional social workers practising in

the counties of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Hastings and Prince Edward. Our concern in this matter is with the part played by adequately qualified professional staff in any program for the rehabilitation of the prisoners.
We are quite aware that the plant and facilities at the prison for women are not appropriate for their function and that a more suitable building or buildings might be provided in the future.
However, in face of considerable physical difficulties, the prison for women at Kingston has assembled a treatment staff which has made substantial improvement in the rate of recidivism of women drug addicts. This staff would be dispersed by such a move, and the very valuable experience of the after-care program which has been built up over many years, would be lost.
Again I am going to interpolate that I do not think this loss is worth the political expediency of the move.
One of the advantages of the present situation has been the availability of consultation with the university, which provides a school of law and of medicine, and the opportunity to take advantage of the very extensive psychiatric services available in this community. None of these advantages exist in Cornwall, and we think these matters are very important in deciding the appropriate location of such an institution, if the emphasis on a program of rehabilitation is to be continued.
I believe there are very careful statistics available to document the improved outcome of the present treatment program, which should be given serious consideration. We think it is appropriate as a professional body, to bring this aspect of the situation to your attention.
The letter is signed, "Elizabeth J. Grey, B.A.,	M.S.W., President, Kingston-Quinte
branch, Canadian association of social workers".
Here we have three groups, divorced as it were from the daily political activities of certain people, the Canadian welfare council, the Canadian corrections association and the Canadian association of social workers who make a compelling case against this change, and I urgently request the minister to follow the lead of a former minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Fulton, and recognize that in penology, as in many other aspects of our activities, the winds of change blow.


William Marvin Howe: In view of the fact that a fairly general discussion has taken place on this particular item, I should like to bring to the minister's attention a question that has arisen in my riding in connection with the lawyers appointed to look after Farm Credit Corporation business and to administer the-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the only
justification-


William Marvin Howe: I will only be a short time, and in view of the fact that a general discussion has taken place I think it is quite right for me to bring this up.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the minister rising on a point of order.


Guy Favreau: Yes, on a point of order. If
we are to have a minimum of order in the somewhat extraordinary type of discussion of the present supplementary estimates I think, short of abrogating it, we shall have to apply, so that it will retain a minimum of meaning, section 2 of standing order 59 which states:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The only reason why, by some stretch of the imagination, the discussion which has taken place with respect to penitentiaries could possibly be justified was because the first item claimed is an amount of $10,000 in respect of the grant to the Canadian corrections association to assist in defraying the expenses of the fifth international criminological congress to be held in Montreal in 1965. The Canadian corrections association happens to be concerned with penitentiaries; that is the only pretext which could possibly be used as a basis for the discussion which was carried on here on the first item. I wish to repeat that we are dealing now with supplementary estimates, and the only part of the first item with which we are concerned is this question of the right to contribute a grant of $10,000 to the association. We are not concerned in any way with the general administration of the department. I submit, with respect, that if we are to terminate the study of these estimates there must be some limits, vague as they may be, within which the discussion ought to be contained.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice conveniently forgot the actual wording of the particular vote with which we are dealing- "Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates". This item concerns departmental administration and it happens that the particular item to which the minister referred is included. I have the strongest possible objection to the stand taken by the hon. gentleman in this connection. The item "departmental administration" always allows for a general discussion, however distasteful or inconvenient it may be to the government. I wish to make it very clear that we are asking for the right to discuss departmental administration, and when you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I want you to take these representations into consideration because we do not intend to be circumscribed by the caprice of the minister, or by his desire not to discuss certain matters which we consider to be of paramount importance.
I seldom rise on occasions such as this, but I wish to point out that it is difficult to 20220-1184
Supply-Justice
get answers from this government. Day after day we hear interventions from members opposite: Put it on the order paper. I simply point out, once more, that when we do put questions on the order paper they are often conveniently forgotten. Questions are passed as orders for return-we never hear anything more about them. I think there are 25 orders for return which have been passed by the house but which have never been brought down. There are ten from last session.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? Can he explain, for the benefit of the rest of us in this chamber, what relevance that has to the point of order which has been raised as to whether or not a general discussion on a certain item is in order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Every time anything is brought up which the government does not like, or which the government does not find convenient, members on the other side immediately raise an objection. That is the relevancy. With the strongest possible emphasis I say that the words "departmental administration including . . ." allow for the fullest discussion.


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, may I say I have too much respect for the right hon. gentleman not to realize that he is not unaware that the only reason why the title in darker letters is there is because, in the main estimates, the grant we are seeking the right to make is contained, or would be contained, under the item "departmental administration". Surely, the principle which allows members of all parties to discuss all aspects of the administration of a given department under the first item is one which applies only in the case of the main estimates, because the committee is dealing there directly with the question of the administration of the department in all its aspects.
The only matter which is raised here is the vote itself, not the title in dark letters. If it were otherwise we would be justified in discussing on this item the whole question of the R.C.M.P., for example; we would be allowed to deal with all questions which concern litigation between the government and other individuals or groups. In other words, under the guise of considering a grant to the Canadian corrections association we would be able to discuss all aspects of the affairs of the department.
I wish to point out, too, that it is only fortuitous that in this case the grant we seek leave to make is placed under the first heading, because in the case of many other departments the first supplementary

Supply-Justice
vote required is not listed under what is normally the first item of the main estimates.


William Marvin Howe: I brought up this question with regard to the Farm Credit Corporation because it concerns the administration of the department as mentioned in the vote before us. Spring is coming on. We have not seen any main estimates. We have not had a supply motion. The estimates of the Department of Justice are not before the committee as yet.


George James McIlraith: Yes, they are.


Guy Favreau: They are tabled.


William Marvin Howe: Yes, but they have not been brought forward for discussion.


George James McIlraith: How can they be? We cannot get this through?


William Marvin Howe: Yes, but there is the question of urgency. The spring is coming on. I should like to hear your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: Before a ruling is made I should like an opportunity to be heard, particularly with reference to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is this expediting the business before the committee?


George James McIlraith: Yes, it is expediting the business before the committee. I rise only in an effort to do so, because I have some concern for the way in which the business of the house is carried on and I think the hon. member, if he would grant himself a moment in which to think, would agree with me that I do not usually take up much of the time of the house. When I do speak it is because I believe I have something to say which is of interest. I hope my remarks now will be in that category.
The point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that under item one, administration, it is proper to have a wide discussion on all matters affecting the department concerned. As a general proposition that is true enough; but the essential point, the point with which the right hon. gentleman did not deal, is that this latitude applies only with respect to the main estimates which amount, under this heading, to some $2 million. It has been traditional to have a general discussion on the administration item in the main estimates, but the practice with regard to final supplementary estimates has always been very different.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


George James McIlraith: Supplementary estimates usually provide merely for adjustments in

amount because of the difficulty of estimating at the beginning of the year precisely what expenditures will be required by the end of the year, or else they are introduced to provide for new expenditures which have become necessary.
They comprise in the main, with one or two exceptions, items that are by way of adjustment. The practice with regard to supplementary estimates has been-and this will be found by anyone who checks over the record -that they take a very short time in the House of Commons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you look at the record for 1962? You spent 25 days on the estimates.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would just contain himself and show his usual good nature until I finish my remarks, he will find that I shall have dealt with that subject. The practice has been that they take very few hours debate in the House of Commons. I think this is the thirty third session of parliament I have attended as a member of the House of Commons, although I am subject to correction as to that number. I did some research the other day on the question of the time taken on the final supplementaries. I am sorry I have not the sheet here with the precise figures on it, but the hon. member will find that in the last ten years in no case, with one exception, were the supplementaries ever called on more than two different sitting days of the house. The hon. member will find that is the case. With regard to the one exception to which I referred, he will find that there were something like eight to 10 days taken up and he will find, if he examines the record of the debate, that the reason that amount of time was taken on the final supplementaries that year was that the government of the day refused to submit a budget to the House of Commons to be debated, and refused to give any commitment to the House of Commons to let them discuss the main estimates; so that the traditional place for this kind of discussion, namely the budget or the main estimates, was denied the House of Commons. That being the case, the house in its wisdom took, I have forgotten whether it was eight or 10 days-


John George Diefenbaker: You took 25 days.


George James McIlraith: -to get a debate on that subject in order to have the kind of discussion or control of the financial policy and expenditures which is a traditional right of the House of Commons. That is the essential difference between what the Leader of the Opposition says and what the practice is. The practice is that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the

item or clause under discussion-that is to be found in standing order 59(2)-and the item under discussion is a $10,000 item.


John George Diefenbaker: No; it is departmental administration.


George James McIlraith: It is concerned with a particular grant to a particular association; that is the supplementary item before the house. The discussion the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to have is one that would have been relevant and proper when the item of $1,378,000 was before the committee of the whole. I believe that is the correct practice to be followed. Since already these supple-mentaries have now been before the committee of the House of Commons for 11 days or on 11 different days, I would hope that the committee would see fit, consistent with its thorough examination of the item, to permit the house to deal with the main estimates, the six supply motions and the remainder of the budget debate which is pressing and urgently requires the attention of this chamber.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I carefully listened to the remarks of the Minister of Justice and of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have to recall that before starting to consider the supplementary estimates, it had been agreed that when the first item of each department was called we might have a general discussion on the administration of the department. This may seem surprising, because the first item provides only the addition of $10,000 to the estimates of the Department of Justice.
I also would like to point out that those of us who have been here, in this house, for about two years, never yet had the opportunity of considering the budgetary estimates of the various departments. When the Conservatives were in power-and the Liberals will recall it, I am sure-we never had the opportunity of considering the estimates provided by the government. We never had the possibility of expressing an opinion in a discussion of the various departmental estimates. Since the Liberal party has been in power, it is the same thing. The estimates were submitted to the house last year at the very last minute, on the 17th or 18th of December, when we had stated our intention of adjourning the session during the holidays. We were asked to vote those estimates in just a few hours or, perhaps, a few days.
We have now been sitting for two years in this national parliament, and we are told that, under our democratic system, the opposition may scrutinize the estimates and criticize the general administration of the
Supply-J ustice
government. It is our third session here and we are again told that we have to pass all that in a hurry, even without having had the opportunity of criticizing the administration of the various departments.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I claim that an undertaking was entered into when we first started discussing these supplementary estimates. We never had the opportunity to examine and to comment in general on the administration of the various departments, and I suggest quite logically that, at this stage, when we have before us item No. le, we should have the right to discuss it.


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. gentleman quote this undertaking or tell us where it is reported in Hansard?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have it here, and if the hon. gentleman-


Gilles Grégoire: I shall let the hon. member quote it rather than lose time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, in answer to what the Minister of Justice has just asked, there was a suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the beginning of the study of the supplementary estimates. He said:
-namely that we should agree to take the supplementary estimates item by item and that there can be a general discussion on the first item of any department.
To that the Chair answered:
These are very interesting remarks, and I would go along and suggest that the committee should go along with the last statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
That being so, the general discussion is permitted by the very ruling of the Chair at the beginning of the study.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


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

British North America Act BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT



