1964-04-06

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the house on Friday that I would make a statement on motions on the recent federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city. Owing to the importance of the matters dealt with at this conference, I should apologize for the fact that the statement will be, I think, somewhat longer than is normally desirable in statements on motions; but I hope in this particular situation that will be understood and accepted. Even then it will not be possible for me to deal with all the matters discussed at Quebec, or perhaps fully deal with the three or four that I propose to mention.
The first matter which we discussed there, which is of immediate importance and interest to the house and indeed is before the house now, was the Canada pension plan. That matter of a contributory, nation-wide pension plan had been discussed at the conference held last November, and this was a continuation of the discussion we had at that time in the light of developments which had occurred in the meantime. I think it can be said that in the light of the discussion at Quebec the provincial and federal viewpoints have come closer together and that at the end of the conference there could be no doubt that pension coverage broadly of the kind proposed in the bill before this house will be made available in all Canada. It is quite true, of course, and indeed it was indicated before the Quebec conference, that the province of Quebec has announced its determination, its decision, to go ahead with a pension plan of its own. It will therefore be necessary for any national plan to work with the provincial plan.
I think it is also obvious that if other provinces, especially other big provinces, decide to go ahead with their own pension plan-and no decision of that kind was indicated at the conference in Quebec-this would make for certain administrative difficulties in regard to the Canada pension plan but would not make a Canada pension plan impossible in any way, shape or form. It is our
view, and I think our view will be shared by many people, that a single national plan is preferable to national coverage by federal and provincial plans. Nevertheless, what I might call the mixed system would be unavoidable if a province or provinces decided to go ahead with their own plan. It is not the intention of the government, Mr. Speaker, to do anything by withdrawing the Canada pension plan to interfere with national coverage and we shall proceed to go ahead with our own plan as put before the house.
During the conference at Quebec the premier of that province gave a very useful clarification of his own government's thinking on pensions, and while it would be a breach of confidence for me to discuss his statement in detail, which has not yet been put before his own legislature, I think it is right to say that all those who were at the conference were impressed by what they heard of the Quebec plan. It is not identical, as is known, with the proposed federal plan. I think in some respects it is a less desirable plan than the federal plan, although that might not be true in the minds of those who drew it up for provincial purposes. But it is a plan, and I think this is the important thing, Mr. Speaker, with which it will be possible for a national plan to co-operate, and ensure by that co-operation complete portability between the provincial plan and the national plan. Mr. Lesage, the premier of Quebec, made it quite clear at the conference that he would work with the federal government to ensure that that kind of co-operation takes place if and when both plans are in effect.
No other province, as I have said, indicated at the conference an intention to establish a pension plan of its own. If one or more should do so the federal plan, of course, is so designed that it would still work with other provinces as long as all the provincial plans were compatible with portability, as is the proposed plan for Quebec. This is not, I repeat, to say that in our view a series of provincial plans is the best way to approach this important problem because that would make for administrative difficulty, but the purpose of our initiative in the federal government would be achieved if there was basic pension coverage of a portable nature available to all Canadians. The conference at Quebec city last week made this conclusion plain, that it is the desire of the provincial
1794	HOUSE OF
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference governments and the federal government to achieve this objective in terms that reconcile federal and provincial jurisdictions.
There were other matters that were discussed, some of them of importance and, indeed, in one or two cases of a controversial character. These controversies arose during the discussions. May I refer to the proposal for the extension of family allowances to age 18 that was put on the agenda by the federal government because certain proposals had been made in this house for that purpose. It is our view that the government's proposal for this extension is a simple extension of the program which this parliament legislated in 1944.
No new principle is involved and, in the government's opinion, no constitutional issue is raised by this proposal. The purpose of family allowances is, and always has been, to assist families in the support of children while they are dependant. In 1944, this purpose was pretty well served by establishing 16 as the cut-off age. Most children at that time began to have earnings and comparatively few extended their education beyond that age. The situation has now changed and more and more children remain dependant beyond the age of 16. We propose, Mr. Speaker, continuing the allowance to 18 instead of 16.
In making that extension, we will apply the same tests as to whether a child is dependant as there have been before, and we made that clear to the conference. There was discussion of this subject at the conference and there have been discussions outside the conference, which seem to assume that the present allowances are paid unconditionally to any child up to the age of 16. This is not the case. In order for a family to be entitled to the allowance under the present act, a child must be either at school or unfit to attend school and, in the case of a girl, she must remain unmarried. I should like to make this clear by reading section 4(2) of the Family Allowances Act, 1944:
The allowance shall cease to be payable with the payment for the month when the child: (a) ceases to be maintained by a parent; (b) ceases to be resident in Canada; (c) attains the age of 16 years; (d) dies; or (e) in the case of a female child, marries.
This is the section in the present act. The new proposal, as we attempted to make clear at Quebec, simply maintains the present conditions in the section, but instead of reading "sixteenth birthday", if all proposals were adopted in their present form it would be "eighteenth birthday". This would be the only change made. No jurisdictional question would be applicable, then, to the amendment we propose to the legislation which the parliament of Canada passed in 1944.


Having made clear our view of the constitutional position, I hope, I should like to go on to recognize, as we recognized at the conference, that in the case of Quebec there is a real, practical problem in this area which does not arise in the case of any other province, because in Quebec students of the ages of 16 and 17 already receive from the provincial government an allowance which, although different from the family allowance in form, does have much the same effect. It is the government's intention, therefore, to consider, in the light of the discussions at the federal-provincial conference what we can do to avoid duplication between federal and provincial actions in this field in these age groups.
Now, another subject which received a good deal of discussion at the conference was the proposal of the federal government in respect of loans to students. In examining this question, Mr. Speaker, we discussed some jurisdictional problems which would arise out of a proposal of this kind. Here, again, a constitutional point has been raised, and in some quarters has been emphasized. So far as I know, no one has challenged the right of the federal government to make loans or, as would be the case in this proposal, to guarantee loans through the banks.
The Quebec view, as expressed at the conference, recognized that this is in itself constitutional but added the rider, and I quote from the statement:
-provided they are normal loans on which interest is charged.
The lending may be unconstitutional, it is suggested, because we propose the students should get the loans without paying interest while they are studying. That view on unconstitutionality we are unable to accept. If we have jurisdiction over banking and credit -and that is not challenged-then it seems to me clear that this includes the right to make certain loans especially attractive, if parliament regards that as a policy in the general interest of Canadians.
But here again, hi the implementing of policy, there are certain practical problems, as we recognized when we put this and the previous matter I have mentioned on the agenda for the Quebec conference before bringing a detailed measure before parliament. In many provinces, not only in one province but in many provinces, there are already student loan schemes of various kinds, and so we want to ensure that there are adequate funds for the needs of all students and that they can be borne, where necessary, without burdening the student with interest while he is a student, and yet this can be in an administrative way which will be satisfactory to the provinces. The Quebec

conference provided a good practical discussion of the ways of achieving this objective and, as the communique points out, in our further consideration of the matter we shall take the views of the provinces, as expressed in Quebec, into consideration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the one subject which provided the most discussion at the conference was that of shared programs and the possibility of provincial governments contracting out for their provinces from certain of these programs. The policy of the federal government in this field, which had been announced more than once before this conference, was stated again at the conference, as I think will be made clear in the opening statement I gave at the conference, and which is now attached to Hansard of last Friday. It is that the federal government is willing to negotiate appropriate contracting out arrangements with any province so desiring, in respect of shared cost programs which are of a continuing or permanent nature and which involve fairly irregular annual expenditures.
Any arrangements worked out, and this was accepted in Quebec last week, should provide (1) that the contracting out should be accompanied by equivalent fiscal and financial compensation; (2) that any contracting out should not prejudice the position of the other provinces which remain in the programs and, (3) that the federal government should do what it could to ensure national standards of services in respect of the shared cost programs. This can be done in a variety of ways by conditional grants, conditional fiscal compensation, and indeed in other non-fiscal ways.
At Quebec, having discussed this question of principle, we made an examination of the major shared cost programs which were appropriate for the application of these contracting out principles. The only province at the conference which indicated its desire to contract out from any of these programs was the province of Quebec, although others thought that there should be more consideration given to provincial wishes, provincial needs and provincial priorities in initiating any new programs, so that the provinces should have more responsibility for the administration of such programs. There is no difference of opinion between the provincial governments and the federal government on that score, and perhaps in the future improvements can be made in that direction if new programs are initiated.
We agreed at Quebec that detailed negotiations should begin at once with any province desiring to contract out of any program, detailed negotiations for each individual program concerning which a province might wish 20220-114
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference to contract out by the application of an appropriate formula.
The first phase of contracting out arrangements-and this was put to the conference- would apply to an interim period during which any province would continue the shared program exactly as it is but would receive equal compensation in the form of tax room and equalization payments. Negotiation on these points will be conducted individually with the provinces which so wish and the other provinces would be kept informed, on the understanding, which they have a right to insist on, that contracting out by any province will not affect the programs for the other provinces. New arrangements for contracting out beyond this interim period will also be considered in technical negotiations but they will necessarily raise further issues of policy of concern to all the provinces whatever their future intentions regarding these programs, and so these arrangements which are worked out and informally adopted concerning them would be taken back for general federal-provincial discussion.
I think it is fair to say we came to a very satisfactory agreement at the conference with respect to this question of shared cost programs-how to deal with any province which might wish to contract out from a particular program or from particular programs in such a way as not to prejudice the interest of the others and in such a way as not to prevent the federal government discharging its obligation or doing what it can to ensure comparability of services across the country.
Then we discussed at some length, also, the question of fiscal relations. I may say that discussion on this important subject was very much to the point and very frank, and did indicate as hon. members know, certain differences of opinion not only between the provincial governments and the federal government, as one would expect-such differences have existed at every federal-provincial conference-but also differences of opinion and emphasis in some respects between provincial governments themselves. But there was general agreement that the problem was one of recognizing the needs and responsibilities of both levels of government, federal and provincial, and providing for as fair a division as possible of revenue sources between them in order to meet increasing responsibility.
The provinces made it clear that their responsibilities have increased, were increasing and were not likely to diminish, especially in the fields of education and communication, and that their existing sources of revenue were not sufficient to deal with these increased responsibilities. The spokesmen for the federal government, while recognizing this, emphasized that the federal government had its
1796	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference
own increasing responsibilities to discharge to the Canadian people as a whole-responsibilities to deal with employment and unemployment, to direct economic and fiscal policies in the best interest of the whole nation, to equalize services and ensure comparable development in so far as government can do this, across the whole country; otherwise Canada will become a land of permanent "haves" and "have-nots" and the strains on our unity, already so great, would become intolerable. This was a federal responsibility we could not lose sight of as we discussed ways and means of helping provincial governments to discharge their responsibilities. No federal government can discharge its responsibilities to Canada by weakening itself financially, economically and politically, no matter how great its concern for provincial difficulties and its desire to help the provinces overcome them. I think, Mr. Speaker, we made that position clear to the conference. Therefore, in my view the federal government must remain strong enough financially and constitutionally to do the work allocated to it in our constitution. The spokesmen of the federal government made it known at Quebec that it intends to do what is possible to ensure this, while willing to examine every possible way of helping the provinces. As the communique states, there must be "mutual accommodation to reconcile their expenditure and revenue requirements."
For the current fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, that accommodation has been made, and it has been made I think in terms which do indicate the desire of the federal government to assist the provinces whenever that is possible. The accommodation made last November did not meet with the wishes of all the provinces, and no financial accommodation I have ever read about in these relations between the federal government and the provinces has at any time met the wishes of all the provinces. But it was laid down at our conference last November that certain changes could take place, and they have been reflected in our budget which has resulted in an additional amount of expenditure being transferred by the federal government to the provinces of $87,448,000. The arrangements for the current year had been made then, in November, so that in this matter the conference last week at Quebec was looking ahead beyond the current year. It was looking ahead in terms of the immediate necessities of the provinces, and we recognize those immediate necessities as we recognize our own. But we have been looking further ahead from the immediate necessities, and we agreed right away that to look ahead was to try to get away if we could from the ad hoc, piecemeal approach to this problem which has been followed over the years.

It was in that spirit that I proposed at the conference an approach toward finding a solution for these fiscal problems, an approach which I believe had never been made before.
I suggested that the federal-provincial conference as a body-not the federal government, not a provincial government, but the federal-provincial conference as a body- should institute immediately a joint examination and review of this whole problem of fiscal relations. It would be a review of the nature and extent of federal-provincial taxes in addition to the financial responsibilities which nowadays have to be carried both by provincial and federal governments. It would be a review, as we put it in the communique, in depth, but it would be undertaken with all possible speed with the aim of producing a definite report by an early date in 1965. This proposal, which is in the communique, was welcomed by the premiers of all the provinces; indeed it was warmly endorsed by them. We in the federal government are now working on detailed proposals for the composition and terms of reference of a tax structure committee which we will be submitting to the provinces without delay. We will then ask the provinces, following the general agreement as to the desirability of the inquiry in itself, whether they will agree to take part by nominating a representative to the committee.
Perhaps I could conclude by reading what I said on this point at the last meeting of the conference:
I think that our discussions have shown one thing above all with unquestionable clarity: we have not been getting to the roots of our problems. Our uncertainties take varying shapes, but we have in common a real uncertainty as to the nature of contemporary federal-provincial relationships within confederation.
We all know that the answer to this problem will determine our survival, will govern our future as a federal state extending from coast to coast. We all know also that we will not find an answer through the kind of piecemeal consideration we have been giving to it. At our recent meetings we have been, I think, fairly successful in finding ad hoc solutions to points of immediate difficulty. As a group we have been reasonably adept at partial solutions and finding political and financial expedients. That Is useful and essential. But it is not enough. We have to go deeper. The question is how.
Then I said:
My suggestion is this: We as a conference should appoint a committee consisting of one minister from each provincial government and, say, two or three from the government of Canada. We should charge that committee, which would have to have full-time experts, to review the nature and extent of federal and provincial taxes in relation to the financial responsibilities which now have to be carried by both federal and provincial governments.
This would be no ordinary committee. The inquiry will require great wisdom and expert knowledge. It will also require devotion to the ideal

of a strong federal government and strong provincial governments, working together for the realization of a prosperous and united confederation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a speech which began almost apologetically ended on a note of promise for the future. The setting up of a committee of 13 to look into the whole question of fiscal relations is indeed an indifferent conclusion to a most unsuccessful conference. I am surprised at the need for such committee to be set up because I seem to recollect that the premier of Quebec and the leader of the Liberal party, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), met together just one year ago and publicly agreed that the Liberal party had the solution to these problems. Now one year later we have the admission on the part of the Prime Minister that all they have had to date have been piecemeal, haphazard, ad hoc decisions; but now a new vista has opened before him and those associated with him which will bring about a new fiscal arrangement. As far as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is concerned, he said on his arrival in Quebec; "I bring you no blank cheque". I am sure that all the premiers when they left agreed that that is exactly what they got following three days of discussion-a cheque completely blank, not filled out in any particular.
I do not want to go beyond the scope of the discussion which can take place at this point, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would not consider it improper or out of place if I were to suggest that the Liberal party when in opposition had plans for Canadian unity to solve these problems, and to solve them finally and definitely. Now less than a year later we find divisions, cleavages and fissures in the Canadian confederation never equalled throughout the years since 1867. We believe -and there is no division between us and the government in this connection-that the strength of confederation is the major responsibility and objective if the federal system is to be maintained in law as well as in spirit. The Prime Minister has endeavoured to leave the impression that the recent conference was successful. It was a success in that it brought these various representatives together and they left in such good spirits; but the almost unanimous view of Canadians as a whole is that it was an abject failure. Indeed, to realize this one has only to read the press statement that was issued by Premier Lesage, which incidentally has not been filed or added as an appendix to Hansard, which set forth his view of that conference. No matter how much diplomatic finesse is apparent in the final communique, the conference was one of complete innocuity.
20220-114J
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference
I am not going to refer in particular to the various matters with which the Prime Minister has dealt. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister smiles. I saw a picture of him in the Toronto Star and it said, "Pale Prime Minister speaks to press". This is the first time in history, sir, that I have known that difficulties changed the colour of one's hair from grey to black. The picture is well worth studying because it indicates that the day of marvels is not yet passed. We have heard about the doctrines of co-operative federalism. Do you remember, sir, what we used to hear about this? Co-operative federalism has in 12 months become synonymous with the epigram "60 days of decision".
What about the opening statement? The Prime Minister went before that conference and his remarks were limited to generalities. His only definiteness throughout the entire statement was with respect to contracting out provisions. The proposals advanced, as outlined in that speech, were indefinite, vague and general; there was nothing indicated of the leadership which we were led to believe would be given at this conference. In essence the proposals added up to vague declarations of good will and hopes of the future as to what might take place in the years ahead. I said there was no plan. There was, however, one striking plan placed before the premiers. It was that if the provinces would take over the administration of the act in regard to hospitalization, the Prime Minister would turn over to the provinces up to 40 per cent of the income tax. Well, sir, that plan had about the same hope of acceptance as if he had said they would turn over all the income tax to the provinces provided they took over the national debt of Canada.
That is the uncertainty here. This was a make-believe conference; one in which no action was taken, no determination was made; and it concluded with the expression of the desire of setting up a committee of 13, which has all the appearances of window dressing designed to conceal the failure of the federal government to have any plans to place before the conference.
I am very much concerned with the extension of contracting out. Is this one Canada, or is it not? Is it appropriate that the federal government should endeavour, or almost express the desire to engage in contracting out? Is it not a fact, sir, that contracting out, carried on to the degree envisaged by the Prime Minister, will mean in time the legalization of the de-confederation of our nation; the piecemeal dismemberment of the basic principles of confederation? Surely the Liberal party today does not subscribe to the disintegration of our country through setting up a variety of plans in every part of our country
1798	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference covering such matters as come within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada? And yet that is where the diplomatic dawdling of one year on the part of this government has brought this nation. It has been diplomatic. The Prime Minister was diplomatic when the premier of Quebec set forth what he wanted in the month of April, 1963; and today the same situation prevails. But what does the premier of Quebec now say? As far as the Canada pension plan is concerned, which is still referred to as a national plan, I am not going into details at this time before we have the opportunity to debate that matter; but does anyone say a national plan can be envisaged with one, or two, or more provinces abstaining? What has taken place in the thinking of the government? Only a month or so ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) said-and this was also said during the Ontario election- that if more than one province refused to go into the plan, that would be the end of it. What has taken place in the interval to change that thinking? The Prime Minister says they would establish what he called a mixed system. I agree that never in the history of this country has a government been more qualified for that description in its dealings with the affairs of this nation.
Then there is the question of family allowances. There was no question, according to the Prime Minister, that they were entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, without regard to the fact that a rider is attached providing that the children eligible for this payment continue in school. What does the premier of Quebec say following this wonderful meeting of minds, to use the expression that was indulged in on one or two occasions by one of the officials close to the throne? What happened in this meeting of minds? The premier of Quebec says he is going to challenge this in the courts. A year ago there was happiness in the family as between the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals; they saw eye to eye. Now they see eye into eye. They look at one another with that challenge, and they are going into the courts. That is what this country has been brought to within a few short months.
Then there is the question of loans to students. This is the substitute sop for the plan that was promised to the student body of Canada-10,000 scholarships. What has happened to the scholarships? They have gone with the Canada development corporation.


An hon. Member:: Gone with the Liberal wind.


John George Diefenbaker: One wonders how a
government could have found itself in such difficulty in so short a time. There was reference to the setting up of this committee. We have had any number of discussions with regard to looking into the problems of taxation and the fiscal relations between the federal government and the provinces. We have had a royal commission on that subject and now, after all these divisions and separations, the only part of the remarks of the Prime Minister that showed any enthusiasm was as he placed before us that nebulous scheme that holds out, as Mr. Lesage has said, no hope for the problem that is faced by this nation at this time.
I am not going to quote from the various press references on this occasion, but I do say that the premiers of Canada generally went home not only unsatisfied but uncertain as to the future of this country. I do not want to read into the record the press statement made by the premier of Quebec, so I will only refer to one or two comments. In so far as the plan for the committee of 13 is concerned he said:
-it was agreed that action would quickly be taken to study the mechanism of contracting out and of applying them.
He said they would look into that. On the second subject and an equally fundamental one, that of fiscal arrangements, with regard to which a committee of ministers will make a study in depth, he had this to say:
If we have understood the correct interpretation of the project, this would be the true and deep justification for the intergovernmental committee which has been proposed-I merely said that we would like to give further thought to this question before making a statement.
The Prime Minister said today it has been agreed to, so it must have been agreed to since this press statement was made by the premier of Quebec. But then the premier of Quebec went on to say:
For this committee in itself does not settle, nor does it promise to settle with the dispatch which we believe indispensable, the problem of fiscal arrangements-
Then he quotes words he used in the brief and goes on to say:
These words and the tone of urgency in which they were couched were not written without sober thought. Very precisely they mean that we do not believe that Quebec can wait any longer for steps to be taken.
Here we have a renewal of the ultimatums of last April that were delivered by the ministers of that government. Nothing is said about an increase in the share of the provinces in the taxation field, but the premier of Quebec had this to say:
-three figures, 25-25-100, cannot remain a dead issue__We must say that the government of Quebec is not satisfied-

Then he goes on to say with regard to education that what has been done in the two most recent initiatives of the federal government constitute encroachments on the most important sector of provincial jurisdiction, that of education. He says that loans to students are in the same position. Then he goes on to say:
-we cannot accept that the federal administration commit the error, regardless of the good faith in which it would be committed, of thus invading a field which is incontestably of our jurisdiction and which, furthermore, we have occupied for the past three years.
Yet in the face of that the Prime Minister tries to leave the impression that all is well. Sir, a great challenge has come to this country, a challenge whether or not we are going to have one Canada, which has been the policy of the Conservative party from the days of Macdonald and Cartier to today. What happened at this conference constitutes a challenge to that whole concept; and it is not the provinces that are responsible for what has taken place, for the tremendous upheaval in the thinking of the people of Canada. Those responsible sit in the government ranks on the treasury benches. A year ago they said they had the answers; today they say that a committee of 13 may have the answers.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's report on the federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city last week was interesting but discouraging. Many had hoped that at this conference the heads of the governments of Canada would be able to demonstrate a measure of statesmanship that would prove they were conscious of the fact that the greatness of a country depends on more than just the sum total of its parts. One became conscious as the conference proceeded that the representatives of some parts of Canada seem to have lost sight of the fact that they were Canadians as well as speaking for the provinces which they represented.
The Liberal party has always boasted that it and it alone can provide national unity in Canada. I want to say that if last week was a demonstration of the Liberal party's idea of national unity, then heaven help us in the years that lie immediately ahead.
The Prime Minister has mentioned three matters and X should like to say a word or two about each of them. The first is the Canada pension plan. We welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that it is the intention of the government to proceed with this plan even though some of the provinces may institute plans of their own. So far the only province that has indicated definitely that it will proceed with a provincial plan is the province of Quebec. I do hope that
6. 1964	1799
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference every effort will be put forth to persuade the province of Ontario to join the federal plan.
There is one feature which I am sure is of interest to the premier of Ontario and which in my opinion is negotiable. That is the matter of the funds under the plan which are available for investment. In its original form there was no division of the funds with the provinces. In the measure now before the house I believe the proposal is that 50 per cent of the funds will be available for provincial investment. It may be that the provinces, particularly the province of Ontario, would settle for a larger percentage of that fund, and I personally can see no objection to agreeing to 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the fund being used for provincial investment. If that would keep Ontario in the plan I think it ought to be proposed to them.
There is one thing I hope the government will not do. I hope it will not agree to any further curtailment of the benefits which are to be made available to the contributors and participants in the plan. The Prime Minister said, if I took down his words correctly, that "pension coverage will be made available in all of Canada." I assume he means by this that every person in Canada will be covered by a provincial plan or the federal plan. This will at least be better than nothing. But a patchwork plan, with some people belonging to a provincial plan and some to a federal plan and where no matter how many administrative difficulties are resolved there will still be an abundance of red tape as people move from one part of the country to the other, will be a plan that is second best to the original idea of a Canada-wide pension plan.
I hope too that if the government is not able to persuade the provinces of Quebec and Ontario to forgo the establishment of provincial plans it will revert to the plan which it envisaged last July, which was much more generous to the participants and which was trimmed down deliberately by the government in order to meet the objections of certain provincial premiers.
The second thing to which the Prime Minister made reference was loans to students and the extension of family allowances to cover those 16 and 17 years of age who are still attending school. I hope the government will proceed with both of these measures, irrespective of any threats to test their constitutionality in the courts. I am not a constitutional expert, but I am sure the government has looked into this matter. The federal government already guarantees bank loans for home improvements, for small businessmen, for fishermen, for farmers and for
1800	HOUSE OF
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference municipalities. Certainly the guaranteeing of loans to students, even though part of the interest is to be forgiven, would seem unlikely to raise any serious constitutional problem.
So far as family allowances are concerned, these have been unchallenged for years, and the extension of the age from 16 to 18 ought not to seriously affect and will not, in my opinion, seriously affect the principle.
The third thing to which the Prime Minister has made reference is the shared programs. I want to say to the Prime Minister that I was disappointed that he, in his opening statement, raised this whole question of shared programs, and raised it in a way which in my opinion will do great harm to the bonds that hold confederation together. I readily admit there are many shared programs that need to be reexamined. There are many conditional grants which are much too rigid, with the result that the provinces cannot make effective use of them. A number of the shared programs should be reexamined and in some cases discarded in return for some form of unconditional grant, some further tax abatement or a further adjustment in the equalization grants.
The Prime Minister himself, in his opening statement, selected the hospital insurance plan to illustrate that it might be possible to turn this program over to the provinces in return for a 13 per cent abatement in personal income tax. I know that this agreement has not been concluded, but the Prime Minister's statement amounted to an offer. I hope that the house and the government will keep in mind what is involved if the Prime Minister's offer is accepted. Health and welfare programs are part of the atmosphere that produces a sense of identity in a country. The fact they are Canadians entitles them- from one part of this country to the other, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to enjoy certain basic health and welfare rights, not because they come from Prince Edward Island or British Columbia but because they are Canadian and have inalienable rights, is the thing that gives people a Canadian identity. The fact they are Canadians entitles them- without any red tape or having to fill out provincial forms or go through a lot of administrative bureaucracy-to these benefits wherever they are in Canada and, in certain cases, wherever they are in the world.
Now, we are destroying this concept the moment we turn hospital insurance over to the provinces. It is all right to say that for the first few years one of the conditions of receiving tax abatement will be adherence to certain national standards. How is the federal government going to enforce such standards? With the passage of time these