ABOLITION OF THE SENATE

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-88, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the House of Commons for the opportunity this afternoon to move the second reading of this bill, which would seek to amend the British North America Act in such a way as to abolish the Senate. I am grateful to the house, I may say, for the decision made yesterday on first reading, although I confess I was surprised that an attempt was made to prevent a member from introducing a bill. However, this attempt was overcome by a majority vote, in line with the tradition of this parliament whereby leave to introduce a bill is automatic, followed by first reading so that members may have the opportunity to read the printed bill and to see what it is all about.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the hon. member, knowing the rules so well, will appreciate that comment on a vote held on a previous occasion is not permissible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that welcoming a vote on a previous day is hardly out of order. I am also delighted, as a result of the discussion which took place yesterday, that the house agreed unanimously to permit this bill to be placed at the top of the list of public bills and thus be called for second reading today. As I listened to the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday, when he gave on his party's behalf unanimous consent, and as I read those words in Hansard, I felt he had committed this house to a moral obligation. He said that he and his party were prepared to give the required unanimous consent so that members of the house could stand up and be counted as to where they stand on this legislation. Therefore I feel that hon. members, having agreed to the debate this afternoon, are under a moral obligation to permit this bill to come to a vote and that they should not engage in talking it out. If that should happen, or if that should be threatened, I trust that at six o'clock there will again be unanimous consent to this bill's retaining its position at the top of the list.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does he consider that
within the sphere of one hour there can be an exhaustive discussion of this important bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize the difficulty of this being accomplished within one hour, but those were the terms stated by the Leader of the Opposition when he agreed to unanimous consent yesterday. I think either one of two things should be done. Either a vote should be allowed before six o'clock, or else more time should be permitted so that a vote can be taken on this issue. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this bill should not be talked out but that arrangements should be made so that members can stand up and be counted, giving an indication as to where they stand on this issue.
I also want to express the hope that on this very important issue we might have, in all parties if you please, what is sometimes referred to as a free vote. In other words, I hope we will not necessarily divide along party lines; and in particular if there are those on the government side who feel that they cannot vote for the principle of this bill by voting yes on second reading, that the other members on the government side will be free to vote for it if that is their view.
I want to say quite readily, Mr. Speaker, that I gave notice last Friday night of the introduction of this bill and I have brought it in at this time because the whole question of the Senate as a part of our parliamentary set-up has been brought into sharp focus by recent events. But it is not only because of recent events that I have introduced this bill. As hon. members know, the proposed abolition of the Senate is in the platform of the New Democratic party, and apparently I shall have to send a copy of the platform to a friend of mine in the other place who was under a misunderstanding last night.
As hon. members also know, many of us in all parties in Canada-and I can tell that this is so from the telegrams and messages I am getting at this time, many of which are from both Liberals and Conservatives-feel that this is a fundamental issue: Should our parliament have in it a body which has an equal say with the elected representatives, when the members of that body are not elected and are not responsible to the people of this country?
That is the basic issue. Are we really a democracy? Do we stand by the principle that the laws of a country should be made only by those who are elected by the people? If I make a mistake in this House of Commons, or if I vote the wrong way, or if I hold up parliament, I am responsible to the people of Winnipeg North Centre. I have to go back to them at the next election and face their

judgment. But a gentleman in the other place can stand up and do something which does damage to many people across the country, and he is responsible to no one, not even to the person who recommended his appointment to that place. I suggest that there is a basic inconsistency in that position and that in this day and age our parliament should consist only of those who are elected by the people and who are responsible to them.
It is sometimes argued-in fact it is put up as the last argument for the retention of a non-elected second chamber in our parliament -that this was part of the original arrangement and was provided as a protection for minorities, particularly as a protection for the provinces of this country as such. I think the answer to that is to ask what the Senate has done to protect the rights of the provinces. What has the Senate done to protect minorities in this country? Any protection that has been provided either to the provinces or to the minorities of this country has been provided by parliament as a whole, through legislation emanating from this elected House of Commons, or by the courts.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that on first reading no debate was possible, certain debate did arise on a point of order, so that we have been given a preview of some of the arguments against this bill. One of the arguments made was that the bill is unconstitutional; that we do not have the right to amend our constitution in this way. You sir, in my view made a proper ruling when you indicated that it was not the function of the Chair to rule on constitutionality. After all, sir, if you started doing that your life would be a busier one than it is already.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Could he tell the house what hopes he anticipates his bill has of passing the Senate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am coming to that in a minute if my hon. friend will let me. As I was saying, the question of deciding on the constitutionality of every piece of pension legislation or family allowance proposal, or anything of that nature, is surely not a function for Your Honour but must be a function for the courts.
It is my submission that under section 91A of the British North America Act parliament has the right to amend our constitution with respect to matters exclusively federal. We do from time to time amend our constitution as to the representation in this house among the provinces. We have taken steps to try to amend the constitution with respect to the qualifications of senators. I submit that this is a federal matter and that we have the right to make such an amendment in parliament.
British North America Act
It has been suggested as part of the argument against this bill that it is unilateral; that it is an attempt on our part, on the part of the House of Commons, to abolish the other place. I thought we had the reductio ad absurdum when it was suggested that, if that is the case, the Senate could bring in a bill to abolish the House of Commons. Surely it should be clear to all members that this is not a unilateral action on our part. This is a bill which to become law would have to be passed by this house and the Senate, and would then have to receive royal assent; so it is not unilateral action but parliamentary action.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member allow a question. Would it not also require the consent of the provinces?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That question is an assertion by the Leader of the Opposition, backed by some of his supporters. I am equally entitled to make the assertion that under section 91A it is not necessary to have the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution with respect to matters which are exclusively federal. Indeed, I ask the Leader of the Opposition, did he get the consent of the provinces before he proposed to amend the British North America Act with respect to the age of senators?


Mr. Nowlan:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking the Leader of the Opposition, who is making no reply.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the hon. member permit this question? Does he not recognize a difference between abolition and a change in age? So far as the provinces are concerned, is there not a difference between whether a senator is 74 years and 11 months or 76 years old and whether the Senate is to be abolished entirely? The whole question of abolition goes to the root of the constitution of the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the direct answer to the hon. member's question is no; it would not make any difference to a province so far as those two points are concerned. I have to watch my time, Mr. Speaker, for I have only 20 minutes. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wants to know whether I think the Senate will pass this bill. I do not imagine that the Senate would pass this bill, certainly in today's atmosphere, if this house were to pass it, but I say to him and to the country that if the House of Commons passes a bill like this and the Senate defeats it, and if the House of Commons passes it again and the Senate defeats it, and if this goes on, and then there is an election, the Senate will
1866	HOUSE OF
British North America Act come to realize that the will of the people must be recognized and such a bill would be passed. The only way you get something like this done, the only way you get any reform, is by starting it. That is why I am not a Conservative. I believe in looking forward.


An hon. Member:: Just a Liberal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That of course is nonsense. Yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggested that my bill was improper because it would not protect the provinces from the point of view of the number of members they have in the House of Commons. He pointed out there are certain floors in the British North America Act with respect to membership in this house which are based on the number of senators that the provinces have in the other place. That has been the law since 1915. I suggest it was downgrading the Senate to say that is all it is, a body to provide certain numbers below which the numbers in this house will not fall.


Mr, Lambert:: What a specious argument.


Mr, Knowles:: The fact is that in my bill there are clauses that protect the representation of the provinces in this house on the basis of the number of senators that a province had in the other place on the last day of the Senate's existence.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make it fast.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the fact that the bill purports to amend section 133 of the British North America Act does the hon. member think this article can be amended unilaterally as proposed in the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are not on the clauses of the bill, but this is a very important point that the hon. member has raised. In so far as the bill amends any of the sections of the British North America Act other than the first one it amends, it does so consequentially. It does it only by taking out references to the Senate. The amendment to section 133 of the British North America Act makes no change of substance in section 133 as it now stands. All it does is to delete references to the Senate, the Senate having already been abolished by an earlier clause of my bill.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member knows this will set a precedent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member knows I have only 20 minutes. It has been said in various ways that we have no right to take this action. In reply to that I should like to 

point out that at least two of the provinces of Canada have taken by themselves the kind of action that is proposed in this bill. I have in my hand a copy of chapter 28 of the statutes of the legislature of Manitoba for 1876. To go back to 1870 when Manitoba was constituted, it then had two houses, a legislative council and a legislative assembly, but by act of the legislature in 1876, which I have here, the upper house was abolished and the legislature of Manitoba was declared to consist of the lieutenant governor and the legislative assembly.
In the same way the province of Nova Scotia in the session of the legislature in 1928, that recently if you please, passed an act which abolished the legislative council and amended the constitution of the province. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that my bill would destroy parliament. That was a nonsensical observation. Manitoba did not destroy its legislature when it abolished the non-elected upper chamber; it strengthened the legislature. Nova Scotia did not destroy its legislature when it abolished its upper chamber; it strengthened the legislature. I suggest it would not destroy the parliament of Canada by one iota if we were to do away with the non-elected wing of it. We would be strengthening our parliament if we were to put it on the basis of complete parliamentary democracy.
Some hon. members have been saying that the House of Commons has been insulting the other place and my action has been characterized in certain ways. I could never say of the Senate what some people have said about it. There is just one quotation I should like to read. I will indicate its author, but I take it from page 339 of the book, "The Government of Canada", by MacGregor Dawson:
A senatorship isn't a job, it's a title. Also it's a blessing, a stroke of good fate; something like drawing a royal straight flush in the biggest pot of the evening, or winning the Calcutta sweep. That's why we think it wrong to think of a senatorship as a job; and wrong to think of the Senate as a place where people are supposed to work. Pensions aren't given for work.
The author of those words uttered in 1942 is the gentleman who is now the senator for Carleton in the other place, my friend Hon. Senator O'Leary. That same gentleman and others have talked about the dignity that should be accorded to the Senate. I say that dignity is not something you get by having it accorded to you. Dignity is something you earn, and the Senate of Canada has not earned dignity so far as the people of Canada are concerned by the way in which it has acted in the last few weeks. It certainly did not earn dignity when it delayed to 35,000 unemployed people in this country, even by one day, payment of their unemployment

insurance warrants to which they were entitled under legislation of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends want to put the blame on the Liberals. I will join them in putting all kinds of blame on the Liberals for their delay, their bungling and mishandling of the business of the house. But when we got down to the wire and the last day had come and the money for the payment of these warrants was not available except by parliamentary action, I say that anyone in this house or in the other place who acted as the Senate did was indulging in most undignified action. What was done deserves the criticism that has been heaped on the other place.
Some people say to me: Is there not a place for people like those who are in the Senate? Is there not a job for them to do in our Canadian set-up? I think there is. I believe there are roles for elder statesmen. I think that the kind of job which some of the senators have done in working on committees that have studied unemployment, aging, land use and other subjects have been good, have been constructive and worth-while efforts. But it is one thing to engage in a piece of research, one thing to do a job for Canada that is helpful to the elected representatives of the people, and another thing to have at the same time the right of veto or the right of delay with regard to legislation passed in this house.
Most Canadians are not aware, of course, of the fact that the Senate, unlike the House of Lords at Westminster, unlike the president of the United States with their temporary veto power, can go on year after year to the end of time, if it wishes to do so, saying no to legislation passed in this house. I raise this not as criticism of my friends in the other place, and I have many friends over there. I have known many of them when they were in this house and they are still friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They meet me in the hall and I have lunch with them and we can still talk. They know, even if my Conservative friends in this house do not, that what is being discussed now is not a matter of personalities but rather a basic principle of democracy, and in that light I think the day must come when Canada will have to do certain things to improve our parliamentary set-up. We have got improvements to make.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask one question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. We have got improvements to make. I think there are real improvements that we must make in this House of Commons and in my view we on
British North America Act the opposition side of the house have just as much responsibility to make improvements as those on the government side. But that does not deny our right to look at the whole picture and to say to the people of Canada that we in this House of Commons think that the time has come for parliament to be put on a completely democratic basis. That is why I ask the house to consider favourably this bill which will do what we have a right to do, amend our constitution so as to make our parliament consist, as my bill says, of the Queen and the House of Commons, an elected body with final authority to legislate on behalf of the people of Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member referred to the veto year in and year out to the end of time. I should like to ask him how many examples he can give, other than the class or kind legislation which was unfortunate, of the veto ever having been exercised. How many cases have we had since confederation? I suggest the hon. member can count them oh the fingers of one hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Senate vetoed the first old age pension bill and as far as I am concerned that is enough. It has vetoed several other measures as well. I thought my hon, friend was going to ask me whether there had been any examples of their doing it year in and year out. There are not, but that is not the point. The point is that the way our constitution reads, unlike that of other bodies, they have been given the right to reject what we pass this year, to reject it again next year and to reject it in the next parliament. No parliamentary constitution should read in those terms. Those were the terms in which people believed about a hundred years ago when they drew up our constitution, but today we recognize that parliamentary democracy means that those who pass upon legislation should be responsible to the people.


George Clyde Nowlan: After that speech, will the hon. member answer my question? How many times has this been done? He has referred to the old age pension legislation, and as he knows this is a dead issue now. The class and kind legislation is the only instance of which I am aware during the 15 years I have been here. The hon. member has been alleging that they do this on many occasions, and will he give examples.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is putting words into my mouth. I have not stated that the Senate has exercised unduly its veto power, which it has under the constitution. In effect, of course, it did so on Friday night,

British North America Act and I understand that today the Senate adjourned until April 20. It is going to be difficult for the government to suggest now that these supplementary estimates are urgent if the Senate is not coming back until the 20th of April. I suggest that just as justice delayed is justice denied, so legislation delayed is legislation denied. They are holding a whip hand over us. They are not responsible to anyone, not one man or woman over there is responsible to anyone, but we are responsible to the people who elected us. We have to go back to the people who sent us here, and I want our entire parliament to be on that basis.


Mr. John M. Turner (Si. Lawrence-Sl. George):: I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will allow that there is not only a moral right to vote on issues of importance before this house, but there is also a moral right to discuss them. Within those terms I should like, with the permission of the house, to discuss this bill in as objective a fashion as I can.
First of all, I should like to say that the incident which provoked the introduction of the hon. member's bill was an indefensible action by the hon. senator from Carleton in blocking the passage of an appropriation bill which contained money for the unemployment insurance fund. I should like to deal with this particular issue first because, as I said, it was the one which impelled the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to introduce this issue. The hon. senator for Carleton-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Michael Starr: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? When he said that the senator's action provoked the introduction of this bill, will he not admit that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in this house that he had this bill prepared two weeks ago?


John Napier Turner: I can only reply that the coincidence in timing as between the rejection of the unemployment insurance fund money and the introduction of this bill is too fortuitous to pass unnoticed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit me to inform him that both he and the hon. member for Ontario are right?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was a grandstand job.


John Napier Turner: I think anyone who gets a split decision from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be grateful.
I want to say to this house that the hon. senator took the wrong time and the wrong issue-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I submit that the rules forbid casting reflections on statements made by members of the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member, if he refers to action taken in the other place, would make his point just as effectively.


John Napier Turner: I say with great respect that the exercise of the rights and privileges of the other place on this occasion affected human needs and human rights, and directly affected the right of the Canadian nation to pay back to the people who contributed to the unemployment insurance fund the money they needed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You want a whipping boy; that is all you want.


John Napier Turner: I think the issue was put very fairly by an editorial in the Globe and Mail of April 6 in which it was stated that Canada failed not only in compassion but in fulfilling a statutory obligation toward the unemployed of this country.


An hon. Member:: Talk on the bill.


John Napier Turner: I submit the hon. senator from Carleton could have found a better issue upon which to exercise the rights and privileges of the other house. He might have chosen a bill that was not a money bill, and one over which the Senate has no original jurisdiction.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are discussing this question about the other place, I feel we should retain the courtesies and rules of our own house. I refer Your Honour to citation 147 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
Allusions to debates in the other house are out of order, and there are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate and for observing courtesy between houses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: While the debate does concern the other place, I think we must admit that they are still in existence and we must follow the rules laid down.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I had attempted to intimate in that last observation that we should refer to the other place rather than to individuals. I am sure the hon. member has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and I think he has made a good suggestion.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I rise on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: But, Mr. Speaker-


Richard Joseph Cashin: Speaking to the point of order that has been raised, I may say that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has been referring to the collective action of the other place. With regard to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who preceded him, it was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings who asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to make reference to the other place. You cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: With all the respect I have for the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I suggest to him it is very difficult to discuss this bill having to do with the abolition of the other place without referring from time to time to the other place.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I only referred to the debate in the other place.


John Napier Turner: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the other place might have chosen a better issue upon which to exercise its privileges, in view of the fact that money bills are not within its originating jurisdiction under section 53 of the British North America Act.
Turning now to the bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I am going to suggest to him that in this instance he might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.


An hon. Member:: Some pretty old babies.


Mr. Moreau:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Breton South would mind asking the hon. members of his party to give the same degree of attention and silence to the hon. member who has the floor that he demands in this house?


Mr. Winkler:: Why don't you practise what you preach?


Malcolm MacInnis: I am still here waiting for you to recognize the fact that I was on my feet.


Mr. Speaker:: There was a point of order to my right. The point was made. The hon. member rose to ask a question. As the hon. member knows, the hon. member who has the floor need not give him the right to ask a question unless he wishes.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I recognize the fact that the hon. member does not have to submit to questions, but now you have recognized a point of order made on that side, with respect to the fact that I was on my feet, and I call your attention, sir, to the fact that you ruled on that
British North America Act point of order before I said a word, and so therefore he did not have a point of order to begin with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question now is the time to ask his question of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), and it is up to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to decide whether to answer it or not.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I rose to ask a question of the hon. member from St. George, or whatever the constituency is, and the hon. member seated over here on this side rose to call your attention to a point of order about me recognizing the rights of other members. I would direct your attention to the fact that you said there was a point of order raised over there. That point of order had to do with my being on my feet, and I would call your attention to the fact that up until that point I had not said one word; yet you saw fit to make a ruling on the fact that I was standing up, even though I had not said one word. B[ow could you, sir, rule on such a point of order, and why not, sir, get up and call the attention of hon. members on the opposite side to their behaviour?


Mr. Speaker:: It is at times such as this that the Speaker must have a controlled manner; at least I am told so. The hon. gentleman must realize that we only have an hour for this debate, and I would ask him to forget what has gone and let us get on with the matter before the house.


John Napier Turner: It is always a pleasure to take part in a quiet, friendly debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who introduced the bill neglected -I might say in a rather precipitate way-to explore the other avenues that might be open to him to achieve a more salutary performance in the upper chamber. He did not explore methods of reform. He did not explore the constitutional reforms available, nor the administrative reforms that might be discussed. Nor did he, I say with respect, deal with the constitutional problems involved in this bill and the practical consequences of it in terms of federal-provincial relations.
On reading the debates that preceded confederation, and the debates that preceded the London conference, I think it is quite clear that the purpose of the Senate was to preserve the territorial equality as between Upper and Lower Canada, and to preserve the rights of the maritimes. Anyone who takes the trouble to read those debates would find it an inevitable conclusion of such reading that neither Lower Canada nor the maritimes
1870	HOUSE OF
British North America Act would have come into confederation had the principle of equality of representation in the upper house not been achieved.
That being so, it is not merely a question of analysing section 91A of the British North America Act, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did yesterday. It is not merely a question of analysing whether the federal government, with the unanimous consent of the provinces, has jurisdiction to abolish or even reform the Senate. The question, rather, is a practical one: Whether in terms of today's Canada the abolition of the Senate, which has as one of its historical reasons and impulses the protection of territorial equality among the partners to confederation is practically possible. The question is whether the provinces to this confederation would consent to such abolition. Whether the constitutional matter is decided one way or another-and I would say there are grave doubts that section 91A of the British North America Act is wide enough within its purview to allow this bill-whether or not there is constitutional justification for it, certainly the provinces would probably take great exception to an elimination of this historic right.
I would refer the house to reports of the proceedings of the 1950 and 1951 federal-provincial conferences at which this question came up, and every province, except Saskatchewan, filed in the minutes of those proceedings their veto against the abolition or fundamental constitutional reform of the Senate without their consent. That is a matter of record in the historical documents of this country and one which the hon. member, I say with the greatest deference to his knowledge and experience, has failed to consider.
I will concede with him that in practical terms today the other place has not been the first bastion of provincial rights. The growth of the cabinet system, the way the cabinets have been chosen in Canada, representing various regions and ethnic groups, the fact that the courts have traditionally been the first protection, certainly constitutionally, of provincial rights, the fact that in terms of practical politics any federal government that persisted in acting to the detriment of any section of the country could not long survive -all this has made the traditional role of the Senate as a protector of provincial rights less valid. But, speaking in practical terms, the records of this country show that the provinces almost unanimously have objected to any step that would abolish the other place, and this is recorded in the minutes of the federal-provincial conferences.


Now, looking at the records too, may I refer to a speech made in Cobourg on January 28, 1957, during the election campaign of that epoch, when the Leader of the Opposition said to the people of Cobourg that his party promised to call a conference of the federal and provincial governments on reform of the Senate, if he were to become prime minister. I would like to read his words into the record:
We will convene a conference of the dominion and provincial governments and on the basis of its recommendations will make the Senate an effective instrument of parliamentary government.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member what date that was?


John Napier Turner: January 28, 1957.


Mr. Greene:: That was the vision.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has seen fit to answer a question, probably he would answer another. Would the hon. member take time out to read the Hansards of the other place, and for his own benefit read the last paragraph of the April 1, issue, page 258 and, having read it, will he reconsider his opening remarks?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I might say in answer to that question that I have read the words the hon. member refers to, and perhaps on this he could take time out.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member now identify the person who made the remarks?


John Napier Turner: There are two pages that the hon. member refers to.


Malcolm MacInnis: I referred to one paragraph.


John Napier Turner: I would like to proceed with my argument. The basis of what I would like to say here is that the other place-and here we have a puzzle, what I once called a conundrum in this country-that the other place must either be given an opportunity of exercising a useful role in the parliamentary system, to exercise in Sir John A. Macdonald's own words, familiar enough to him, "a sober second thought" on legislation wherein he conceived the Senate would be the controlling or regulatory rather than the initiating branch of parliament, or it must cease to exist at all. Then, surely, and only then, would it be the duty of this house after a properly conceived and thorough debate to refer the question of reform to a federal-provincial conference. The problem as I see it is this: The other place is not given enough to do. Most of our legislation is introduced in this house as it has to be, under the terms of section 53, in respect of money bills. Most of the major bills brought before parliament

have to do with money and, in consequence, they are introduced here, debated at length, and finally referred to the other place only at a late stage in the parliamentary session.
At one time the composition of the cabinet used to include a member or two from the Senate. This is another role which has been minimized of late years and, in consequence, the other place is less useful than it might otherwise be. My suggestion is that we should seek to achieve administrative reforms which would allow important legislation to be introduced from time to time in the upper chamber for consideration there, particularly when such legislation was of a non-partisan nature or not too controversial. Either we should do this or we should proceed to a more fundamental reform along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member has himself recognized the validity and effectiveness of the Senate committee system. There is, I am sure it will be agreed, a non-partisan attitude taken toward legislation, and I should like to direct the attention of the house-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, I think the time allowed to the hon. member has expired and that members of other parties should be allowed to express their views.


John Napier Turner: With the greatest respect, I wonder if I might be given a few minutes in which to terminate, since most of my remarks were punctuated-


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that more time be allotted to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yesterday I raised certain objections to this measure. I have now examined it in detail and listened to its proposer, and I am just as thoroughly convinced that this is a bad bill.
This bill does not seek to reform the Senate. This bill simply abolishes the Senate. This bill seeks drastically to alter the composition of the parliament of Canada. That is the issue before us today. We are not here to discuss reform of the Senate in any particular. This bill seeks to destroy parliament as we know it and as we have known it since confederation. I emphasize this particularly, because if the measure were aimed at the reform of the Senate there would be many matters which this house could discuss. It is generally agreed that the Senate could become more effective if a number of reforms were made. The official opposition has long been in favour of the reform of the Senate and has, in fact, brought forward resolutions in this
British North America Act regard. I would refer hon. members to Hansard, particularly to the reports of our debates in 1954, and suggest they read the speeches made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), and others, all dealing with the matter of Senate reform. Let us be perfectly clear. We are not discussing Senate reform today but the complete abolition of the Senate.
The official opposition unequivocally opposes this bill because it strikes at the roots of parliament. Parliament is composed of the Queen, the Senate and the commons. Passage of the hon. member's bill through this house would be as illogical and absurd as it would be to suggest that the Senate could, in its turn, legislate the House of Commons out of existence, and I repeat this, notwithstanding the glib phrases used by the proposer of the measure before us.
I would also bring this to the attention of hon. members: In accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act as it now stands, the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are given constitutional guarantees as to their representation in this house. We need only look at history leading up to confederation. Let hon. members consider the development of the western provinces which also received a bloc of 24 Senate seats. We had the Atlantic provinces, we had Ontario, we had Quebec and we had the western provinces. There is no one, and I include the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who can say it was not a basic condition of entry into confederation that the rights of the provinces would be protected through their equal representation by divisions in the Senate. Changes of population in the interval have, of course, affected the position. When the four western provinces were allocated their 24 Senators, their population was minute. In contrast the population of my own province today outnumbers the present population of the original maritime provinces. Well, we have six Senators to their 24.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What protection have they given you?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But there is still protection. You do not have to use the police in order to get the protection of the police; they are there.


Miss LaMarsh:: Like Robarts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I love the interruptions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh); they are so helpful to her colleagues on other occasions.