plans will change in each province. They have changed already in some provinces. Some provinces charge so much a day, some have a sales tax and some have a per capita tax. There are already variations. I submit that in a quarter of a century we will not recognize the hospital insurance plan if the day comes when its administration and financing is done by ten separate governments.
There is a more serious objection. The Liberal party has been committed for 40 years to the establishment in Canada of a comprehensive national health insurance program, jointly operated by the federal and provincial governments. The logical development was to extend the hospital insurance plan and add to it step by step the various health programs such as medicare, dental care and optomertic care, drugs and other health services. The day that hospital insurance is fragmented between the provinces across Canada, the hope of extending that program into a comprehensive national health insurance program goes down the drain. I hope the government will think this matter over very carefully before proceeding along the lines outlined by the Prime Minister.
I recognize that there is a problem in the province of Quebec and that the government may have to make special arrangements for that province. I ask the government, in making special arrangements for the province of Quebec, not to forget one very basic principle, namely that a concession made to Quebec which might help Quebec will not help the other provinces, and that the government has to keep in mind the differential in the per capita revenue from taxes levied in the different provinces. The giving of a tax abatement to the province of Prince Edward Island will never allow Prince Edward Island to operate a hospital insurance plan or a comprehensive health program. The small provinces must not be lost sight of in the government's desire to appease the very legitimate aspirations of the two larger provinces. These smaller provinces cannot manage these health and welfare programs alone, even if the government gives them a tax abatement. They have not the revenue resources at their disposal to manage programs which, if the government thinks they are expensive today, will be tremendously more expensive within the next decade or two.
I say to the government that while special concessions and special arrangements may have to be made with the province of Quebec because this is a bilingual and bicultural country, I hope the government will not adopt policies that will fragment the rest of Canada.
I am saying to the government that the statement outlined by the Prime Minister of

Canada the other day in Quebec city is a serious one. If the government proceeds with it they are setting their feet along a trail that will lead to the weakening and balkanization of Canada and with it the loss of a sense of identity without which no people can become a great nation.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this not being the time to debate the matter my remarks will be brief. I am convinced, however, that we are dealing with what is the most serious and most critical single problem we have in Canada.
As I listened to the remarks of the previous speakers I could not help but think that perhaps in this situation we have an important role to play as a house of minorities. This is something which does not concern one party but which concerns all of us as representatives of the Canadian people. This is no time for a partisan approach to this problem. We must somehow join hands, both provincially and politically, to try to find an answer to the problem before Canada ceases to be a nation at all.
Speaking very briefly to the several points which have been mentioned, so far as pensions are concerned there are two basic objectives behind any pension plan, be it provincial or federal. These are that security be guaranteed to our people, particularly when because of age or for other reasons they are no longer able to earn their own living; and second that the arrangements which provide this security be made on such a basis that portability will permit an individual to carry that security which he must have, and which we all desire him to have, with him, regardless of the conditions or situation in which he finds himself.
I am concerned whether or not we can have a truly national plan if 30 per cent or 65 per cent of our people, because of the actions of their governments in their particular provinces, refuse to go along with it. I would caution the government not to proceed too quickly just because it was its original intention to bring about a national pension plan, for fear that it may bring in a program that will defeat the very purpose which it is intended to accomplish.
Whether it be a unanimously agreed plan or whether some of the provinces choose to opt out, the fact remains that it must be a pension plan which will have some degree of uniformity if it is to guarantee the portability and security which we are attempting to achieve. Therefore I trust the government will not plunge into this thing because of any commitments it may have made previously, and I urge it to proceed cautiously, having regard not only to the provincial aspects but to the economic situation in Canada.
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference
In relation to family allowance extension and student loans, if we have been able to carry on with this phase of our programs without being challenged, as we have in the past, there can be no valid reason for challenging it at this point. These two very important matters, although they may seem minor, must be carried through, and 1 trust they will, because they involve the education of our young people and the provision they must make at this time for their future means of livelihood.
In relation to fiscal policies, and this also includes the shared programs, the federal government should take the lead in setting out a pattern in which the autonomy of the provinces is truly respected. I cannot see how this or any government can continue to hang on to certain responsibilities relating to fiscal policies and shared programs that were taken away from the provinces on a temporary basis during wartime, and which have not been returned since.
I believe all the provinces-remembering there are some that must receive help and others that do not need help, and that because of this somehow there must be a continuing program of equalization-would be much happier if they knew exactly just how far the federal government was going to go in respecting autonomy, and if at the same time the federal government made clear to the provinces the responsibilities they have to maintain in order to secure the necessary funds for our nation to continue as a nation.
This problem will not be solved by dividing ourselves into ten pieces, or by neglecting or paying mere lip service to the basic autonomy we regard as essential for the provinces. In this regard we must remember that Canada is a nation and we all have responsibilities, both individually and as provinces, to this nation. We must remember that there is only one taxpayer in Canada and that all taxes collected by whatever form of government come out of his pocket. That taxpayer is and includes all of us.
Whether we call the answer to the problem co-operative federalism, or whether we call it confederation as it was originally spoken of when we came together as a group of provinces, the fact remains that there must be a foundation on which a nation can stand. Unless we recognize that and give it definite form, then it is impossible to continue as a country.
That is why we must regard this particular statement which the Prime Minister has given as of such magnitude that it is the most important thing we have facing us in this session. Therefore I urge that we all face it from this aspect, and I would ask the government that it take the lead in setting
1802	HOUSE OF
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference up not just occasional federal-provincial conferences-though we have had many in recent months-and not just a study in regard to fiscal policies, but some kind of permanent machinery to make a more careful study of the whole question of confederation to determine by what means we can continue as a nation in Canada.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) may speak about the constitutionality of certain steps taken during the last federal-provincial conference; the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) may continue to play politics with these matters; the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) may fear a balkanization of Canada, but there is one thing which still remains and should not be forgotten: we are now experiencing in Quebec a desire, a pride and even more, a passion and an aggressive eagerness to take in our own hands our possibilities, our facilities and our means of development and self-attainment.
That is, Mr. Speaker, the basis of all discussions such as those which were held during the last federal-provincial conference. Exactly a year ago yesterday, the Quebec premier said:
Twelve months will elapse before the next budget is brought down. Either the central government, whichever party comes into office on April 8, will avail itself of the 12 coming months to take into account Quebec's requirements, or we, in Quebec, will have seen to it, during the same period, to make the necessary decisions in fiscal matters.
We have waited a year. That period seemed long to us. During the past year several happenings have stressed the insistence and determination of Quebec to recover and take over control of its destiny and the sovereignty of its means of action.
At that time it claimed 25, 25 and 100 per cent of three sources of income. The majority said: this is only the beginning, we want 100 per cent.
Perhaps some members will not understand what this means, but we know, because we are proud of our destiny and we believe in it.
The federal-provincial conference took place in two stages and ended up as a complete failure, in spite of what the Prime Minister may say, he might shut his eyes on the matter or be blinded by his entourage. It might be that entourage which is mostly to blame, and especially the French Canadian ministers, who far from being brilliant, dared not take their own place and who acted as flatterers and yes-men, rather than being the spokesmen and flag-bearers of the French Canadian people in defence of their deep and fair claims.


The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) may say that everything is fine, but it is because he is not aware of what is happening at the present time in the province of Quebec. And the other French Canadian ministers can remain deaf and dumb because they care more for their quiet life, their little job, than for the rights of their compatriots within confederation which they should be fighting for.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that while criticism of the action of the government is well within the rules, language bordering on personal attack is neither in good taste nor is it within the rules.


Gilles Grégoire: It may be that in the past we, in Quebec, tried again and again to find guilty parties everywhere, without exactly finding the right ones, because in most cases they belonged to our own people.
Many times, in the house, I deemed it advisable to let the present government know how serious and determined the people of Quebec were about their rights. We deemed it advisable to make suggestions, radical sometimes, but always logical, realistic and sensible.
The Prime Minister and his government chose not to listen. The federal-provincial conference is over and we do not hesitate to state that it was a dialogue between deaf people.
We are still talking of the statement made earlier by the Prime Minister on the constitutionality or granting family allowances at 16 or 17 years of age. Since when is there anything in the Quebec legislation making it compulsory to attend school up to 18 years of age? Since when? We believe that is a direct interference of the federal government into the educational field of the province of Quebec. The intrusion first started into well defined fields and as each year goes by we see the federal government intrude in other educational fields. We are determined to put a stop to these intrusions.
Today, following the federal-provincial conference, what do we hear in the province of Quebec? As far as the people are concerned, it has been a failure. The federal-provincial conference was an abject failure, and that fact has been confirmed in editorials published by various newspapers in the province of Quebec.
May I quote only one editorial published in Le Soleil on April 4 and written by Mr. Henri Dutil. It reads as follows:

The last call has really been sounded and we may have seen the last federal-provincial conference. That is the opinion now prevailing in serious circles where the affairs of the nation are discussed daily.
Now, we may read in VAction the following item, signed by Jean Hubert:
The fact that the Quebec premier, Mr. Jean Lesage, considered that he should personally issue a different press release from the official one, points unquestionably to the gravity of the situation.
The problem did not take shape overnight. It is due to growing federal intrusion in provincial affairs, and more particularly in the taxation field.
I shall also quote Mario Cardinal, writing in Le Devoir:
Perhaps confederation never has seemed as publicly threatened and at such a high level.
And there is the large heading of an article by Jean-Pierre Fournier, which says:
Confederation torn apart.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are reports and editorials which deal with the present situation.
We saw students make a public demonstration to try and open the Prime Minister's eyes, during the federal-provincial conference, and make suggestions which were serious in themselves and should have been taken into consideration. But nothing was done. Today, there is some talk about celebrating confederation. Listen to what is being said in the province of Quebec in respect of confederation. Practically nobody there believes in a confederation, the centennial of which should call for a celebration.
And who is responsible? Ottawa has its share of responsibility.
If we take a closer look at that situation, we realize that there are in fact persons to blame, not only in Ottawa, but directly within the provincial government. Incidentally, about that federal-provincial conference, may I point out the stand taken by the Quebec premier on that occasion?
We cannot forget that he was once a member of the federal cabinet which made headway in the spoliation of the rights of French Canadians by the federal government. We cannot forget either that he was then a champion of centralization, here in Ottawa.
We wonder whether it is not for that reason that he is so soft towards infringements by Ottawa.
Now, he claims to be an autonomist, and we are really amazed by the lack of seriousness in his fight against that new centralization.
We only have to recall that when arrangements on taxation rights were made during the last war, to enable the federal government, because of the urgency, to take over certain direct taxes to meet the needs of war, it was provided that after a period of one
Quebec Dominion-Provincial Conference year, an order in council passed by a province could end that centralization of taxation rights. Why does not Mr. Lesage take such a step? Why does he not take back those sources of income and why does he not put an end, in a unilateral manner, to that infringement by the federal government into the field of direct taxation?
Is the premier of the province of Quebec serious when he fights to regain our fiscal rights? Today, we indeed have cause to wonder.
You recall what happened at the time of the last federal-provincial conference. Beaten by Ottawa, he has now changed and wants to turn against the people of Quebec and deprive them through double taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of this forum to tell the government of the province of Quebec that when one has rights, he does not discuss, he takes them, especially when the law allows him to do so. I believe it would be appropriate to quote the statement of Premier Manning of Alberta who said, as reported by the newspaper Le Soleil of April 4:
Premier Jean Lesage was not roaring like a lion.
It was laughable to read some accounts of the alleged threats during the federal-provincial conference.
Mr. Speaker, at least we tried discussing, but to no avail.
Studies, committees, conferences, discussions, meetings among 13 ministers, all that, from now on, should end.
From now on, we shall take the necessary democratic means to recover what belongs to Quebec. We shall take those means when and where they are required.
As I said, we have nothing against the other provinces or the other citizens of Canada. We do not want to take anything away from them. We want only what belongs to us and we shall get it.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by quoting a sentence of the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau. As stated in Le Devoir of this morning, Mr. Drapeau said:
There are three different trends among French Canadians: co-operative federalism, a binational confederation and independence for Quebec; there is no doubt that it is mostly between these last two alternatives that some day a choice will have to be made.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat this last part of the sentence:
There is no doubt it is mostly between those last two alternatives that some day a choice will have to be made.
And Le Devoir goes on:
Such are the terms, which leave little room for ambiguity, in which the mayor of Montreal,