British North America Act
It is alleged that the purpose of this bill is to implement the principle that legislation should be enacted only by elected representatives responsible to the people. If it is alleged that only an entirely elected form of government can be successful, I am sure history would prove that such a doctrine is fallacious. It is true that the party to which the hon. member belongs has advocated the abolition of the Senate for a number of years, but I say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is bringing forward his bill at this time merely as a publicity stunt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They have brought forward resolutions in the past. The hon. member says he had a bill ready. But then he suddenly seizes the occasion, in a fit of pique to put it forward, and I suggest he is merely trying to capitalize on a situation which has already been over-dramatized in order to milk out of that situation every vestige of publicity that can be gained from it.
The hon. member wants to talk. I suggest that he read Saturday's Edmonton Journal where the exact impact of last Friday's action is indicated by the manager of the unemployment insurance commission office there, who says: "Fifteen thousand unemployed will not have one moment's delay because their cheques were due to go out Tuesday." This has been a case of over-dramatization. If the hon. member wants to talk about reform, fine. He is talking about abolition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I do not want to talk about reform. I do want to talk about abolition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will not, in the circumstances-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order. Surely it is against the rules for any member to impute motives to another member in the course of discussion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member is a great one to rely on that rule. I would refer him to his own speeches.
I do not intend to examine further the situation which may have prompted the sudden filing of this bill, but if the confession of error on the hon. gentleman's part after bypassing the rules of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is difficult to hear the hon. member.


Mr. Peters:: You are not missing anything, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, after having heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North


Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others in this house confessing the error of bypassing the rules of this house some three weeks ago, I find it passing strange that the hon. member would now seek to criticize others who felt they should observe the rules. When this house flouted its rules, the hon. member did not seek to destroy it but urged greater adherence to our rules and perhaps some reformation in this house. When the third part of this parliament, or the Senate, found that it must adhere to its rules, and thereby did not meet, shall we say, the immediate desires of the hon. gentleman and, perhaps, the tyranny of a temporary majority, the hon. gentleman did not say "reform", he said "destroy".
Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of minutes that I have at my disposal, since other hon. members wish to speak, I say that I am thoroughly opposed to this bill. I repeat that there must be consent by the provinces, which are affected by this bill, prior to the abolition of the Senate. It is not a question of amendment; it is a question of abolition. In this regard I would say that every province in this country has a vested interest. It is not the case, as the hon. member said, of a province abolishing a part of its house. The federal government itself is not in the same position as the people in the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not at the moment. I have very little time left. If there is an extension of debate, perhaps I will; but not at the present time. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is thoroughly bad. It seeks to weaken our constitution. It seeks unilaterally to alter the Canadian constitution without prior consultation with and consent of the provinces, for whom the composition of the Senate was an essential condition of their participation in confederation. The wisdom of elected representatives can never be complete, and it would be an extremely dangerous step to take for us to agree that a unicameral house would have greater wisdom than our present form of government of one elected house and one appointed house. After all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not propose changing the Senate from an appointed body to an elected body so as to gain the benefit of the alleged principle of this bill that legislation should be enacted only by elected representatives responsible to the people. His purported remedy is merely abolition.
I would like hon. members opposite to be able to express their point of view. After all, by accepting first reading they were also

accepting that they should flout the constitution of this country. I would like to see the members of the government and their backbenchers state their views in regard to this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, does not the point of order raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) really apply now, when this reflection is put upon the vote of yesterday?


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member now permit a question from one of those so-called backbenchers?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is that the discussion this afternoon has surely shown to the satisfaction of most members of this house that a full and exhaustive discussion cannot take place within the hour set aside for this debate. Therefore I would ask Your Honour to ask the house if it would give unanimous consent so that one day, perhaps tomorrow or within ten days, would be set aside for a complete discussion of what is certainly a most important bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that in my opinion that is not a point of order. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that there are only about three or four minutes left, and perhaps he would be good enough to give them to the hon. member for Red Deer.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, now that the abolitionists and the conservationists have all had the chance to shout their words across the house, there are about two minutes left for something constructive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, the weight of that halo.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Watch out; you will be sent to the Senate.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, while I do not condone the situation that exists at the present time in the Senate, neither am I in favour of the abolition of the other place because I believe that if the Senate were properly reformed it could All a very useful and constructive purpose in our parliamentary system of government. That could be as a house of scrutiny, a house of second thought, a
British North America Act house from which we could draw many of our commissioners to deal with our public and governmental problems.
However, the Senate must be something more than a rubber stamp. If this house really expects the Senate to be nothing more than that, quite obviously it has become a very expensive rubber stamp and the bill we are now considering is an intelligent one. I would suggest, however, that what is wrong is not the fact that we have a Senate, but the shameful way in which both senators and the institution of the Senate have been treated by the present and past administrations of the old line party systems.
The Senate as we have it today is not that useful part of the government of Canada that was intended by the fathers of confederation. Instead it is a pasture for the political war horses of the old line parties who have outlived their strength and usefulness and are now put out to grass. It is a place, too often, to which the incompetent can be retired without disgracing the administration to which they once belonged. No wonder that a body composed in this manner commands little respect and that those members who try to discharge its function in a useful manner are flouted. Therefore I believe it is our responsibility at another time to debate intelligently and in a positive way methods by which the Senate can be reformed.
It is an indictment of our parliamentary system that in Alberta a Social Credit government for nearly 30 years, a C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan for 20 years, a Social Credit government in British Columbia for 12 years and, yes, a Union Nationale government in Quebec for 20 years have never been recognized; they have been ignored completely in this regard. I can think of an elder statesman who served in this house, who belongs to the party of the hon. member who moved this bill and who would make a very responsible and deserving senator if he were given that opportunity. I speak of M. J. Coldwell. Therefore I believe that in consultation with the provinces we ought to get together and reform the Senate and make it the useful body that it should be.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the obvious interest in this bill, I wonder whether the house would give unanimous consent to-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me finish. I wonder whether the house would give unanimous consent to this bill being allowed to stay at the top of the list of public bills so it could have at least one more hour's debate?

Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to say that I do not hear unanimous consent given to the suggestion of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There are some noes. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we could not hear any noes. Where did they come from?


Mr. Speaker:: There are noes. In order that there be no doubt at all, when I asked for unanimous consent I did hear noes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: They were all from the Grits over there.


Some hon. Members:: No. Pigeon, Pigeon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Same old bunch.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order, please. It being six p'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
i The Chairman: Order. House again in com-ipittee of supply, supplementary estimates E for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964, vote No. le, Department of Justice. The hon. member for Wellington-Huron.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we were on a point of order at five o'clock and I had been on my feet asking for the opportunity to speak to that point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member wish to speak to the point of order? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock, as I think the hon. member for Winnipeg

South Centre will recall, I was on my feet speaking to the point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am willing to hear the hon. member if he wishes to address the Chair at the moment. I must say very honestly it was my feeling that the point of order had been raised, arguments had been made on both sides, and I was hoping that the matter might perhaps be allowed to rest there and that we could now hear the hon. member for Wellington-Huron. This would be my suggestion.


William Marvin Howe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks will be quite brief, as they would have been at a quarter to five if I had not been interrupted by the Minister of Justice and the President of the Privy Council. I am not one of the more loquacious members of the house so I thought I was perfectly in order in raising this particular question. It has to do with the appointment of lawyers by the Department of Justice to look after Farm Credit Corporation legal work. Before 1957 or 1958 there were not too many lawyers doing this work. I believe it was in 1959 that the Department of Justice divided the country into areas for the convenience of the farmers who were going to be served by the corporation. This action was taken for the convenience of the fanners and not for the convenience of the lawyers or the Farm Credit Corporation.
I have particular reference to a situation which has developed in that part of the county of Huron which I represent. After 1958 a lawyer in Wingham was appointed to look after the work in the eastern portion of the county. The lawyer who is now doing the work lives in Goderich, 40 or 50 miles away. I feel it is important for the convenience of the farmers in the area to which I have referred that the department and the minister should give consideration to appointing someone from the legal profession in the town of Wingham to look after the Farm Credit Corporation work. I should like the minister to take this into consideration.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I have three questions I should like to ask the minister. I am sure the first one is familiar to him. I should like to know the composition and the schedule of the firearms study committee he spoke about in the house on March 9. I ask this question because I have had representations both from individuals and Canada-wide organizations such as the Canadian wildlife federation regarding the membership of the committee and whether there will be any opportunity for fish and game clubs and

other such organizations to make representations before the committee's report is embodied in amendments or changes in regulations. I think the minister is aware that these groups feel too much haste in introducing regulations that would limit the use of firearms according to age might wipe out their strong and extended programs for the thorough schooling of young people in the use of firearms.
The second question I should like to ask the minister concerns a matter about which some people have also made representations to me. It involves a judge of the Quebec courts by the name of Ouimet who sentenced a man to jail for 12J months, I believe, for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing a decision that the judge had made. I do not want to make any comments about it. I have read the decision of the judge and the letter in question and I am afraid that neither my French nor my understanding of the law is sufficient for me to make any comment. However, I wonder whether this sentence has been drawn to the minister's attention and whether any of his officials have looked at it from the point of view of its severity. I know that I have been critical of judges' decisions and have come close to writing letters that would have been no more vitriolic than the one in question here, and it is for that reason I should like to know whether this sentence has been looked at or whether the minister has heard anything from the provincial crown attorney or attorney general with regard to it.
The third question is a more general one, although it has a specific which I have raised with two previous ministers of justice. It is the old question of the replacement or retirement of incompetent judges. I think it is supposed to be understood that there is no such thing as an incompetent judge, but I do know of one particular situation that is bothering a great many members of the bar and also the general public. When representations were made it was pointed out that there was no place to which to shift the judge. The suggestion was made that perhaps such a judge could be shifted to a very large metropolitan centre like Toronto where he would not be any problem at all, but I gather the reply was that Toronto is already saddled with a couple of such judges and this just would not do.
I am serious about this question. I should like to know whether the minister is giving any consideration at all to how judges, particularly in the superior courts, who are not carrying out their functions properly and about whom there are complaints, can be either replaced or given some kind of honourable retirement. Since these are three separate
Supply-J ustice
and simple questions I have raised I would appreciate it very much if the minister would give me the answers right away.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I say I am answering subject to the caveat I have entered three times already. I feel quite concerned about speaking or\ these matters because I am afraid I am completely out of order in doing so. As I said, I am sure in my own mind that an item seeking leave to pay $10,000 to the Canadian corrections association to assist in defraying the expenses of the fifth international criminological congress in Montreal certainly does not cover these subjects.
However, the hon. member who has put these three questions will at least agree that, in so far as I personally am concerned, I have never avoided any personal conversations, or refused to furnish full information on a personal basis. So far as the composition and details of the firearms committee are concerned, I must say that I do not have same at my fingertips. I do not have the names of the members. It is an interdepartmental committee that has had several sittings. I have already begun to look into the reports of that committee and have been discussing same not with the members themselves, but through one of my officials in charge of the criminal law section. I have already made one answer in the house to the effect that, for the moment, there was no intention of curtailing the use of firearms. The only limitations that were under study, not considered for recommendation but under study were, (a) the possibility of increasing the age at which a person could use a firearm without being under the control of a responsible person and, (b), preventing the use of firearms by certain people, inter alia people already found guilty of offences against our laws.
As to the second point raised with regard to the sentence which has been imposed by Mr. Justice Ouimet, I must say that, like my hon. friend, I am not in a position to state exactly the duration of the sentence involved. However, I recall quite clearly that this was one case where a person, having read about a sentence which included the condemnation to lashing felt that this was an undue type of condemnation to impose and wrote a letter to the newspapers which could have been termed at least inflammatory. The person concerned was charged, with contempt of court, because the judge, in imposing sentence, had not gone beyond the scope of his jurisdiction under the code. The person had inferred, in the language used, that the judge had been wrong in applying the law.