Introduction of Bills
Mr. Jean Drapeau, predicted yesterday the failure of Canadian co-operative federalism.
Mr. Speaker, I say to everybody and to the country as a whole: if you still want Canada to remain united, accept the theory of binationalism, and do it before it is too late, or else it will be complete and total separatism.
Mr. Speaker, those words contain no threat and no ultimatum. They simply constitute an expression of an implacable reality and an irreversible movement from a proud and noble people who understands that it must control its economy, its educational system and its social institutions, to expand in accordance with its own aspirations.
Henceforth, our activities will converge along these lines, and you can believe me when I say that we shall win, with or without the co-operation of Canada as a whole.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the same caveat given by the Chair about this type of bill I call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Mr. Stanley Knowles {Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-88, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement the fundamental principle of democracy that the laws of a country should be made only by the elected representatives of the people. Its aim is to remove the possibility of the legislation enacted by the elected representatives being interfered with or delayed by a body of persons which has no mandate from the people of this country. The Senate being such a body this bill proposes its abolition.
Clause 1 of the bill provides that the parliament of Canada shall consist of the Queen and the House of Commons; the rest of the clauses in the bill make the necessary consequential amendments to the British North America Act.
I should like to express my thanks to our parliamentary counsel for his assistance to me in drafting this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that in view of this fact, Mr. Speaker, your caveat was unnecessary.
In view of the interest in this bill I wonder whether, after it has had first reading, there might be unanimous consent to its being put
[Mr. Gregoire.l
at the top of the list of public bills for discussion on second reading later this week.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although the detail of the proposed bill is not before the house its stated purpose makes it abundantly clear that no matter how the bill may have been drafted, or by whom, the proposed bill would be unconstitutional. I say this because its effect would be to alter radically in a unilateral manner the composition of the parliament of Canada.
The British North America Act contains guarantees to certain provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and more recently Prince Edward Island, whereby the representation in this house from those provinces is linked to the number of senators from those same provinces. To abolish the Senate without the consent of those provinces, and in fact of all the provinces, would be to brush aside constitutional guarantees solemnly made, and as solemnly observed to date, in order to ensure the original entry to and continued participation in Canada of those provinces so affected. The hon. member has not this consent nor could he get it. Further, such a bill would have consequential effects on the Representation Act, the details of which I need not go into but which, I submit, result from the same defect I mentioned previously.
Finally, I submit that it has never been in the contemplation of the constitution of Canada nor in the concept of our parliament that either the House of Commons or the Senate should have the right even to introduce legislation to abolish the other. To concede that the Commons could legislate the abolition of the Senate must lead to the equally absurd proposition that the Senate could legislate the abolition of this chamber. On these limited grounds of unconstitutionality-and there are others-I submit that any proposed bill to abolish the Senate is presently out of order and should not be read even the first time. It is repugnant, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). First may I say that I must express surprise that he presumed to comment on the details of a bill which has not yet been printed, and therefore which he has not seen, although Your Honour has in your hand, a copy of the bill. The hon. member for Edmonton West suggested that a problem is raised in connection with representation in this house. As Your Honour can see if you look at the bill, a copy of which you have in your hand, it contains clauses dealing with that very point, namely the basis on which certain floors are provided for representation

in this house. I am also amazed that my hon. friend, being the learned lawyer he is, referred to these senatorial floors as though they were provided in the original British North America Act. Such is not the case; they were not written into the act until 1915.
Therefore I suggest that the points raised by the hon. member fall to the ground. The fact is that under Section 91A of the British North America Act we have the right to amend our constitution with respect to matters which are exclusively federal. We have already done so with respect to the representation in the House of Commons. There are other bills on the order paper with respect to matters of representation and the qualifications required of a senator. Both the present government and the previous one have made such proposals. I suggest that with regard to the right of this House of Commons to introduce and deal with such a bill and send it on to the other place there is no question whatsoever; and I feel that the advice I received from our parliamentary counsel is superior to the advice which has been tendered to Your Honour by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noticed that I gave a caveat at the beginning of the introduction of this bill, and at this time it seems desirable to refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 71(5):
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
In the circumstances it seems to me there is only one thing to do, and I will do it now. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest in this bill and the desire that there seems to be to debate it, would the house give unanimous consent to it being placed at the top of the list of public bills so that second reading could be taken tomorrow?


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking for the official opposition, we would certainly do that in order to give the members of this house an opportunity to stand up and be counted on the question of the abolition of parliament; because under section 17 of the British North America Act parliament shall consist of the Queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. We hope that these people will have an opportunity of standing up and voting for this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, though there may be bills of equal or even greater importance on the order paper, in view of the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition, and in view of the necessity of clearing up this violation of the bill of rights on the part of the official 7 opposition by refusing to allow even the introduction of a bill-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If a bill is not suitable for introduction, it should not appear on the order paper. However, once it is on the order paper it should be introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am shocked and amazed at the right hon. gentleman refusing to allow a bill of this kind even to be introduced for discussion in the House of Commons. I think he ought to be given every opportunity, as quickly as possible, to explain his unbelieve-able position on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked unanimous consent of the house to have this bill put at the top of the list. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Edmonton West said no.
[Mr. Speaker.!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock tomorrow.


Mr. Cashin:: With reference to the vote that was just taken, I may say I was paired and had I not been paired I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I should like to inquire why the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister was dropped from the order paper without the authority of the house? The motion read as follows:
March 27-The Prime Minister:
That immediately after royal assent has been given to the bill providing for the appropriation based on supplementary estimates (E), this house adjourn until Monday, April 6, 1964.
It was called on Friday and the Prime Minister said "Stand", as recorded in Hansard. Why does it not appear on today's order paper?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because it was not in the possession of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that when a notice of this particular type is given, until such time as the motion is introduced, the Clerk of the house, when notified the motion is not being proceeded with, has the right to withdraw the motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask, then, what the purpose is in asking the house if it consents to the motion being allowed to stand, as was done on Friday? It was in the possession of the house in that it appeared on the order paper and the house must be asked what it intends to do about it. The house may refuse to let it stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the hon. member want to do about that now?


Mr. Speaker:: The house cannot refuse the request of the government to stand the motion. In the present case, I understand

that a request to remove the motion was made to the Clerk and consequently it was taken off the order paper.


Mr. Starr:: More short cuts.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What is the estimated total value of government properties and lands in Ottawa and Hull?
2.	What were the expropriation costs to the government during the past five years?
3.	What (a) provincial (b) municipal (c) school taxes did the government pay during the past two years?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: 
SHIPS CARRYING CARGO TO NORTH
Mr. Smith: 1.	How many cargo-carrying ships were employed by the Department of Transport and other government agencies for carrying cargo into northern and Arctic areas of Canada during the 1963 shipping season?
2.	How many of these ships were built in Canada?
3.	How many of these ships were Canadian owned?
4.	How many of these ships were owned by the Canadian government?
Questions
5.	How many of the ships were foreign owned?
6.	What was the total tonnage of the foreign ships so employed?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. No cargo carrying ships were employed by the R.C.M. Police for carrying cargo into northern and Arctic areas of Canada during the 1963 shipping season, however, 15 vessels under charter or owned by the Department of Transport and two owned by the Hudson's Bay Company carried cargo for the R.C.M. Police.
26 by the Department of Transport.
2.	15.
3.	26.
4.	18.
5.	Nil.
6.	Nil.


* CREDIT FOR SEED GRAIN PURCHASES, MANITOBA
Mr. Slogan: In view of the severe crop failure experienced in the eastern and interlake areas of Manitoba, would the government extend the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the powers of the Farm Credit Corporation to make it possible for farmers in this area to obtain credit for the purchase of seed grain?


Mr. Beer:: Assistance in the procurement of seed in the circumstances referred to in the question is provided by provincial and municipal governments and is regarded as a provincial matter. The provincial statute in Manitoba under which assistance is available in unorganized areas is the seed and fodder relief act. In municipalities it is covered in the municipal act.


*REC-STONE COMPANY, VILLE D'ANJOU, QUE.
Mr. Marcoux: Does the Minister of Justice intend to ask the superintendent of bankruptcy to make an investigation into the case of the Rec-Stone Company of Ville d'Anjou, P.Q. and, if so, will the superintendent take steps to establish the role played in that company by Mr. Gerard Levesque, barrister?


Mr. Favreau:: 1. The Rec-Stone Company was declared bankrupt by virtue of a trustee's order issued on January 29, 1964. The first meeting of the creditors was held only recently, that is on February 20. Under the Bankruptcy Act, the superintendent of bankruptcy must control the administration of the trustees but it is not his duty to inquire about the conduct of people interested in a previous bankruptcy. It is up to the creditors to take that initiative.
2.	Consequently, it is not intended to ask the superintendent of bankruptcy to make an investigation.
Questions


* CONDEMNATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Klein: Has the government given consideration to the enactment of legislation to provide that all propaganda and organizations based on ideas or theories of the superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin with a view to justifying or promoting racial discrimination in any form shall be severely condemned as provided for in the resolution adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on November 21, 1963, and subscribed to by Canada?


Mr. Haidasz:: See answer to 274.
*	LEGISLATION AGAINST RACIAL DISCRIMINATION


Mr. Klein: Has the government given consideration to the enactment of legislation to provide that all incitement to or acts of violence, whether by individuals or organizations, against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin shall be considered an offence against society and punishable under law as provided for in the resolution adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on November 21, 1963, and subscribed to by Canada?


Stanley Haidasz: See answer to 274.
*	LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT U.N. RESOLUTION


ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Klein: Has the government given consideration to the enactment of legislation to provide that "in order to put into effect the purposes and principles of the present declaration, all states shall take immediate and positive measures, including legislative and other measures, to prosecute and/or outlaw organizations which promote or incite to racial discrimination, or incite to or use violence for purposes of discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin" as provided for in the resolution adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on November 21, 1963, and subscribed to by Canada?


Stanley Haidasz: The declaration on the elimination of racial discrimination, to which the question refers, was adopted unanimously by the United Nations general assembly last December. While a declaration does not impose any formal obligation on a country which votes for it, it does provide a standard of conduct for members of the United Nations and suggests guide lines for legislation. Most member governments will probably not take at this time any legislative action as a result of the declaration, since the human rights commission, on the instructions of the United Nations general assembly, is engaged in drafting a convention on the elimination of racial discrimination which will be the definitive document. If subscribed to by member states, the convention will require to be implemented and governments will have to consider whether legislation is necessary to carry out the articles of the convention.

Quite apart from these developments at the United Nations, a problem has arisen in Canada resulting from recent outbreaks of racial propaganda. Hon. members will recall the remarks on this subject made by the Minister of Justice to this house on March 10. Later, outside the house, the minister indicated that he favoured the principle of an amendment to forbid racial propaganda and that the real problem is to find a formula which meets the evil upon which all decent men agree without, at the same time, interfering with a proper freedom of speech. He indicated that the matter was being pursued energetically and that appropriate measures would be taken as early as possible when an acceptable formula had been found.
This answer also applies to starred questions 273 and 274.
^FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISHERIES COMMITTEE


Mr. Howard: Have any federal-provincial fisheries committees been established with any or all of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia and, if so (a) what was the date upon which each was established (b) what are the names and addresses of the members of each such committee, and (c) what are its duties, functions and authorities?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to question No. 284 is lengthy, if the hon. member is agreeable may I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in Hansard?