Supply-Justice
There are two questions raised by this incident. The first one is connected with the administration of justice. This is, of course, purely a matter for the provincial government under the British North America Act. The second question is one which I hope we are not going to discuss fully here tonight, and that is the matter of the propriety of henceforth maintaining in the code provision for a sentence to lashing.
In so far as the replacement or retirement of incompetent judges is concerned, I must answer that the question of revolving judges either by districts or otherwise is one for the chief justice of each court. It is governed also by the principles followed in administering justice in the provinces. Since I have not been responsible as yet for the appointment of any judges I can at least say that if some are incompetent, as my hon. friend alleges, they have not been appointed by me. I can at least promise the committee that I shall try to be careful to appoint judges who are as competent as it is possible to get them.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: At a later date I want to make a rather full statement in connection with the question of penitentiaries administration and the particular problem of minimum security institutions. For the time being I should like the minister to comment on a matter that is very seriously concerning me, and several other people who are in the same situation. I refer to the general policy of the decentralization of penal institutions.
It has been long recognized that there are many inmates of institutions who can be rehabilitated. However, these people have to be segregated from the others and given training programs. It is a very difficult matter to put a program like this into effect. The public is far from sympathetic and there are failures even under this type of program. I believe that within the administration of the penitentiaries branch possibly there are people who doubt the advisability of minimum security institutions and the segregation of different classes of prisoners. It takes a strong government and a strong minister to lay down a policy in connection with prison reform and to carry it out. If he does not do this himself the program will begin to disintegrate.
I am concerned because of a feeling that two things are happening, and I hope the minister can ease my conscience about both these things. First, I am concerned that the policy that was instituted some years ago by Hon. Davie Fulton of decentralizing penal institutions into many smaller units and into maximum and minimum security institutions, is being abandoned. Then, I am concerned lest there is an effort on behalf of the government to phase out minimum security insti-
[Mr. FavreauJ
tutions now in existence. I have recently had evidence placed before me that at least one minimum security institution already in operation may be in the process of being closed. I refer to the Beaver Creek camp. This, I feel, would be a reversal of the policy which was begun a few years ago and which has been quite successful. This camp is very close to me, and I have seen it grow and operate. It was well started and has had a very good history of keeping people out of trouble after they have been released.
There are indications that this government is giving in to those people within the penitentiaries branch who are against this type of penal reform. It seems to me that over the last few months the efforts of the government have been very largely turned towards building institutions on a patronage basis. I do not want to go into all the things that have been said about the Cornwall institution and the institutions that were supposed to have been put in Grey-Bruce, St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and so on. But it seems to me that the attitude of the previous minister, in the statements he made, was that the penitentiaries branch was merely considered by the government for building institutions in the ridings of its own members, and taking them out of the ridings of members of the opposition. In addition to that, it appears that some of the institutions that were planned, the minimum security institutions, are not only not being built in the ridings of opposition members but are not being built at all.
That program was started. It was successful, and I would like an assurance from the minister that he is firmly behind those people within his penitentiaries branch who support the minimum security institutions and the decentralization of prison farms and penitentiaries. I have a fairly extended speech prepared but I do not want to delay the estimates unduly. However, this is a matter I do not want to leave until we come to the main estimates. I want to be satisfied that the minimum security institutions system will be carried through and that the minister is wholeheartedly behind it. I ask the minister to give me such an assurance.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, while we are considering the estimates of the Department of Justice, I should like to say that I am particularly disappointed to see that the minister has not provided special items which would permit the government to launch a full inquiry into bankruptcies occurring across the country, and particularly in the province of Quebec, where the situation is becoming increasingly alarming-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to insist too much on the rules, but I am sure that up to now I have been very conciliating. I suggested that the only excuse we could have to discuss, on supplementary estimates, the question, for instance, of penitentiaries, which was discussed at some length, was in connection with the small grant of $10,000, which we are asking the house to approve and which is earmarked for the Canadian correction association. This association is concerned with penitentiaries.
However, we should bear in mind that, after the eleventh day, we are still on supplementary estimates. Even though discussion only lasted 30 or 40 minutes on certain days, we had at least eight full days of debate on the subject. I think that nothing in the present items justifies wandering, even for a short while, into the bankruptcy field, especially when budget items of my department will soon be submitted, at which time we will have every opportunity, on item 1 of the estimates of my department, to discuss such matters.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. I should like to point out once again to the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as house leader, what the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) read to him this afternoon, namely that on the first item of the estimates of each department, we should have a general discussion on the administration.
We are now on item 1 of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Justice and, therefore, we are permitted a general discussion on the administration of that department.
As indicated by item No. 40, the Department of Justice also has estimates concerning application of the Bankruptcy Act.
Now, my colleague from Compton-Frontenac has exceedingly important observations to make on a most important point concerning fraudulent bankruptcy in the province of Quebec, and that concerns the administration of the Department of Justice. I think that the minister, instead of trying to block the suggestions made by the members of this house, should listen carefully to what is said about things occurring in the city of the Minister of Justice, not to say in his own riding, namely the practice of fraudulent bankruptcies.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in concluding I may say that preventing us from discussing that point is a breach of the undertaking
Supply-Justice
entered into by the Minister of Justice himself, in his capacity as house leader, when we started the discussion on supplementary estimates.
That is why I say that the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac is completely in order and quite justified in discussing the point.
I also cannot but wonder why, some members of our group are prevented from taking part in the debate. The hon. member for Compton-Frontenac is the first who wishes to rise on those estimates, but they are trying to stop him.


An hon. Member:: He is the first one who is to be stopped.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member stated his point on the remarks started by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac. Would any hon. member like to make any other remarks on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice?


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, might I say one word? I would ask the house leader whether there is a means of reaching a new understanding? If we consider ourselves blocked by those old agreements, I would ask for a new agreement to enable us to proceed more quickly with the discussion of the supplementary estimates.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I should say I never have deceived the house neither on that point nor, indeed, on others. It should not be implied that there has been some agreement between house leaders on that matter.
The agreement to which the hon. member for Lapointe referred, and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue mentioned at noon, as allegedly recorded on page 876 of Hansard, is this. An attempt was made to limit the discussion to item 1 only of the estimates when there are all kinds of other items for each department.
It has been suggested that the discussion on section 1 could deal with all items, but that meant obviously only on such supplementary estimates as were requested from the house, so as not to limit entirely the discussion to section 1.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the Minister of Justice tell me once more what page of Hansard he is referring to?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what page 876 of the French edition says, nor was I in the house when the hon. member for Timiskaming rose this afternoon.


Guy Favreau: If my hon. friend will allow me, I was referring to page 876 in the English version, which he has.

Supply-Justice


Erik Nielsen: Well then, may I refer Your Honour to page 879 of Hansard for March 13 last, where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested the procedure that should be followed in discussing each department as it arose, that suggestion substantially being that on the first item of each department a general discussion of the department would ensue.
As recorded in the right hand column of that same page I had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, I think, for the purposes of orderly discussion in the consideration of all these departmental supplementary estimates, we should have this matter clear at the outset. I had the same understanding as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely that we would have a general discussion on the first item of each department as it arose.
I believe Your Honour was in the chair at the time, although I may be mistaken in my recollection, and as recorded at page 880 you had this to say:
Perhaps I may be allowed to conclude my remarks. The committee is in obvious agreement that this procedure should be followed-
-namely, that suggested by myself, as set forth originally by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-
-and I suggest that we follow it.
Surely there can be no attempt by the Minister of Justice at this late stage to limit the debate, in view of those previous commitments?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is perhaps a bit unfortunate that this matter has been raised from time to time. It is certainly a difficult point to rule upon, but in the opinion of the Chair there was, when we originated this discussion earlier in committee of supply, an understanding of some nature-I really cannot tell how far it went-that on the first item of each one of the departments where there is a general administration item there would be a discussion of a general nature. This has been my impression all along and this is why we have been following this procedure during the days while the supplementary estimates have been under consideration.
I point out that this does not mean we have suspended the ordinary rules of procedure in this committee. The general rules of relevancy still apply. Standing order number 59(2) still applies as does, of course, the citation from May which I quoted last night and which perhaps I should quote again for the benefit of hon. members. This reads:
Of course, it is quite obvious that it should be improper, as a general rule, to raise on a supplementary estimate the whole question of policy involved in the original estimate.
As I said last night, this is a general rule which we have to bear in mind even though

we have recognized that there can be a general discussion. In other words, my feeling is we have recognized that the committee may proceed with a general discussion on the first item where there is a general administration item. But the Chair should, I submit, rule on every particular intervention on its own merits so as to determine whether it follows the ordinary rules of relevancy which continue to apply, even in this debate.


Erik Nielsen: I think that for the purpose of clarification I have to make two points. The first is that when we began this discussion on March 13 this committee was in unanimous agreement that we should proceed to a general discussion on the first item of the estimates of each department. There was no agreement confined only to general administration items. That agreement covered all departments.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not think we should go into the matter further. I said, and I feel my thinking is generous enough, that we should consider each intervention on its merits. I have studied all the observations which have been made. I have considered what I myself, said. If the hon. member for Yukon would go through all the comments which were made on the point of order originally raised by various members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, he would see that it was the feeling of the members who brought up this point that there would be a general discussion where there was a general administration item. I think, in fact, that this would cover most of the departments; if my recollection is correct there are few whose estimates do not begin with a general administration item.
However, I do not think we should make a general ruling. We should consider each situation as it arises. In the present instance the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac has begun a discourse on the administration of bankruptcy. It would not be possible for the Chair to make a ruling on whether the hon. member is in order or not because I have not heard enough of his discourse and I invite him to continue his remarks for the time being.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, the Bankruptcy Act is inadequate, almost useless as far as its practical application is concerned, and the impact of this inefficiency is felt almost in all areas of business but especially, perhaps because of its more fragile nature, by small industry, by our small traders, which is very understandable indeed, large companies



I9E4

[Stage Direction]
being protected by lawyers who are expert in these matters, whereas the small trader, whoever he is, cannot afford to seek legal advice in view of the huge expenses involved.
The situation is such, Mr. Chairman-and I am certain that the minister, who is a brilliant lawyer, is aware of this-that Le Petit Journal for the week of March 15, 1964, published an article relating sensational revelations by a person in the know and entitled:
I worked in the fraudulent bankruptcy business.
That article describes the gigantic organization which controls this continuing fraud, and throws some light on the procedure used to entice tradesmen with financial problems to rush into the lion's mouth.
When newspapers have the courage to put before the population an article of this quality, it is hightime for legislators, and especially those who administer this famous act, to face up to their responsibilities and ask themselves frankly what changes are required in the light of recent events.
Mr. Chairman, may I quote in its entirety the introductory paragraph of this article, written by Mr. Conrad Bernier. It begins this way:
The season of the fat kine has been going on for some time for the experts in fraudulent bankruptcy. The number of their victims since a little over two years is unbelievable.
By its magnitude, by the strength and the complexity of its organization, the racket of fraudulent bankruptcies has taken such ugly, brutal and fantastic proportions that it is jeopardizing the entire local trade-
The author is referring to Montreal.
Allow me to mention to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) that as a small manufacturer, in Montreal only, out of ten customers to whom I sold goods, eight have gone bankrupt. I would therefore ask him to listen closely to this:
-which may be plunged in a complete chaos. The damages, states an eminent financier-
-and it is still Mr. Bernier who is writing-
-are huge and, faced with such gangsters, one feels very small, insignificant and lost. Those gangsters who hustle us and may even knock us down and squash us have corrupted and altered business to an extraordinary degree. The fraudulent bankruptcy racket has become an ever-spreading organization which must be hunted down and destroyed at all costs.
You can see as well as I do that those words leave no possible doubt as to the seriousness of the situation. Moreover, to assist him in his clean-up job, the Minister of Justice could surely rely on the solid support of his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), whose competence and integrity would undeniably be major assets in helping him take the pulse
Supply-Justice
of that situation, diagnose the disease and then apply the remedy required.
Reference was made to the setting up of a judicial committee or something of the kind in Montreal to have a look at the situation and probably submit a report which, like so many others, would wind up gathering dust in the departmental files.
The basic problem lies in the provisions of the act itself, and it is this act that should first be studied, revised, reviewed and amended. I intended to introduce a bill or a motion to that effect. I inquired of the house's legal adviser, but since he is overworked and that, according to him, such a revision would require almost a month's work and still, by a legal expert, it was considered almost impossible.
Only departmental officials can perform this work efficiently and officially, because questionings would no doubt be necessary. In fact, an entire legal machinery should be set up so as to throw some light on this unsavoury business that reeks of fraud and which our honest businessmen are practically unable to avoid, being blinded by a doubtful legality that leaves room for quibbling and interpretation by any sharp swindler.
Last year the minister of justice gave me several documents concerning bankruptcies following a question I had put on the order paper. Along with those statistics, some of which I will give in a few moments, I could read the following paragraph:
Who assumes the losses presumably suffered according to the figures given in those charts? The records at the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy do not give the total number of claims filed by the creditors, except when a dividend is declared. Consequently, the figures for the liabilities are those given by the debtors themselves and are only an estimation. Furthermore, when the secured creditors take back their securities, unless they give the amount really recovered, only an estimation based on the value of the securities can be made.
According to information available, we cannot distinguish between secured, preferred and unsecured creditors and determine the loss apparently sustained by each category.
It follows from this answer of the minister that the administrators of this act are as inefficient as the act itself.
A lot of technicalities are put forward and it is hardly possible to succeed with antiquated methods. Meanwhile, people who have devoted their whole life to building up a business, witness failure of their most legitimate ambitions and loss of the little they own because an inefficient act is unable to prevent swindlers from grasping their belongings.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to quote a few figures in support of my remarks. In 1958,
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice
in cases of non-summary proceedings, the estimated liabilities of debtors amounted to $34,330,098, and in cases of summary proceedings-
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would point out that the item the hon. member is now discussing is No. 40 of the main estimates of the Department of Justice. There is no item on this subject in the supplementary estimates now before the committee. There is, therefore, debate going on with regard to a subject matter that is not before the committee.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac has practically finished his observations. I think he has something worth listening to and the minister possibly has something to learn from what the hon. member has to say. Would the committee be considerate enough to let the hon. member terminate his observations on this matter?