Mr. Howard:: I am quite agreeable.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows;]
Yes. (see below)
Fraser river board: (a) April 1, 1959 (first board known as Fraser river basin board was appointed in 1948); (b) membership.
For Canada:	Director, water resources
branch (T. M. Patterson) Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa. Director, Pacific area (W. R. Hourston), Department of Fisheries, Vancouver.
For British Columbia: Comptroller of water rights, chairman (A. F. Paget), water rights branch, department of lands, forests and water resources. Director of surveys and mapping (G. S. Andrews), department of lands, forests and water resources.
(Note: Membership is on basis of incumbents of positions. Present membership shown in brackets).
(c)	The board shall plan, supervise and carry out such surveys and investigations as may be needed to prepare a comprehensive report dealing with engineering and economic feasibility of a partial hydroelectric power development of the Fraser river that would

provide flood control. The board shall prepare broad estimates of the effects on public and private interests by reason of any developments. The board's report has been completed.
Federal-provincial committee on price and wage disputes in British Columbia fishing industry:
(a)	October 18, 1963.
(b)	Federal representatives: W. R. Hourston, area director of fisheries, Vancouver, British Columbia; J. J. Quinlan, deputy director of investigation and research (Combines Investigation Act), Department of Justice, Ottawa; G. R. Currie, industrial relations officer, Department of Labour, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Provincial representatives: A. W. R. Car-rothers, professor of law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia; Dr. D. B. Turner, deputy minister of recreation and conservation, Victoria, British Columbia; C. R. Margison, assistant deputy minister of labour, Victoria, British Columbia.
(c)	To exercise in detail the problems concerned with price and wage disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry and to submit to both governments recommendations of action necessary to minimize interruptions of fishing operations in the future.


FEED GRAIN IN ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AREA
Mr. Peters: 1.	Are the supplies of eastern feed grain, held in the St. Lawrence river area, sufficient to meet the current projected requirements of eastern users for the 1963-64 requirements?
2.	What is the estimate of the number of bushels of feed grain that will be transported by rail from the elevators at the lakehead in the 1963-64 season?
3.	What is the estimated cost, per bushel, to be paid for transportation, and how much, per bushel, will be covered by freight subsidy?
Answer: 1. Total supplies of feed grains in the east are sufficient to meet estimated requirements until the opening of navigation.
2.	Board of grain commissioners statistics do not show feed grain loadings for the domestic market but do show total shipments by rail ex lakehead of 964,000 bushels of wheat, oats, and barley combined in the period October 15, 1963 and February 15, 1964.
3.	Based on most economical means of transport, the estimated average weighted cost of transportation on western feed grains from lakehead to local feed mills in the east is 17 cents per bushel and the freight subsidy represents, on the average, an estimated 18 cents per bushel.
Other costs related to the movement, but not transportation per se, such as insurance and elevation, have not been included and
Questions
the above relationship varies month to month depending upon lake freight transport rates.


EASTERN FEED GRAIN STORAGE
Mr. Peiers: 1.	Since the implementation of the payment to elevators for stored feed grain in eastern Canada, what has been the cost for December, 1963, and January and February of this year?
2.	How many bushels were stored in eastern elevators, and at what total storage cost per bushel?
3.	Is the Department of Agriculture satisfied with the results of this program?
4.	What are the results, in cost per bushel of feed grain, in saving to the farmer as a result of this program?
Answer: 1. Claims for storage assistance are not complete for any of the periods in question but the following amounts were paid in the months listed:
December	$ 27,938.93
January	79,111.66
February	107,309.33
Total	$214,359.92
2.	The maximum number of bushels of western feed grains in store eastern licensed elevators at any one time in the period October 15 to February 29 was 30.8 million. The cost per bushel is 1/30 cent per day.
3.	This government program was designed to stimulate the movement of sufficient feed grains to the east by the cheapest means of transportation, namely, lake freight. Sufficient stocks for feeding, and 45 per cent more than a year earlier, were in store at the close of navigation and therefore the results were satisfactory.
4.	On grain in store on October 15, 1963 and taken out by farmers throughout the fall and winter the following savings per ton could accrue to the farmer:
When taken out on
Nov. 1	Dec. 1	Jan. 1	Feb. 1	Mar. 2	Apr. 15Wheat	.17	.50	.83	$1.17	$1.50	$2.00Oats	.30	.89	1.48	2.07	2.66	3.54Barley	.21	.63	1.05	1.47	1.89	2.52
Additional savings could accrue to users as a result of the more satisfactory supply-demand picture.


FEED GRAIN PRICES IN EAST
Mr. Peiers: 1.	What has caused the increase in price of feed grains to farmers in eastern Canada?
2.	Is this considered by the government to be a reasonable seasonal mark-up?
3.	Does it indicate a failure in the storage support program?

Questions
Answer: 1. The local supply and demand situation for feed grains including home-produced grains can cause certain price fluctuations but information available discloses no upward revision since December in the retail price of mixed feeds. Retail mixed feed prices are in general closely tied to feed grain prices.
2 and 3. Answered by 1.


* SURVEYS, MATANE-STE ANNE DES MONTS RAILWAY
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What was the cost of the plans and the specifications which were prepared for the Matane-Ste Anne des Monts railway?
2.	What amounts were paid to Matane and Gaspe surveyors for the survey horizontal control of air photography?
3.	Who was awarded the contract for the survey vertical control and what was the cost of that work?
4.	What air company compiled the maps from air photography and what was the amount paid for that work?


Mr. Cantin:: 1. The total cost of the survey and the preparation of plans was $43,256.63, of which amount $24,728.23 was paid to Canadian National Railways for work done by the company, which also acted as the government's agent in organizing the survey as a whole.
2.	Mr. Severin Pelletier, Matane, $5,100. Mr. Gilbert Sasseville, Ste Anne des Monts, $3,000.
3.	No contract was awarded for the survey vertical control as the work was carried out by Canadian National forces.
4.	The air photography was carried out by Photographic Surveys (Quebec) Ltd., Montreal, at a cost of $10,428.40.


R.C.A.F. HOUSING UNITS, SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Were the 100 housing units which are located at Summerside, P.E.I., and occupied by R.C.A.F. personnel, built under the provision of the National Housing Act?
2.	What were the names of the contractors involved?
3.	What contribution, if any, was made by the federal government or any of its agencies?
4.	Were there guarantees and, if so, what were they?
5.	Are the R.C.A.F. personnel compelled to live in these housing units?
6.	What are the R.C.A.F. personnel required to pay for occupancy of the premises (a) rent (b) taxes (c) electricity and fuel (d) any other expenses?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	Hillcrest Housing Limited.
[Mr. Peters.1
3.	The federal government through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advanced 85 per cent of the total cost of construction, a sum of $870,015 to Hillcrest Housing Limited. This money was to be amortized over a 40 year period at 4| per cent.
4.	No occupancy guarantees were provided.
5.	If there are any vacancies in the bulk lease homes married service personnel may be ordered into this accommodation.
6.	(a) The rental rates are as follows: up to and including the rank of Cpl $80; Sgt, W02 $85; WOl, Pilot Officer $90; F/O, F/L $105.
(b)	Municipal taxes are the responsibility of the developer who owns the land and the houses.
(c)	Personnel who occupy these houses are required to pay, directly to the supplier, for electricity, fuel and water. In return, such personnel get a utility allowance of $20 per month to cover a portion of this expense.
(d)	It is understood that special taxes peculiar to the town of Summerside, i.e. poll tax, personal property tax, vehicle tax, are imposed on the individual tenant and may be as high as $6 per month. It should be added, however, that the present town administration have indicated that their tax structure is in the process of being revised, and this may provide some relief in so far as tenants are concerned. Tenants are also personally liable for any damages to their married quarters.


*POST OFFICE SITES, PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Aiken: 1.	From whom, and at what price, were sites acquired for construction of the following public buildings in Parry Sound-Muskoka constituency (a) Britt (b) Rosseau (c) Kearney?
2.	Are any of the parties named in part 1, consultants of the Minister of Public Works or Postmaster General in that constituency?


Mr. McWilliam:: 1. (a) Britt-A site consisting of two parcels of land is being acquired from Mr. G. M. Taylor for $3,200 and the province of Ontario for $50. (b) Rosseau- From Mr. G. E. Foote for $1,850. (c) Kearney -From Miss Doris Gilbert for $1,500.
2. No.
^DIRECTOR OF METEOROLOGICAL BRANCH, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT


Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the civil service commission alter the qualifications for the position of director of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport after the applications for the position had been received and, if so, on what authority?
2.	Is the present director of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, American

meteorological society, Canadian association of physicists, Arctic circle, Oxford society, or Arctic institute North America, and if a member of all or any, what position or positions has he held in these societies?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. The civil service commission did not alter the qualifications required for this position.
One of the allegations made at the appeal board hearing was that there had been a change in emphasis from scientific to administrative ability as between the statement contained in the department's letter to prospective candidates and the criteria used later by the departmental rating board in assessing the candidates.
The appeal board concluded that the criteria used were sound and related to the duties of the position and recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
The civil service commission, satisfied that there was nothing irregular in the procedures followed by the department, nor indeed anything amounting to an alteration of the requirements, and satisfied also that the successful candidate's qualifications for the position were superior to those of the other applicants, approved the recommendation of both the appeal board and the rating board.
2. Yes, a fellow of the royal meteorological society. The Department of Transport has no record of the position held in the society.


WINTER WORKS GRANTS, ST. FELICIEN, QUE.
Mr. Gauihier: What winter works grants have been received from the federal government by the town of St. Felicien and the parish of St. Felicien for works carried out in 1962-63?


Mr. MacEachen:: Under the municipal winter works incentive program 1962-63, federal payments in respect to the town of St. Felicien amounted to $120,140.96, and $16,463.42 was paid to the parish of St. Felicien.


LIMOUSINE SERVICE, TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Addison: 1.	What is the name of the company that operates the Department of Transport authorized limousine service from the Toronto international airport?
2.	When was this contract awarded, for how long and for what amount?
3.	What was the name and amount of each tender submitted?
4.	Over the terms of the contract is there any ceiling on the amount the successful bidder may charge for taxi service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Air Terminal Transport Limited of Toronto.
2 and 3. The agreement with Air Terminal Transport Limited, who had been providing this service previously was, in accordance with air line wishes, renegotiated on August 1, 1960, for a period of ten years; the concession
Questions
fee payable by the company, effective from August 1, 1960, is as follows: During the first five years, the concession fee will be 3.75 per cent of gross revenue, and during the second five years of the agreement the percentage is to be increased by J of 1 per cent each year of the second five years, so that by the tenth year of the agreement the rental will have reached 5 per cent of gross revenue.
4.	The tariff charged by Air Terminal Transport Limited is subject to approval by the Ontario transportation board and the company files a schedule approved by the said board with the department.


POST OFFICE TENDER, LION'S HEAD, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of a post office, S.P. 8, Lion's Head, Bruce county, Ontario in December 1963 and, if so, what were the names and addresses of the tenderers?
2.	What were the amounts of the quotations submitted in each tender?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted, and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Deschaieleis:: 1. Yes. T. M. Forbes, Wiarton, Ontario, was the only tenderer.
2.	$39,525.60.
3.	No, the quotation received was considered excessive. Tenders were called a second time with a closing date of March 18, 1964 and the only quotation received was from Beachall Construction Co. Ltd., Scarborough, Ontario at $23,576. This tender is under consideration.


*HIGH ENERGY NUCLEAR PHYSICS LABORATORY CENTRE
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government now giving consideration to the proposal of the Canadian association of physicists made in 1956 and 1957, that Canada construct a high energy nuclear physics laboratory centre on a high energy particle accelerator in Canada and, if not, what were the reasons for refusing this proposal of the Canadian association of physicists?


Mr. Drury:: So far as the national research council is concerned there is no plan at present to implement the proposal of the Canadian association of physicists to construct and operate a high energy laboratory in Canada. Although the desirability of giving maximum possible support to physics is recognized, obligations to support other branches of science must also be taken into account. With the rapid expansion of universities and a plan for corresponding rapid expansion in our program for scholarships and grants in aid of research in the next few years, it is not considered possible at the present time to embark on a project of such magnitude as a high energy laboratory which would involve an estimated construction cost of $25 million with estimated operating
1812	HOUSE OF
Questions
costs thereafter of $3.5 to $4 million per year. General support of physics in various fields in universities across the country including support for several medium energy laboratories is considered to be the most desirable way to spend whatever money is available for the next few years.