Lucien Lamoureux: I might say that I have already expressed the views of the Chair on this general question, and I would be prepared to listen to the hon. member's speech.


Henry P. Latulippe: Estimated liabilities of debtors totalled $34,330,098 and, on summary conviction, $10,062,138. Those figures have kept on increasing since 1958 and have reached a point where, according to 1962 statistics, liabilities on non-summary conviction were $69,989,460 and $10,749,735 on summary conviction. Gentlemen, the present avalanche of bankruptcies will no doubt reach new records for the last fiscal year.
I will just give you the total amount of apparent losses for 1962; on non-summary conviction, they totalled $15,695,662 and $5,779,801 on summary conviction. And, as the Minister of Justice stated in the quotation I read at the beginning of my remarks, because of the present provisions of the law, it is extremely difficult to determine those losses with a normal degree of precision. Consequently, those figures are but a poor indication of an unfortunate situation and I will be happy to provide the information I have to anyone who wishes to examine the question.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister the following question, and I would appreciate it if, with his usual courtesy, he would take it into serious consideration: would the Minister of Justice be prepared to make an inquiry into these fraudulent bankruptcies? In addition, would he be prepared to establish a committee or another

body to study immediately the possibility of revamping the Bankruptcy Act. Finally, is the Minister of Justice ready to assume responsibility for instituting a temporary commission to scrutinize all bankruptcy cases, especially in Montreal and in the province of Quebec, until a preliminary report from the said commission has been submitted to his department?
Something must be done, for the situation has become tragic in several places; and the business community is becoming panicky, for it knows very well that the law, though existing, no longer protects them adequately.
Mr. Chairman, some tradesmen who have suffered from this situation asked me on several occasions whether there was in Ottawa a minister of justice or a minister of injustice. I would not go so far as calling the hon. member the minister of injustice, but if the situation in regard to bankruptcies continues and if the government and the Minister of Justice fail to face up to their responsibility, this will finally happen.


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to briefly draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that recently the Department of National Defence announced the closing down of the radar station at St. Sylvestre. There is at that place an immense site on which the Department of Justice could base some projects.
On the other hand, I have been informed, that the Department of Justice was interested in that site which, will be vacant in July, since the radar station will then be closed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the vacancy of that site at St. Sylvestre, if he has any projects for some rehabilitation institution, because he could establish some very beneficial institutions there.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a few remarks to the Minister of Justice in connection with some letters I have received from presidents of rifle clubs. I have one in my possession from the Coleman rifle and revolver club, Mr. John W. Dean. I have another from the Okotoks shooting club, from the president Mr. Denis Gough. I have many others in my file which I have referred to the minister, but up to now I have not received what seems to me a satisfactory explanation of either his views or the views of his government with regard to bringing forward legislation to restrict the use of firearms by private citizens. Some of these clubs fear that some irresponsible legislation might be brought forward by the justice department concerning the ownership and use of firearms

by private citizens. In essence their views, with which I agree, are that they do not think that further legislation, would be of any value, to unarm the irresponsible gunman.
I should like to add that when you go to outlying spots in western Canada the use of firearms is even encouraged among juniors. May I cite to the Minister of Justice an experience I had last summer at Aklavik in the Northwest Territories where the principal of the school conducted target practice in the basement of the school, teaching children the science of using firearms so that they might become skilled in shooting muskrats on the Mackenzie river delta. The same thing happened among the Indians at Old Crow. It is nothing uncommon to see young people in the west using 22's and other firearms to shoot gophers, and so on. I think it is a fine thing for these young people to gain experience, and the justice department should be encouraging them, rather than restricting the use of firearms and bringing forward legislation to this effect.
May I have the attention of the minister, because I am talking to him direct; it is his department which is concerned. I hope that he in turn will pay proper heed to these requests which are coming in from different gun clubs, and I trust he will think seriously before making any move to introduce further legislation to restrict the use of firearms in the hands of private citizens.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up a lot of time on these supplementary estimates, but there are one or two matters which I wish to draw to the attention of the minister. This is the first time we have had some of the estimates from the Department of Justice under consideration by the house for a matter of many months, so there is some justification on these supplementary estimates to probe a little deeper into the administration of this and other departments than is normally the case on supplementary estimates. Many of the estimates for the 1963-64 fiscal year were brought in prior to adjourning for Christmas, and in order to wind up the session some went through with less than one day's debate on the whole department. I think we should have an end to this criticism of members of the opposition who wish to bring up certain of these matters, because I would remind you that some of these matters we have had to keep to ourselves for more than two years.
I should like to ask the minister whether there is still a large backlog of cases before the Exchequer Court of Canada, particularly those concerning income tax appeals and matters of that kind. If there is, there is certainly something to this idea that justice
Supply-Justice
delayed is justice denied. I know one or two cases where income tax appeals have been placed before the Exchequer Court of Canada more than two years ago and a decision has not yet been handed down. I think it is time to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that if this court is unable to cope with the volume of work coming before it something should be done to expand its facilities, or some other kind of arrangement should be made so that some decisions can be reached with regard to these appeals.
As I said, I did not want to take up a lot of time but this is something that has been troubling a lot of citizens of Canada for a long period. Therefore I hope the Minister of Justice will have something to say with regard to expediting these cases which have been before the exchequer court for months, and in some cases for years.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Before the item carries, will the minister be kind enough to answer the question which I put to him earlier with respect to minimum security institutions?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of my hon. friend in this particular question, but it seems that on the first occasion when there was an attempt to decentralize the institutions and establish an institution in Cornwall there was a big uproar, and I now wonder how we are going to deal with this question. But speaking more seriously, I would reassure my hon. friend, who I know has had no indication that I intend to depart from the new scientific and sociological norms involved in this domain, that my first desire will always be to keep in line with modern times and to consult those who are responsible both for the evolution and the application of these new norms. Whatever new rules or principles have begun to be applied will continue to be applied. I also make the promise, to which I will hold very firmly, to keep abreast of any developments in this most important field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15e. Exchequer Court of Canada, administration, $15,000.
William Arnold Peters: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the amendments to the exchequer court legislation for which we asked in the dying days of the session prior to Christmas? What are the intentions with regard to this problem?


Guy Favreau: This item is on the order paper. It is our intention to proceed with it as early as possible because this is the clear intention of the government.

Supply-Legislation


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in this matter. I have had a lifelong interest in sheriffs, and sometimes they have not been too far behind me. I notice an item here for payments to sheriffs. I thought sheriffs were provincial officers. Will the minister explain how it is that the federal government are paying sheriffs' fees?


Guy Favreau: Sheriffs are used by the exchequer court, although they may be provincial officers, just as bailiffs, who are provincial officers, are also used for the purpose of serving processes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45e. Gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office, $10,000.
William Arnold Peters: Would the minister tell us how many widows are involved here?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I know there are at least two cases of outstanding gratuities involved and there is also provision here for whatever increase is necessary as a result of the recent increases in the salaries of the judges themselves. These gratuities are given to all widows of judges. They are relatively small and represent a proportion of the salary of the judge. So there are the two factors involved here, the increase in judges' Salaries and the fact that there are two of these gratuities which are outstanding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
40e. General administration-estimates of the Clerk, $362,500.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this matter. The matter under discussion here is the printing of debates. I am not sure which minister is responsible for that item to the house.
I wonder whether, before proceeding with our observations, the house leader should not tell us which minister of the government is responsible for the item now before us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I understand it is the Speaker of the house himself.
On that matter, I should like to draw the attention of the house on the fact that the French version of the debates of the house are often late in reaching us so that, on many occasions, we have to come to the floor of the house for the next day's sitting without having received a copy of the order paper in French and without a copy of the debates.
Only today the same thing happened again; we did not receive the French copy of the order paper.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: We did not receive the French copy today, but-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, I had it in my office.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Chairman, there must be privileged people-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was in my post office box.


Gilles Grégoire: -who receive it before some others.
The same thing happens for the French translation and printing of committee reports.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that you should report to the Speaker to that effect and ask him to bring about some improvements.
I know that there is a lack of reporters, interpreters, translators, etc., and I believe we have been complaining about that for two years in the house.
I feel the time has come for the government to take the necessary steps and see to it that French translations, French printings of committee reports, French editions of the order papers, of Votes and Proceedings and of the official record of the debates are made available to us at the same time as the English versions.
This is an important point, because it makes it more difficult for us when we receive them late.
Another point which I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, and of which we had a
typical example this evening___and this could
perhaps be an important suggestion-is that a moment ago, the Minister of Justice referred to a page of Hansard. It was the English pagination, which is not the same as the French one.
It often happens that hon. members refer us to such and such a page of Hansard. I then look in the French copy of Hansard. Or when someone speaks in French and then the hon. members only have the English copy, they are rather lost because the pagination is not the same as on their English copy.
For instance, page 876 quoted tonight in the English version will probably be page 875 or still page 900 in the French version.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether house officials could not find means to use the same pagination in the English as well as in the French version of Hansard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is impossible.


Gilles Grégoire: Some rather difficult problems will have to be overcome no doubt in order to achieve this result, but I think it would be worth while.

Sometimes I quote an extract from Hansard and several members are unable to refer to it, because my quotation is according to the French pagination, while some members only have the English edition on their desks. The same thing happens when English speaking members quote pages from the English Hansard, while I have in my hand the French copy.
So, on this item, I think that I am in order when I make this suggestion. The officers of the house who are in charge of the English and French versions of Hansard should be asked to see that the page numbers are exactly the same in both editions, English and French.
It might simply be a matter of skipping some page numbers in the English version, since the French version is always longer. It might also be a matter of putting less matter on each page in the English version. Perhaps the form and size of the pages in the French edition should be enlarged. At all events, I think this is a problem for which it might be worth while to provide a solution.
I leave it to the staff of the house. I hope other hon. members will be just as interested to have the same page numbers in both editions used by all hon. members. Finally, I would very much like to see the matter considered so that a solution may be found.


Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the suggestion or the request by the hon. member for Lapointe, he might perhaps be so kind, when proceeding with his research and finding the page in the English copy of Hansard, also to tell the house the corresponding page number in the French text. In this way, it would make things easier, and the problem would be automatically solved.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it might be done in the majority of cases; indeed, I can well recall having done so on various occasions.


Norman Platt Lambert: And it has been appreciated.