* ENCOURAGEMENT TO JAPANESE TOURISTS
Mr. Basford: 1.	Has the Canadian government travel bureau taken cognizance of the fact that on April 1, with Japan becoming a full member of the international monetary fund, individual Japanese citizens will be allowed to spend $500 each on pleasure travel over and above transportation costs?
2.	What, in general terms, is the travel bureau doing to take advantage of this situation to encourage Japanese tourists to visit Canada and British Columbia?
3.	Specifically to encourage Japanese tourists to visit Canada and British Columbia, is the Canadian government travel bureau (a) preparing and seeing to the distribution in Japan of tourist promotion pamphlets, brochures and material in the English or Japanese language and, if not, has such action been considered (b) endeavouring to send delegations to Japan of Canadian west coast travel, hotel, tourist, and municipal representatives to encourage Japanese-Canadian tourism (c) making or contributing to any effort to send to Japan a tourist promotion team to counteract the tourist promotion efforts of the ten Eskimos and Miss Alaska that the state of Alaska is sending to Japan, or the hula dancers that the state of Hawaii is sending to Japan (d) holding discussions and, if so, the nature thereof with any tourist officers of the province of British Columbia leading to the initiation of a co-ordinated Japanese tourist promotion program and, if not, will any such discussions be initiated by the tourist bureau (e) holding discussions and, if so, the nature thereof with any officers of the greater Vancouver visitors and convention bureau leading to the initiation of a co-ordinated Japanese tourist promotion program and, if not, will any such discussions be initiated by the tourist bureau (f) having (or had) any discussions with any officials of C.P.A.,
T.	C.A., or other Canadian carriers to determine what efforts these carriers are making to encourage Japanese tourists to visit Canada, and in what way the travel bureau can assist and augment these efforts (g) having any officials in any government of Canada diplomatic, trade or commercial office in Japan acquire any special or expert knowledge of the tourist attractions and facilities of the west coast of Canada and, if so, what are these officials names and positions and how have they acquired such expert or special knowledge (h) having any of the full-time employees of the Ottawa office of the travel bureau acquire any special or expert knowledge of the special considerations applicable to Japanese-Canadian tourism and, if so, how many, and what is the nature of their special or expert knowledge (i) having or had anything done to assure that the employees of the San Francisco office of the travel bureau are in a position to encourage Japanese tourists intending to visit the west coast of the
U.	S.A. to also visit Canada and, if so, how will they so encourage them?


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, this very interesting question has to do with travel promotion in Japan. It is one page long. The answer


covers five pages. Could I have the agreement of the house to table it?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to tabling the answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether this is to be tabled or printed in Hansard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: To be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	Yes, consideration is being given to attracting more Japanese visitors to Canada.
2.	The Canadian government travel bureau
(a)	recently rejoined the Pacific area travel association, in which 29 Pacific area countries are represented, to keep in closer touch with travel promotion needs and developments in the Pacific travel market, of which Japan is now expected to become a more important part; (b) the assistant director of the bureau, Mr. Dan Wallace, with the co-operation and guidance of Canadian Pacific Airlines, attended the P.A.T.A. annual conference in Sydney, Australia, March 2-6, and surveyed the travel potential for Canada of Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan. During his four days in Japan, Mr. Wallace met with Canadian diplomatic and trade representatives, representatives of Canadian carriers, leading Japanese government travel promotion officers and travel agents, and the director of the United States travel service; (c) the bureau plans to recruit a travel promotion officer for Japan this year; (d) the bureau has recommended to the Department of Trade and Commerce that an official travel trade mission be sent this year to visit the Pacific countries, including Japan. This mission would be broadly representative of the Canadian travel industry, including members from British Columbia and other parts of Canada interested in developing more tourist traffic from the Pacific countries, including Japan, and obtaining publicity in these countries for Canada's travel attractions.
3.	(a) The circulation in Japan of Canadian English language travel literature and posters is being increased, and this literature will later be made available in Japanese.
(b)	See answer 2(d) above. The travel trade mission would include representatives of the travel industry from the west coast.
(c)	See answer 2(d) above. Last year, the bureau co-operated with Canadian Pacific Airlines in obtaining permission for two members of the R.C.M. Police to visit Japan to

assist in getting publicity for a C.P.A. inaugural flight. The bureau is now planning to work with C.P.A. in assisting a Japanese television team this summer in filming 13 one half hour programs on Canada.
(d)	As the bureau develops its travel promotion program for Japan and the Pacific, it will initiate discussions on this development with the government travel bureaus of British Columbia and the other provinces and territories.
(e)	The bureau's promotion program for Japan and the Pacific will also be discussed with the officers of municipal visitor and convention bureaus in Vancouver and other Canadian cities with a view to effecting closer co-ordination of efforts to attract more visitors from Japan.
(f)	A number of discussions have already been held with officers of C.P.A., T.C.A. and other Canadian carriers with regard to their promotion plans to increase the number of Japanese visitors to Canada, and how the bureau could assist by the provision of literature, posters, displays and films, and by developing direct travel promotion in Japan through the appointment of an officer to be located in Tokyo who would actively contact travel agents and publicity media, and work closely with representatives of the carriers in Japan that are interested in developing travel to Canada.
(g)	There is no organized program to ensure that Canadian government officials in Japan acquire special knowledge of the tourist attractions and facilities of Canada's west coast, but in their training programs and home visits, these officers do have an opportunity of acquainting themselves in a general way with the tourist attractions of all parts of Canada. Any officer appointed to represent the bureau in Japan will be thoroughly conversant with west coast tourist facilities and attractions.
(h)	On several occasions since 1952, officers of the travel bureau have attended P.A.T.A. conferences to keep in touch with travel developments in Pacific area countries. While Japan's currency restrictions were in effect, the flow of visitors from Japan to North America was limited. As indicated in 2(b) above, the assistant director of the travel bureau spent four days in March in Japan studying this country's potential for travel to Canada, the special conditions attaching to such travel, and the efforts being made by other countries, including the United States, to develop this business.
(i)	The manager of the San Francisco office of the travel bureau keeps in close touch with the P.A.T.A. organization, which has its headquarters there. The staff of this office, and of the bureau's offices in Chicago
Questions
and New York-all of which are centrally located and accessible to Japanese visitors to these cities-is well briefed on the tourist facilities and attractions of the west coast and therefore able to assist Japanese visitors with their plans for travel to Canada.


PRIVATE AIRCRAFT LANDING FEES
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to removing private aircraft landing fees and instead levying a three cent tax on gasoline?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The matter of charges to be levied on private aircraft for use of facilities provided by the taxpayer is under continuing study but this particular proposal is not under immediate consideration.
C.N.R. REPORTS UNDER P.C. 1962-481 and p.c. 1962-656


Mr. Cyr: On what date did the Minister of Transport receive reports from the C.N.R. pursuant to orders in council P.C. 1962-481 and P.C. 1962-656?


Jean-Charles Cantin: On December 27, 1962, the chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways submitted to the Minister of Transport the report of the C.N.R. on the survey of a railway line from Matane to Ste Anne des Monts, and an estimate of the cost of such a railway line.


EXPENDITURES ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, LOTBINIERE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	What amount of money was promised or granted under the federal-provincial agreement on the construction of the trans-Canada highway (highway No. 9) relating to that part of the highway which goes through the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
2.	What is or will be the average amount paid per acre of land to the farm owners along the trans-Canada highway or on its access roads?
3.	What criteria are used by the purchasing agents to establish a fair compensation for farmers who must cover distances of up to five miles in order to reach parts of their farms located on the other side of the trans-Canada highway?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Canada pays half the construction costs of the two-lane highway under the agreement on construction of the trans-Canada highway. The estimated amount of Canada's share of the cost of work approved in the riding of Lotbiniere amounts to $5,076,000 to date.
2. Canada does not contribute to the cost of the land purchased by the province for rights of way or other purposes. Payments to land owners come under the province and the federal government has no information about

Questions
the amounts paid by the province for such lands or the standards on which those amounts are based.
3. See answer to question no. 2.


* SENIOR OFFICERS, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Since February 3, 1964, how many deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers have been appointed to the Department of Industry and what is the name, address, and salary of each?
2.	Among those appointed, are there any French Canadians and, if not, for what reason?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to both parts of this question is no.


CHIBOUGAMAU-LAC ALBANEL ROAD, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	With reference to the joint federal-provincial roads to resources program, when was construction started on the Chibougamau-Lac Albanel road?
2.	What is the estimated completion date?
3.	How many men are now working on that project?
4.	How many motor vehicles belonging to Canadians are being used in the construction of the road?
5.	How many motor vehicles belonging to Americans are being used at the present time?


Mr. Laing:: 1. The contract was awarded in December 1962.
2.	Late in the fall of 1966.
3,	4 and 5. Since agreements concerning the roads to resources programs provide that building works come under provincial jurisdiction, only the province can answer parts 3, 4 and 5 of this question.


CONTRACT FOR WHARF REPAIRS, ARICHAT, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): With regard to question 363, when is a contract going to be awarded by the Department of Public Works to G. J. Forgeron of West Arichat, Richmond county, Nova Scotia, who is the low tenderer on repairs to the wharf at Arichat?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The contract for wharf repairs at Arichat, N.S. was awarded to G. J. Forgeron, West Arichat on March 24, 1964.


RESTORATION OF H.D.-4 HYDROFOIL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): With reference to the answer to question No. 958, under date of July 22, 1963, on what date will
[Mr. Deschatelets.)
the department concerned begin structural restoration work on the H.D.-4 in 1964?


Arthur Laing: The answer to question No. 958 (Hansard of July 22, 1963, p. 2449) indicated that a consulting naval architect was completing reports, drawings and cost estimates needed for the restoration of the H.D.-4. His report includes the disappointing news that restoration is not feasible and recommends reconstruction instead. Because some of the technical data is still missing and some of the components necessary for a historically accurate reproduction will be difficult to locate or reproduce, it is not yet possible to give a firm date on which reconstruction work can begin.


LENGTHENING OF WHARF, LIVERPOOL, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is It the intention of the government to lengthen the federal public wharf in Liverpool, Queens county, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many feet will be added to this wharf and when will the work be undertaken?
3.	What is the approximate amount of money to be allocated for this project?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No decision has been reached in this matter. The department has the requirements of the fishing fleet at Liverpool under review.
2 and 3. The extent, scheduling and cost of increased public wharfage will be dependant on the requirements determined in 1 above.


METEOROLOGICAL BRANCH, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT  MEMBERSHIP IN WORLD ORGANIZATION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the present director of meteorology, Department of Transport, a member of the world meteorological organization?
2.	Are any of the staff of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport members of the world meteorological organization?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 and 2. Membership in the world meteorological organization is limited to states who have ratified or acceded to the world meteorological organization convention There is no such thing as personal membership.


OWNERSHIP OF MAIN DUCK ISLANDS, LAKE ONTARIO
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	Who are the owners of the Canadian group of islands known as the Main Duck islands in lake Ontario?
2.	During their period of occupancy by the late John Foster Dulles, were the islands leased or owned by Mr. Dulles?
3.	Under their present status, what is the government doing to ensure the protection of the

herd of deer on the islands and the large flocks of migratory birds that rest there in season?
4.	Does the federal government own any land used in connection with the functioning of Department of Transport safety devices and navigational signals, lighthouses, etc., used on the islands?
5.	By whom was the dock built that serves the island on which the lighthouse is situated?
6.	By whom is the above dock maintained?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The Dulles estate.
2.	Owned by Mr. Dulles.
3.	These islands are a part of the province of Ontario, and come, therefore, under the relevant provincial legislation relating to the hunting of deer, and under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and regulations relating to the hunting of migratory birds. The area is patrolled by provincial game officers (who are ex officio officers under the Migratory Birds Convention Act) and by the R.C.M. Police.
4.	Yes.
5.	Department of Transport.
6.	Department of Transport.


RECOGNITION OF ACTS OF BRAVERY OR HEROISM
Mr. Basford: 1.	What non-military medals, honours or titles is the government of Canada able to bestow or cause to be bestowed upon Canadian citizens in recognition of acts of bravery or heroism, or for outstanding contributions to the national life or development of Canada?
2.	For the year 1963, on whom were any such medals, honours or titles bestowed?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. (a) All civil gallantry decorations and medals from the Queen, in recognition of acts of bravery performed at the risk of death or serious personal injury, are available to Canadian civilians on the recommendation of the government of Canada; (b) none.
2. On the recommendation of the government of Canada, the Canadian civilians listed hereunder received decorations and medals in recognition of acts of bravery during 1963:	Herbert Joslin (deceased), Charles
Garnet Robson, Ronald Leslie Tarr, Henry Leblanc, John Vatour, Douglas S. S. Ellis, Lyle Allen Roger Olsen, Isaac Peters, Barbara Ann Pilsinger.


EXPROPRIATION OF POST OFFICE SITES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coales: Were notices of expropriation filed at the registry office, Amherst, N.S., with regard to the acquisition of sites for the post offices at Westchester and Joggins and, if so, on what dates were these notices filed?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Notice of expropriation with respect to Westchester, N.S., was filed and registered on February 12, 1964.
Questions
Notice of expropriation with respect to Jog-gins, N.S., was filed and registered on February 13, 1964.


WORLD FAIR EMBLEM DESIGNED BY PHILIPPE E. MALTAIS
Mr. Belanger: Did the 1967 world exhibition corporation give any consideration to the design for an emblematic shield representing the theme "Man's World" submitted by the artist Philippe E. Maltais of La Malbaie and, if so, why was it not adopted in lieu of the one rejected by this house?

Answer: The 1967 World Exhibition Corporation did consider the emblematic shield design submitted by Mr. Philippe E. Maltais of La Malbaie. However, on March 13, 1964, the board of directors confirmed its previous decision, dated August 12, 1963, by which the design submitted by Mr. Julien Hebert was selected as official theme of the exhibition.