Gilles Grégoire: But the problem is this: For instance, as it happened early this evening, when the Minister of Justice quoted the page number in the English version, he obviously had no time to find out the French page number owing to the speed of proceedings. Those are the very circumstances in which my suggestion would prove most valuable.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are again on the general administration item under legislation. First of all, I should like to comment on the remarks that have just been made and advise the hon. member that the 20220-119
Supply-Legislation
matter of French translation and French publications appears to some to be in the process of being eliminated by his leader and by the leader of the government. If matters develop as they appear to be doing in some of our provinces it may be that this will not be a problem very long. It should also be borne in mind that the problem was not much of a one for many years but has grown in magnitude recently.
I think the Speaker should be in the house tonight because we are dealing with items under legislation for which he is responsible. I am surprised how little action has been taken with regard to the problems raised by many members of the house the last time we were discussing these estimates. It seems to me, and I have said this before, that there should be better arrangements than we have in relation to the staff of the house.
The other day I asked whether or not the staff were going to be paid for the statutory holidays of Good Friday and Easter Monday. I understood this matter was receiving consideration. It is not good enough, Mr. Chairman, to grant the staff a day off. This is not the accepted practice of organized labour and I do not believe parliament should foist it off on the people who work for this institution merely because they are unorganized. The general principle is that if statutory holidays are worked they are paid for with double time. I suggest the government should give immediate consideration to paying the staff for these two days that were worked through no fault of the staff themselves.
I feel this matter should not have to be raised continually. The government should do this, at least if they believe in normal labour relations. I have had a number of complaints recently from several departments with relation to vacation pay. Since the employees of the House of Commons are now on an almost yearly basis and no longer truly temporary, I believe it is necessary for the government to consider this matter. Really, it is the responsibility of the Speaker as chairman of the internal economy committee. It is his responsibility to see that vacation pay is granted. The suggestion is made that the staff will have time off and be paid for the time off. This is not the same thing, Mr. Chairman. The annual vacation with pay period should be a period in which the employee can choose which week or two weeks he will be on holiday and will be paid for it. This is the normal procedure in business and certainly should be the normal procedure in government.
The last time this item was discussed, we were told that the translations branch of the House of Commons were being treated

Supply-Legislation
disgracefully. There may be some explanation for what happened last week because it was generally understood there would be an Easter recess. However, during that week, as hon. members are aware business continued here and the members of the translation branch were divided between here and Quebec city. There were more members of our house translations staff in Quebec city than there were in the house. This meant that the normal rest periods provided for translators under international agreements in almost every other country of the world did not apply to Ottawa. I think this is a disgrace. The responsibility rests directly on the shoulders of the Speaker, who has done nothing about the problem although he is well aware of it.
There is another problem that has developed in relation to the cafeteria in the west block. This is a lovely building, but the men and women working in the cafeteria are on a split shift basis. They have a wash room in which they have to spend the two and a aalf hours between shifts, and it is not as big as the normal wash room in this building. This is not a rest room. If this room were in any other place some trade union officer would go to the Ontario government under the factories act and would be able to get better quarters than they have there now. I suggest that the Speaker take a look at the men's and women's wash rooms and then take a look at the room that is going to be the carpenter shop. It is a very attractive room and should be made the rest room for the staff in the west block, because it is adjacent to the wash room.
It seems surprising, Mr. Chairman, a member of parliament has to speak about these matters every time these estimates are before the committee. It seems to me that the Speaker has failed to do this job because he is not provided with the necessary people to tell him what the situation is. These matters should not have to be raised every time these estimates are before us. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that some of the employees in the cafeteria receive the grand sum of $172 per month? This is less than a dollar an hour. No wonder the Liberal government has not agreed to put in a statutory minimum wage of $1.25 per hour. We do not pay our kitchen staff that kind of money. The take home pay of these employees is slightly over $120 and comes to a total of $170 with their meals. These people work on a split shift basis and have two and a half hours off in the afternoon. They leave at eight o'clock at night and they arrive here in time to make breakfast in the morning. I hope I do not have to raise this

matter again, and that the Speaker or whoever is responsible will do something about it.
There are, of course, many other problems that affect this house. We are not in a very healthy state in so far as our relations with our ridings are concerned. I think it is generally conceded that what has happened in parliament the last little while has not improved the stature of parliament. There has been the question of the need for the elimination of the other place because they hold up these bills.


An hon. Member:: What about you on divorce?


William Arnold Peters: In my opinion, if the Liberal party had the gumption they would be justified in going to the electorate. The bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could easily be passed here, and then if it was turned down by the other place this would be a good election issue. Whether or not the method we use in this house is a satisfactory one from our point of view, it is certainly not satisfactory to the general electorate. I am sure that the majority-


Mr. Graffiey:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


William Heward Grafftey: I sincerely ask him this question. Does he feel the people of Canada want an election right now?


William Arnold Peters: I am certain the people of Canada do not want an election right now. The reason they do not, Mr. Chairman, is that there is not going to be any change in this mess unless some of us who really believe in the democratic process are willing to make some changes in the system we use.
I think it is very difficult for a constituent to look at his member of parliament and say, "I am in communication with him, and what I suggest to him will finally be given a hearing in the house". How can anyone really say this to a backbencher of some of the political parties that have been in this house during the last 20 years? Tonight another member and I were discussing a certain gentleman who is never here. How would his constituents know whether or not he is here? How are they going to make an impression on him? How are they going to bring to his attention the needs that they may have.
It is necessary for us to make changes in our system. These changes have been brought about in other countries. The governments of few countries run their business as haphazardly as we do. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned a few minutes ago, this is the first opportunity we have had in a long time to discuss the Department of

Justice. I think we will all agree that we have abused the privilege of discussing supplementary estimates. Certainly many of the discussions we have been having should not take place on supplementary estimates. However, from the point of view of a member of parliament, Mr. Chairman, on what other occasion can these discussions take place? Many of these estimates have not been before us for almost two years. It seems to me a member of parliament has to take advantage of every opportunity as it comes along. The government has an obligation to decide when that opportunity is going to occur. I suggest we take a look at what some of the other countries in the world are doing. Most of them do not have a formal arrangement. They do not come to a deadline like Christmas and you will remember, Mr. Chairman, last year people cancelling their plane reservations because we were going beyond the day of adjournment for Christmas.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but for the last few minutes he has been straying from the item before the committee. He has been discussing matters of procedure in the house, and this is the type of thing which should be discussed by a committee of the house that has already been set up for that purpose and is functioning. For that reason I think remarks along those lines would be out of order.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of the operations of the house, and legislation is the item which is under consideration. We are now dealing with administration, which is the general item covering operations of the house, and I suggest these matters are relevant. It is no use referring to the committee, because it has been a complete washout in so far as solving the problems that come under the general administration of legislation. In England, for instance, they have been trained to the idea of having set periods of time in the operations of the house of commons.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think the hon. member would agree with me that this is the very matter that has been referred by the house to a committee. I do not think the hon. member would want to argue with the Chair that until such time as the committee has reported and the matter comes again before the house it should not be discussed under this item, or indeed at any time while it is under consideration by that committee.


William Arnold Peters: It may be that the committee has been established, but I am certain it has not been constituted.
Supply-Legislation


Lucien Lamoureux: For the hon. member's information it has. It has been sitting and has actually made its first report to the house.


William Arnold Peters: It still does a very poor job. I would suggest-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would suggest you sit down.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says sit down. That is all he ever does and he is getting broad across the beam from sitting.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would rather be broad across the beam than be broad across the head.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member makes a better speech sitting down than he does standing up. If ignorance were a criterion he would be a very good member of parliament.
The matter of the relationship between a member of parliament and his constituency will have to be considered or parliament itself will reach a very serious impasse. It seems to me that the general administration item of this department is the one under which this matter should be considered. However, I will bow to your direction, Mr. Chairman, but I hope that some of the other matters I have raised in relation to the staff will be given very serious consideration.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, I will not be very long but, after the few remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I would like to give my side of the story. He says that we have been asking for our rights, as far as the French language is concerned, in the last few years only. Let us reverse the situation in the house for 24 hours only. Let us speak French only and let the English speaking element use the facilities put at our disposal in some committees.
The hon. member for Timiskaming is complaining because the hon. member for Lapointe wants to have identical page numbers in the French and English versions of Hansard. If we wanted to go further, as far as bilingualism is concerned, we should have a truly bilingual Hansard, that is to say the English version on one half of the page and the French version on the other. It would be a really bilingual book since each page would be written in the two official languages of the country.
When Hansard is printed solely in French, it is French; when it is printed in English only, it is English. I fail to see there any bilingualism.
Mr. Chairman, a truly bilingual book must have both languages on the same page, one

Supply-Legislation
alongside the other, so that it can be read in both English and French.
What is bilingualism? The French Canadian citizen is not always insisting on his rights without rhyme or reason, but he is always given the cold shoulder. That has always been detrimental to the French Canadians and we are asserting our rights.
In conclusion, let us take, for instance, Beauchesne's standing orders-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are not the standing orders.


Lucien Plourde: There has always been only an English edition. How can we uphold our rights when we do not even have these regulations in our own language and we cannot learn them?
When we are provided with a French edition of standing orders, we can assure you that when we rise to speak, Mr. Chairman, we will be in order.


Edward Nasserden: Before this item passes, Mr. Chairman, I have one observation to make and it arises out of the role of the member of parliament. I think the best thing I can do is quote from an article in the Montreal Star of January 30, 1964.
Turner says M.P.'s power-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I again hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me this would be out of order if he is discussing the role of members of parliament under this item. This is general administration, in the sense of the operation of the services of parliament, but does not concern the role of members, their responsibilities and duties in this chamber.


Edward Nasserden: That might be quite right, except for one thing, that by the remarks I have made I may have misinterpreted what I had in mind. I would like to quote from this article which says:
Turner says M.P.'s power now a myth.
Liberal member of parliament John Turner, urging an overhaul of house procedures, yesterday called for the return of the power and influence of the individual M.P. which is now a "myth."
Addressing a meeting of the McGill University Liberal club, Mr. Turner, himself a relative newcomer to the political scene-condemned what he termed the "Monopoly of information," and challenged that the bureaucracy-"that mandarin class of faceless experts, protected by the cloak of anonymity of a government department, operating beyond the range of the people's control"-is fighting a running battle with members of parliament.
"The M.P.," he said "is losing that battle with the civil service."


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. This comment is obviously out of order. Certainly what the hon. member is quoting now, and the remarks he is making, could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to come

within the ambit of the vote now before the committee.


Edward Nasserden: It certainly has something to do with what is before the committee because it deals with legislation and the business of the house. He went on to say-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. I would ask the co-operation of the hon. member. I am sure he will appreciate that the position of the Chair is rather difficult in a thing like this. I know the hon. member wants to speak for just a few minutes, but I feel very sincerely and earnestly that we cannot at this point discuss the role, duties and responsibilities of members of parliament. If I were to allow the hon. member to do so, I expect we would have quite a number of other speeches along the same line. Actually, I had to intervene with the hon. member for Timiskaming a few moments ago, who agreed with my ruling that he was out of order, and I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair by not pursuing those remarks further.


Edward Nasserden: I would conclude my remarks then by quoting the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George who said: "The M.P. is losing that battle with the civil service".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Chairman, I think it was agreed when we began to discuss these supplementary estimates-and this has been said a number of times-that there would be latitude for a general discussion on the items as they came up. Here it says general administration.


George James McIlraith: Read the rest of it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the estimates for the 1963-64 fiscal year were brought into the house for discussion, they were brought in on December 21, the last day of the session, and were rushed through under the pressure of time. Since we have agreed that there should be fairly wide latitude, and since what the hon: member is now attempting to discuss is certainly within the ambit of what was considered to be that latitude, it should be allowed.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have already had an opportunity this evening to express my views about this. I think I have extended to hon. members the degree of latitude to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat has referred. It is obvious that there must still be limits to our discussion and it is up to the Chair to exercise its right to determine when those limits are being exceeded although, as I have said, it has been recognized that we should have a general discussion in certain instances.


Edward Nasserden: I have a few remarks yet to make, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to read from a newspaper article the words-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: I again have to request the assistance and co-operation of the hon. member and ask him to abide by the ruling which has been made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order; 1 hope you will also rule, Mr. Chairman, that continuous interruptions are also against the rules. Continuous barking of "order, order" is also out of order.


Mr. Howard:: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that, you were about to ask if I intended to rise on a point of order. I was not. I agree I may not get very far in my remarks-


Edward Nasserden: If the hon. member is not rising on a point of order may I conclude my remarks?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


Edward Nasserden: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then, I would say that after hearing the hon. member for a minute or two, and being generous with him, I ruled that his remarks were not pertinent to the resolution before the committee. Perhaps he would look for another occasion upon which to make his contribution.


Edward Nasserden: Well, in view of the hour, and other things, I will be glad to bow to that ruling though I do feel-and I say this in all sincerity-that my remarks, and the others I was about to make had a direct bearing on the matter which is now before the committee.