CHANGING OF THE GUARD, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. McBain: 1.	Will the changing of the guard ceremony be conducted on parliament hill this summer and, if so, on what dates will it commence and conclude?
2.	What regiment will be in charge and who will be the commanding officer?
3.	Has such commanding officer been advised that he will be in charge of the ceremonies and, if not, why has he not been advised?
Answer: 1. Yes. From June 28 to September 8, 1964 inclusive.
2.	Second battalion, Canadian Guards, with Lt. Col. O. K. H. Kierans as commanding officer.
3.	Yes.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From May 1, 1963 to March 1, 1964 how many motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of National Defence (a) manufactured or assembled in Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States (d) imported from other countries?
Answer: (a) None; (b) 2,454; (c) 20 (special military pattern vehicles); (d) nil.
Note: In addition, 30 vehicles were purchased to be manufactured in Quebec and 4 in Manitoba. A further 86 vehicles were purchased for manufacture in other countries for delivery overseas (not imported into Canada).


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From May 1, 1963 to March 1, 1964 how many motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of Fisheries (a) manufactured or assembled
1816	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
in Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States (d) imported from other countries?
Answer: (a) Nil; (b) 45; (c) nil; (d) nil.


SITE FOR WOMEN'S PRISON, CORNWALL, ONT.
Mr. Knowles: Has the property on which the new women's prison at or near Cornwall is to be built yet been purchased and, if so, from whom, and at what price?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No property has been purchased at or near Cornwall as the site of a new women's prison.


*BEEF, VEAL AND PORK CONSUMPTION
Mr. Vincent: What was the per capita consumption for each year 1956 to 1983 inclusive, of (a) beef cattle (b) calves (c) swine?
[Trans lotion]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Per capita consumption in pounds of refrigerated carcass meat, canned products not included
Year	(a) Beef	(b) Veal	(c) Pork1956	71.4	8.5	49.21957	72.0	8.9	44.41958	68.0	7.3	49.41959	65.6	6.9	56.71960	70.0	6.9	52.61961	69.7	6.8	49.91962	69.3	6.5	49.81963	73.8	6.6	50.7



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
seamen's UNION
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether Leonard McLaughlin has been placed in control of the S.I.U. administration by the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: What position does he occupy today with the S.I.U.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My understanding, subject to checking it, is that Mr. McLaughlin is executive vice president of the seafarers' international union.


John George Diefenbaker: And has there been no appointment made of Mr. McLaughlin at all, as reported in the press?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no appointment of Mr. McLaughlin, 

according to my information from the trustees. Maybe my right hon. friend would permit me to make an observation or two with respect to the agreement or understanding reached between the trustees on the one hand and the president of the seafarers' international union of North America, Mr. Hall, on Friday last.
A public statement was issued enumerating seven points on which an understanding had been reached, one of which, to summarize it, was that immediately steps would be taken to restore the S.I.U. of Canada to the constitutional control of its members. Constitutional provision for succession to the presidency of the seafarers' international union of Canada will be implemented as a first step in restoring their control.
As I understand the situation-and this may assist the Leader of the Opposition-there will be no immediate change in the present leadership of the S.I.U. of Canada until the shipping season is further advanced. This period of time will provide an opportunity to ensure that the arrangements have been fully honoured before any change is made. When the change takes place, Mr. McLaughlin will not be appointed as president by the trustees but, rather, they will allow the provision of the constitution with respect to the succession of leadership to be put into effect. Mr. Turner, I understand, will remain as representative of the trustees who will continue to supervise the over-all administration of the union.
I might conclude by saying that the arrangement as outlined in the joint statement on Friday contemplates a cessation of harassment of all shipping in United States ports, and surely if that does come about, combined with the continued supervision by the trustees-over the S.I.U., a major step forward will have been taken in resolving this problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the arrangements made between Mr. Hall and the trustees, is it not a fact that in accordance with the succession, McLaughlin will be placed in the position previously occupied by Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, but I did not
follow the question put by the Leader of the Opposition. If he would repeat it I would be glad to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: The question is simply this: Was there any arrangement made between Hall and the trustees that McLaughlin should, in the ordinary course of events, follow in the succession and hold the position held by Banks at the time he was removed from office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should make it clear that the information I am giving to the

house is information received from the trustees regarding a decision taken by them in their role as quasi administrators of this union. The situation as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is correct, except, as I have stated, that the trustees will not take any action on their own account to appoint Mr. McLaughlin as president, and this change which is contemplated with the removal of Mr. Turner is not to take place until a period of time has elapsed to make it possible to observe whether the arrangements entered into between the trustees and Mr. Hall are fully honoured.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like permission to ask one further question. I am just wondering if McLaughlin has gone through some political dry cleaning, because if one reads the Norris report it says at pages 169 and 170 that he is a clever, resourceful and entirely untruthful witness-that he is devious and adept in carrying out the one-man policies of Banks, and that his subservience to and support of Banks in all circumstances was demonstrated from an early age.
Would the minister not think that this is the last person in the world-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You hate to see it settled.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Prime Minister say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Apparently you do not want it settled.


John George Diefenbaker: If we are to get a settlement by securing the help of a hoodlum like that, I wonder whether or not the cost is too high.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, may I say this: It is a fact that the passage he referred to appears in the report by Mr. Justice Norris. It is also a fact that the three trustees, consisting of Mr. Justice Dryer, also on the bench of the supreme court of British Columbia, Judge Lippe of Quebec and Mr. Charles Millard, a very experienced unionist of unquestioned integrity, have all been in direct charge of this situation for a period of months, now, and they have concluded, in the exercise of the authority granted them by parliament, that this is an arrangement which will assist in the resolution of these difficulties. In this instance my opinion is not at issue because the trustees are exercising independent authority given to them by parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the trustees were appointed by parliament, or set up under legislation passed by parliament, and parliament is responsible to the people of Canada for
Inquiries of the Ministry their actions, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he considers that taking steps which will lead to the appointment of Leonard J. McLaughlin, described by Mr. Justice Norris as "Banks' man Friday" will carry out the intent and desire of parliament, which was to free the shipping industry from the rule of thugs and to destroy the hoodlum empire which had victimized and terrorized the great lakes shipping industry for too long a period of time.
I should like to ask the minister whether he thinks that appointing Mr. McLaughlin to the post contemplated is likely to carry out that intention?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I must, once again, insist that the trustees are not appointing Mr. McLaughlin to the presidency of the S.I.U.


John George Diefenbaker: A play on words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is quite clear that they are not appointing him now. I will be the last to suggest that the situation is wholly resolved, but I do maintain it is reasonable for the House of Commons and for the people of Canada to give their support to the trustees, each of whom is a rather considerable person, as they excercise their responsibilities from day to day. They have concluded this arrangement which, if successful-and this remains to be seen, of course-will provide for the complete freedom of Canadian shipping in United States ports and will permit the trustees to continue as supervisors, I was about to say "masters" but that is not the right word, in authority over the S.I.U. of Canada, including Mr. McLaughlin, who may-and it is a question of "may"-after the passage of time, become president in accordance with the constitution of the seafarers international union of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege. The minister has just made a statement which I think ought to be reconciled with the statement which was issued by the trustees and by Mr. Hall. That statement reads as follows:
Immediate steps will be taken to restore the S.I.U. of Canada to the constitutional control of its members. Constitutional provisions for succession to the presidency of the S.I.U. of Canada will be implemented as a first step in restoring membership control.
I submit that the moment the trustees remove Mr. Turner, who is there at the present time, the office automatically goes to the first executive vice president, who is Mr. McLaughlin. That follows from the constitution. Therefore, it seems to me the minister is playing fast and loose with the house when he seeks to give the impression that the announcement made the other day

Canada Elections Act
does not automatically mean the appointment of Mr. McLaughlin when control has been turned back to the membership.
I want to ask the minister a simple question. Does he think that turning control back to the members, and the appointment of the vice president to the presidency is carrying out the purpose parliament had in mind when it passed the legislation setting up the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first point is that the government has not taken any action whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: As usual.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is an action taken by the trustees under authority given them by parliament. That is the first point to be made. The second point is this-it may appear an unimportant point to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam but this is a very important matter to the membership of the seafarers' international union of Canada, that Mr. McLaughlin, if and when he becomes president, will not become president by appointment by the board of trustees, but by the operation of the constitution of the union itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.


Mr. Rapp:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, before you call it five o'clock, do I now understand that the house is allowed to debate every private member's bill on the order paper, according to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and is my bill ruled out of order incorrectly?


Mr. Speaker:: I really do not see any question of privilege there. It may be a complaint but there is no question of privilege under the rules which, by law, if I may put it that way, I must enforce. Therefore, it being five o'clock it is my duty to call on the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty).



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln) moved:: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to consider the advisability of amending the Canada Elections Act in order to provide:
(1)	that persons confined to hospitals be allowed to exercise their franchise in federal elections;
(2)	that portable polls be provided for public hospitals;

(3)	that transfers be allowed up to and including election day for persons confined to hospital; and, for such purposes, to recommend such amendments to the said act as may be deemed advisable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing in this motion that the standing committee on privileges and elections seriously consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians in public hospitals are now being denied the right to exercise their franchise. It is my hope that the standing committee will make certain recommendations which will remedy this undemocratic situation.
I realize that this problem has been discussed in committee in a general way, along with other proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I know there are those who feel that it would be very difficult to provide voting privileges to patients in public hospitals. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that the acknowledged difficulties should cause us to wash our hands of the responsibility which we as parliamentarians have, the responsibility to assure to every citizen in Canada the right to cast a ballot.
In a democracy such as ours it is generally agreed that the common good is chiefly guaranteed when personal rights and duties are maintained. Our chief concern as elected representatives must be to ensure that these rights are acknowledged, respected, defended and promoted. All citizens of age have the inviolable right to vote, to state their opinions as to who shall or shall' not govern in a democracy. Patients in public hospital are now denied this basic right. Members of the armed services and their dependants have the right to vote in military hospitals.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to read section 27(1) of the Canada Elections Act, which is as follows:
(1) Every Canadian forces elector, as defined in paragraph 20, who is undergoing treatment in a service hospital or convalescent institution during the period prescribed in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 25 for the taking of the votes of Canadian forces electors at a general election shall be deemed to be a member of the unit under the command of the officer in charge of such hospital or convalescent institution, and a Canadian forces elector, as defined in paragraph 20A, whose husband is in such hospital or institution may vote at the place where her husband may vote or at the place where he could have voted before he went in such hospital or institution.
The members of the armed forces, as I say, and their dependants are allowed to vote in military hospitals. Their votes can be counted in their home constituency regardless of where the military hospital is located. Residents of homes for the aged and patients in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals, sana-toriums and many other like institutions, are allowed to vote and have portable polls. Subsection (2) of section 27 of the act reads as follows:

(2) Whenever deemed advisable by the deputy returning officer who is authorized under these regulations to take the votes at a service hospital or convalescent institution, he shall, with the approval of the officer commanding such hospital or institution, go from room to room to take the votes of the bedridden Canadian forces electors.
In respect to other institutions, Mr. Speaker, section 45(14) of the act provides that:
(14) Whenever a polling station has been established in a sanatorium, a home for the aged, a chronic hospital, or similar institution for the care and treatment of tuberculosis or other chronic diseases, the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk shall, while the poll is open on polling day and when deemed necessary by the deputy returning officer, suspend temporarily the voting in such polling station, and shall, with the approval of the person in charge of such institution, carry the ballot box, poll book, ballot papers and other necessary election documents from room to room in such institution to take the votes of bedridden patients-
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that in many institutions portable polls are allowed under the act at the present time. One matter which has been brought to my attention is that in large urban centres people who are hospitalized may come from different constituencies and it would be difficult to record their votes. In this case perhaps we could set up a central distribution area in each province where public hospital votes could be sent and counted at the same time as the military votes, or they could be counted at some other time to be decided upon. It may be that we might have to set up special returning officers in each public hospital, just as we do in many of the institutions I mentioned previously.
I do not feel it is necessary for people to be present in the hospitals when the election writ is issued. I would hope that a transfer slip or affidavit could be issued which could be signed by the person voting in the presence of the returning officer, just as we now allow poll workers in all constituencies transfers up to and including election day. It is quite possible that we may have to set a time limit, perhaps 48 hours or so, so that the administration and recording of these transfers might be better concluded.
I do not intend to speak longer on this motion, but I should just like to ask the co-operation of all hon. members to allow this motion to go to committee. I am sure that no one in this house would want to deny his fellow citizens their democratic right to vote. I am also confident that the standing committee on privileges and elections would be able to examine all facets of this present problem and come up with a workable solution.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Hallon):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the mover of 20220-115
Canada Elections Act
this notice of motion, and I am very pleased to second it. As he has mentioned, people who are confined in such institutions as tuberculosis sanatoria or hospitals for the chronically ill, or who reside in a senior citizen's home, have a vote in a general election. All hon. members realize that at the present moment patients in a general hospital are not able to vote on election day. I should also like to point out to hon. members that if you happen to be in hospital at the time of enumeration, and are an urban voter, unless you are actually out of hospital by the time additions to the voters' list are made, you could be left off the voters' list despite the fact that you might have left the hospital and be quite fit to vote on election day.
At the present time veterans in D.V.A. hospitals have a vote. Veterans in any hospital have a vote, even if they are in an ordinary, public, general hospital, if they are being treated under the auspices of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The only difference is as to where the vote is actually counted. If the patient is in a D.V.A. hospital that has over 25 veterans, the vote is counted at their normal place of residence, no matter what part of Canada that might be. If the patient is being treated under the auspices of the Department of Veterans Affairs in a non-veteran hospital, his vote is actually counted in the poll where the vote is cast; that is, in the poll in which the hospital is situated. As the hon. member has mentioned, a veteran can vote even if he is incapacitated; the voting box can be carried from bed to bed. I should like to point out, also, that it could happen in an ordinary, general, public hospital where the person in question was a veteran and was under treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, that he would have a vote and three other people in the same room, because they were non-veterans, would not have a vote. I think this is unfair. I believe that everybody in the room should have the right to vote in a general election.
As an ex-physician 1 should like to state that most people who are in hospital are physically fit to vote. There are very few people in hospital who are so physically ill that they are not able to cast a ballot. Just as an example I should like to point out that almost all the occupants of a maternity ward would be quite capable of getting up and going anywhere in the hospital to cast a ballot. Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about how many people lose the franchise because of their hospitalization. This does not include those who lose their vote because they are in hospital at the time of enumeration. With regard to the average number of patients in hospital in any one day