Frank Howard: I had intended to deal with somewhat the same subject matter as my hon. friend from Timiskaming. I had intended to refer to the public dissatisfaction which exists with respect to the House of Commons, its members, its activities and our participation in them, and to suggest ways in which we might conduct ourselves in a better manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: These are things we should be trying to do here, in order to deal with public business in a manner which is fair and reasonable and in keeping with our responsibilities. I think this is a matter of extremely vital concern. It would not have been raised by members from different parties within a brief period of time if it were not a matter of general concern to the public and to the members of this house. I think this is one of the things we should be doing-discussing among ourselves and searching for ways and means of making the operation of this parliament effective.
It is true we have abused the procedures of this house. We have abused the rules as they apply to the consideration of the very estimates which are now before us, and I have participated in that abuse.
Supply-Legislation


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Frank Howard: That may be shame, or it may be applause, for some other reason. But I say I have. And I say that other hon. members have abused the procedures and the rules which we had established.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think when I consider the remarks which are now being made by the hon. member for Skeena in the light of the observations which were made a moment or two ago by the chairman, I have to say to the hon. member that I cannot consider his remarks at this time as being relevant to the item in the estimates before us. I would ask the hon. member to adhere as closely as possible to the item under consideration. I recognize that there has been some leniency shown on the debate on the first item, but I think we still have to recognize the rule of relevancy and I ask the hon. gentleman to do that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if you will consistently-and I do not only mean yourself as an individual; I include the others who occupy the chair from time to time-if you would consistently and persistently enforce that rule of relevancy I would be the first to support you. But, so far, this has not happened. Unfortunately, what has occurred is that there has been laxity allowed in debate on some items and constriction enforced with respect to other items. This is most unfair to members of the committee and it leaves open the question whether or not the degrees of rigidity or licence allowed on any particular item depend upon the quarter of the house in which the hon. members concerned sit. I know that is not so, but that question does occur and that is, particularly, why I went as far as I could in my remarks a moment ago so as to run foul of the rules, which I knew you had in the back of your mind, and which you were intending to use.
I am asking now, Mr. Chairman, for the orderly conduct of the business of this committee. I know you cannot speak for others who may occupy the position of chairman, but I am asking that you use, persistently, the heaviest possible gavel and crack down on all members who offend against the rules of relevancy, whether they happen to come from this quarter of the house, in the N.D.P. group, or whether the offender happens to be the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else. If you will do that, you will find me the very first to support you all the way down the line.
My hon. friend behind me says: "Do it right away". I will do it right away by sitting down and let us hope I do not have to raise too many points of order about other people being out of order.


Edward Nasserden: There is one other point on this item which I should like to raise. It

Supply-Legislation
has to do with private members' bills. Since this government came to office bills which had been drawn up with the assistance of the assistant law clerk have from time to time been thrown out, when further study had been given to them after the Speaker had received them. I should like to persuade the minister of the desirability of providing for the assistance of the law officers so that when a bill has been drawn up by them for an hon. member and brought before parliament there shall be no question at that time with regard to whether or not the measure is fit to be presented to parliament. Surely, that is not too much to ask in the House of Commons of Canada. There could be a little saving if the proper scrutiny were given to the bills hon. members want to bring before the house prior to their being presented in the house. I just want to leave that thought with the government, because it is a practice that has grown up since this government came into office.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to belabour this point before the committee for very long, but as I came back into the chamber I noticed that the committee was on the legislation item and I do want to raise a point here that I am sure will be in order. I notice that this item involves the publishing of debates, and the next item is "Printing of other publications". I want to make a protest regarding the printing of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. The reason I am making the protest is that there is distortion of questions by the various bureaus, whatever they may be, of the Speaker's department; that is, distortion of the questions that hon. members place on the order paper. This distortion causes the question to lose its democratic value out in the country and area to which the question applies. If an hon. member puts a question on the order paper, provided it is not, as we often hear Mr. Speaker say, argumentative, controversial or improper, I think it should be sustained as it is written.
I will give the committee an example. Last March 24 I put a question on the order paper regarding the mails of Canada. The question was directed to the department of the Postmaster General and referred to the mails in the county of Prince Edward. I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it certainly had a democratic, local interest, reason and value. The question read as follows:
When will the Postmaster General open a post office in Rednersville, in Prince Edward county, in accordance with agreement to do so made with me by his predecessor last November?
I was giving the former postmaster general and the whole department the benefit of two

months, because when I got back to my files I found he had made the agreement with me last September, not last November as I had written in the question. Hon. members will find this question-distorted, of course- on page 31 of today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. It was distorted by the bureau, or bureaus, as follows:
Did the Postmaster General, during November last, agree to open a post office in the village of Rednersville, Ontario, and, if so-
Imagine-"if so":
-When will such a post office be opened?
I had already told the Speaker and his bureau in my original question that the postmaster general had promised to open a post office in Rednersville. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree with me that this is nothing but a flagrant distortion of a democratic question posed in the house for the benefit and in the interests of the constituents I represent in Rednersville, Prince Edward county. I hope that other hon. members, if they have met with this flouting of their purposes in being here, and the purposes of their representation in this chamber, will support me in this protest, because I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that this is a relevant and important point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Can the hon. gentleman name another single member of this house who has had a similar experience? The hon. member is making general statements. Can he name a single member on either side of this house who is in that position? The hon. member's question is being studied, but will he answer my question? He is making a general statement and I should like to know whether he can name any single member in any corner of this house who is in the same position.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't get $27,000 a year to answer questions.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can name a single person who is in that position, and that is myself, the representative of the people at Rednersville who have been wronged.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said, "any other single person". If the hon. gentleman would listen, I said, "any single person other than himself". His case is being studied. Is there any other person in the house who has had a similar experience?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a few words and make a suggestion which I think is quite relevant to the item

of "Publishing debates" because it has to do with the debates. Some time ago as the result of a committee study it was established that a member could send 16 Hansards in a complimentary way to his constituents. In talking generally with some other members in the past year or two I find I am not alone in not only having my complimentary list filled, but in having people ask me from time to time if they can get Hansard in this way. I know that some hon. members obtain an additional copy or two of Hansard and send them out under their own frank to individuals, just as though they were on a complimentary list.
I think it is a fairly general desire on the part of hon. members to have a larger number of complimentary Hansards available to them. I have heard the figure of 50 suggested and I have heard other figures suggested. Whatever figure is chosen, it would naturally have to be an arbitrary one; but I think some alteration should be made and there should be an increase in the number of complimentary Hansards available. As I have said, the number now is 16, which I think was established-I am guessing now, but it was perhaps 1948 or somewhere about that time; it may even have been before that period of time-and this number is not sufficient.
I leave this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, with the appropriate official of government that handles these things. Perhaps we could have a very short expression of opinion from hon. members of other parties as to whether they agree with the suggestion that the number of complimentary Hansards should be increased.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, while I was standing on the sidelines I heard that the Postmaster General wanted further proof of such occurrences as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox mentioned. I do not want to refer to the department under his administration, but I should like to point out to the Postmaster General that under the administration of the former postmaster general I placed a question on the order paper. I have not the particular question at the moment, but my question was:
Was any correspondence forwarded to the Postmaster General by officials or any person within the constituency with regard to the appointment of a postmaster?
His reply stated, in effect, that no official correspondence was received by the department. I wish I could find the particular question, but owing to the lateness of the hour-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Mackenzie. As long as he wishes to discuss the questions on the order paper, or the way
Supply-Legislation
they are handled, I think he will be quite in order; but when he begins to discuss the merits of a question regarding the Post Office Department, I think he is not in order.


Stanley James Korchinski: All I wanted to do, Mr. Chairman, was set on the record that there were other cases similar to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -is not dealing with the question I asked. Without in any way commenting on the previous administrator, my predecessor, I asked if there was any similar case on the part of any hon. member on either side of the house. He made the statement that there were several cases which had not received it for two months, and he quoted others. I said that there were no others during my administration.


Stanley James Korchinski: I think I pointed that out.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I beg to differ with the minister. I did not say that I could quote other cases. I said that no doubt there are other members with similar cases.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With all respect to the hon. member, I think Hansard will speak for itself with regard to what the hon. member said.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I did not make the statement that there were other members with similar cases, because I cannot make that kind of statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) that following the lack of proper organization of the business of the house, hon. members have had to sit at a time when they would normally have taken a recess. Consequently, a large proportion of the house staff has had to work under very trying conditions when they should normally have been enjoying a well-deserved rest.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, that is due mostly to the lack of organization shown by the government and I should like to point out especially to the President of the Privy Council who is engaged in a conversation with one of his colleagues at present, that he should look after the interests of the house staff. The latter had to work unusually hard due to the government's lack of foresight. I therefore submit that the staff should be compensated by means of additional holidays or by supplementary pay.
1890	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys [Text]


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should let the remarks of the hon. member regarding questions on the order paper pass without my saying that I have had the utmost co-operation from the Clerk and assistant clerk of the house in connection with this matter. I do not think questions are put on the order paper to relate facts; I think they ask for information. I think the hon. member's problem is that he was making a statement which was not substantiated by the tabling of any items in this house. I want to say that I personally have had the utmost co-operation from the Clerk of the house.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was making a statement substantiated by a letter from the former postmaster general in the month of September, 1963. I should like to ask the member who just took his seat how a person can ask a question without making statements relevant thereto. How can anyone form an interrogative sentence in the English language without a certain amount of assertion implied by the interrogative form of the sentence?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say to the government that I will not press this particular matter now, but two hon. members have already made mention of the working conditions of some of the staff of the House of Commons. I will not elaborate on the matter but I should like to say that I know of no place where working conditions are as poor as the working conditions of many of the people who work in the House of Commons. I hope the commissioners of internal economy, with the Speaker, will review this situation so that we will not have to raise it again when the regular estimates come up. If some steps are not taken to deal with the general working conditions of the staff here we shall have to raise the matter at greater length when the general estimates are before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Dominion coal board-
140e. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $3,914,600.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this item calls for an expenditure of $3,941,600 and I think we should be entitled to an explanation from the minister as to what detail is involved here.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I would join with my colleague from Skeena in asking the minister for some details of the tonnage of coal which is being transported under this
fMr. Martlneau.]

subsidy. At the same time he might give us a breakdown of the figures for coal shipments to Japan, which have been consistent with this subsidy. I would also urge the minister to consider a repeated request which I am sure he has received from coal operators asking that this subsidy, rather than being placed on an annual order in council basis as it is at the moment, be placed on a regular basis by the early introduction of legislation in this house which would provide, on a long term basis, fixed subsidies to the coal operators. This in turn would produce two results, one of which would be to let the operators themselves know just what assistance they can count on in the years to come. Also-and this is very important-it would assist importers of coal. I think particularly of the Japanese who have come to Canada on a number of occasions and asked the government to declare its policy over a number of years, so that they can make firm commitments over a period of three, five, or even ten years. I am sure that the minister, who has at heart the interests of the coal industry, will see that this legislation is introduced shortly, and we should like to have the figures and information requested both by the hon. member for Skeena and myself.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am wondering whether the minister can at least give us an answer. He may not have the figures available but I think he should give the committee some sort of undertaking in this regard.


George James McIlraith: The British Columbia tonnage of coal was 750,000 tons. The total cost was $2,362,500. That answers the first question. With regard to the other question, since this estimate is the closing out of last year's final supplementary estimates, the question of the form of the estimate for the new long term policy is surely a matter for the main estimates which have already been tabled. That part of the very valid point raised by the former minister will be covered in those main estimates.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am satisfied with that, provided the government does take the matter under consideration.


George James McIlraith: I can assure the hon. member that the matter is being given very active consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the business for tomorrow and for the days immediately ahead will be the same as announced last night. Tomorrow we shall try to complete,
I hope, the too short debate on the supplementary estimates. If there is some time left for other government business we will take second reading of the Canada pension plan bill. On the first available full day and on the second available full day, which might be Thursday and Friday, we will complete the budget debate. After that we will take up the resolution to set up a joint committee to study the Canada pension plan bill, following which we will carry on with the second reading of the Canada pension plan bill.
7, 19G4	1891


[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following Items were passed In committee of supply this day] :

[Stage Direction]
A-Departmentle. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates. $10,000.
lOe. Supreme Court of Canada-Administration, $5,000.
15e. Exchequer Court of Canada-Administration,
[Stage Direction]
45e. Gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office, $10,000.

[Stage Direction]
B-Dominion coal board-
140e. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council. $3,914,600.

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
40e. General administration-Estimates of the clerk, $362,500.
35e. Grant to the Canadian North Atlantic treaty organization parliamentary association, $5,000.
1893
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 8, 1964