Canada Elections Act
in Canada, in 1961 this number was 176,000. However, we have to exclude those people in tuberculosis sanatoria or chronic illness hospitals, who do have a vote now; and we have to exclude the mental patients who, even with the changes in the act suggested by the hon. member would still not have a vote. The figures for 1961 shown in the budget review for general hospitals indicate that on any one day there are approximately 73,000 people in these hospitals. As we all realize, all these people would not have a vote; some of them would be children under the age of 21 and some would not normally have a vote because they were non-Canadian. But we are speaking here generally of between 40,000 and 50,000 people being unable to exercise their franchise because they were in hospital.
I feel very strongly about this, and I am sure all hon. members have received many complaints from people in their constituencies during election campaigns to the effect that just because they were in hospital they could not cast their ballot. The notice of motion brought forward by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) would correct this situation and I hope hon. members will support this resolution.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to congratulate the hon. member who has proposed this resolution. I think in a day and age where we have seen, for example, many improvements in our advance polling facilities we realize that in many areas people who normally would have a right to vote should not be deprived of their vote. As I say, we have seen this taking place in recent years, when there have been many improvements in rural and urban areas in relation to advance polling facilities. The hon. member who has so wisely brought this subject before the House of Commons has now raised the matter of voting privileges for those confined to hospital. I think the hon. member who has just spoken has underlined the importance of the word "hospital" being given the broadest possible definition. In order to make this resolution and the study of it really meaningful, I think all hon. members will agree that the widest possible definition must be given to the word "hospital".
I am not quite sure, but I think the hon. member who has just spoken-who has had much experience in this field-made a direct reference to nursing homes. At the same time I should like to raise the subject of people who are actually sick and confined to their own homes. I think this is particularly true of sparsely settled rural areas which do not have the hospital facilities we would like them to have. Many advances have been made

in recent years, but this situation is one of the facts of life. I know a great many old, and young, people who are sick and confined to their homes who are often, I think, unfairly, deprived of the right to vote. I hope this subject will be referred to the committee, as the hon. member has requested, and I hope the broader subject to which I have made reference will be included in the study. I am sure I speak for many hon. members when again I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this most important subject before the House of Commons this afternoon.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak for very long on this resolution because, like the other hon. members who have spoken, I favour the resolution and think it would be very helpful if the legislation were passed. We are all anxious that everybody entitled to vote should not be prevented by illness or anything beyond their control from having the right to do so. The effect of passing this resolution will no doubt be that the appropriate legislation will be drafted and perhaps referred to the committee on privileges and elections which, when it is reconstituted, will be considering detailed amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I think it is important that we do consider the actual detailed legislation, because while it is perfectly right that everyone confined to hospital should not on that account be deprived of their franchise, it is also important that consideration should be given to the conditions under which they are called upon to vote.
There have been some instances called to my attention-not in my own constituency, I must say-where it would appear that people, older people particularly in certain institutions, are sort of lined up by attendants and others to vote. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) said that many people in hospital were physically fit to vote and were not unable to vote by reason of being physically disabled; but there may sometimes be people in hospital who are mentally quite unfit to vote and yet are induced by kindly persuasion to vote when they have no knowledge at all of what they are doing. I think this aspect of the matter should be considered when the actual legislation bringing this measure into effect is brought forward. I think we should all be brief and to the point in dealing with this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker, because it would be an excellent thing if its intent were put into effect.
Sometimes these private members' hours seem rather futile; nothing is passed and nothing much is done. I suggest it would be a good thing if we would pass this resolution,

which we all approve of in principle, and indicate to those responsible for redrafting the Canada Elections Act that all parties in the house, all members of the house, I think, desire that the arrangements to vote for people who are ill in hospital should be effectively carried out.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part very briefly in the debate on the motion before the house. I think we all realize that one of the main objectives of the Canada Elections Act should be to enable the greatest possible number of electors to exercise their franchise. Unfortunately, it almost appears at times as though the effects are just the opposite. In the light of experience and observation I believe that we should seek constantly to improve our election machinery, especially with regard to problems that are beyond the control of the electors, and certainly the motion before us now is in that category.
In many instances the percentage of those who vote is lamentably small. In some nations the law requires electors to vote or face a penalty. However, the motion before us is not designed to prod the careless but rather to assist those who are willing to vote but who, because of circumstances, are unable to make their way to the polling stations. Illness is not a condition that one can regulate. It cannot be decided that illness or surgical operations shall only take place in the period between elections. In fact, in the last few years especially the period between elections has been so short that it would be ridiculous to think of any such situation.
Therefore I believe that in so far as possible our election machinery should be such that those who are stricken with illness will not be deprived of their democratic right to vote. I realize, of course, that there may be some problems and disadvantages such as have been referred to by other speakers today, especially in regard to the conducting of portable polls, but I believe that the dangers inherent in such a procedure can be minimized or completely eliminated once we decide that this is the fair and just thing to do.
One hon. member who spoke referred to the approximate number of people who are deprived of their right to vote under the present circumstances. I do not believe that the number is necessarily the criterion. I believe it is essential that we do our very best to see that every single person who can has the opportunity to exercise his or her franchise by marking the ballot and choosing those who will become their representatives in the legislative bodies of this nation. Therefore we support the motion and we trust that
Canada Elections Act
the house will give favourable consideration to it, to the end that it may be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for consideration.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) for bringing to the attention of the house this aspect of voting, which has been neglected in the past. I should like to bring to the attention of members of the house particularly the fate of people in nursing homes. I come from a constituency in which there are at least 17 nursing homes, each of them containing anywhere from 20 to 50 patients. True, not all of these unfortunate people are in a mental state to cast a rational vote under our democratic system. However, there are many people confined to nursing homes who are there because they were unable to get a bed in a general hospital or a convalescent hospital. Therefore, on account of some physical disability, and no mental disability at all, they have been deprived in the past of the right to cast their vote at federal elections.
That is why I should like to give notice that if this motion, as it should, reaches the standing committee on privileges and elections that committee should also consider the importance of granting voting polls in nursing homes in the constituencies across the country. At the same time I should like to associate myself with the views of hon. members who have emphasized the need also of extending the franchise to people who are in general hospitals at the time of a federal election vote.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) for having introduced this notice of motion. However, having been a member of the committee on privileges and elections last session and also being aware of the fact that this matter was discussed by the same committee in 1960, may I say I do not think any of the speakers today have dealt sufficiently with the practical difficulties involved in extending the franchise to people in hospitals throughout the country. It is all very well to state as a broad principle that we should enfranchise as many people as possible. However, there are practical difficulties with many groups of people, and because of the impossibility of policing the act or preventing abuses of the act or because of the extreme cost involved we are just not able to enfranchise them under the existing act.
When this matter was brought before the committee on privileges and elections last session we reached the conclusion that it was not practically possible to enfranchise people

Canada Elections Act
in hospital without having a permanent voters list and a system of absentee voting. It was on this premise and for other reasons that the committee passed the following motion: That a study be undertaken under the chairmanship of the chief electoral officer for the preparation of a full report on the question of a permanent electors list and of a method of absentee voting, stating the arguments for and against the adoption of a permanent list; and
That the committee recommend to the government that it approach the governments of the provinces with a view to participating in such a study and to canvass the possibility of a joint permanent electors list.
After the bill establishing a commissioner of elections was passed last session, one of the terms of reference he was given was to conduct a study in detail of the question of a permanent voters list. He has the necessary funds and staff to undertake such a study. This matter has been discussed by many committees in the past but they were always a little shy of information on which to form any valid conclusions. I suggest that we are moving in this direction, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps we will have a permanent voters list and an absentee voting system, with the result that many of the difficulties I propose to raise now may not be valid in the future.
However, the chief electoral officer raised the point in committee that under the present act it was not possible or practical to extend the franchise to people in hospitals. Even if we did have these portable polling booths for hospitals, it would be impossible to process the ballots adequately, allot them to their respective electoral districts and still preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Reference was made this afternoon to the fact that we do have voting in veterans hospitals. This, of course, is true but it is done under a special provision of the armed forces voting regulations. Under these regulations it is necessary for the veteran to indicate at the beginning of the year what his electoral district is. This of course is the key to absentee voting, and is the procedure followed in connection with veterans hospitals. We are informed also by the department of health and welfare that the average stay in acute hospitals in this country is ten days.
In view of the provisions in the act now for advance polls, and the fact that most people who are going to find themselves in hospitals on polling day have an opportunity to vote at an advance poll, I do not think we need this change. All of us here who are involved in elections know that we cannot protect an uninformed citizenry against themselves. We have all received calls just before election day asking where a person can vote because he is going to be out of town. We have to inform these people that the advance polls are held on the Saturday

and Monday of the week prior to voting day. These people feel they are being disfranchised. The provisions of the act are clear and the newspapers carry stories about the advance voting days, yet some people do not avail themselves of these provisions. I suggest that many people who find themselves in hospitals are in the same situation. They just have not availed themselves of the provisions which are already in the act for advance polls.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) raised the question of chronic institutions and nursing homes. Well, we do have provisions under the act for people in chronic institutions such as nursing homes, sanatoria, old age homes and other chronic hospitals. When the person is a resident of the institution on enumeration day, he is permitted to vote. I believe, however, the hon. member was referring to the smaller nursing homes that do not have a poll on the premises and it is impossible for these people to get out to a poll. This is quite a different matter and one that perhaps the committee should study. We could, perhaps, have portable stations for these institutions. The other difficulty in connection with extending voting to hospitals is that in many of our hospitals there are people who are not normally resident of the electoral district in which the hospital is located. This creates some serious difficulties in attempting to extend the franchise to these people. The hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) suggested in the committee that perhaps 90 per cent of these people were actually residents of the riding in which the hospital was located, and we could make special provisions for them.
I feel, however, if we had a portable polling booth in these hospitals and some people were allowed to vote while others were not, this would be even more demoralizing to the patients. It would again point up the differences between rural voters and urban voters. In a metropolitan centre such as Toronto we might have people in hospitals from 30 or 40 electoral districts, and we would have to have a portable booth and a returning officer for each constituency. It would become extremely difficult. If we adopt some other form, like a ballot with an envelope on which we write in the constituency, it would still be difficult to preserve the secrecy of the ballot because we would have to indicate to whom this ballot belonged. In other words, the ballot would have to be checked against the voters list for the riding. The results would come in late and we would be faced with the same problems as exist in connection with the armed forces vote, when the returns come in a week later. There would only be

a few people involved and the secrecy of the ballot would certainly be violated. I can see many difficulties in carrying out such a proposal.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) also proposed some sort of method for transferring the ballot under which you get a transfer authorization. Again, the same problems exist. The transfers for which provision is made today are from one polling station to another within the same riding, and therefore the riding list can be checked to identify the elector. When we get to a situation of transferring ballots from one riding to another, the difficulty of getting these ballots back to the proper ridings and getting the vote recorded would be great.


William Heward Grafftey: Why?


Maurice John Moreau: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi asks why. He knows full well that there may be only two or three people in a particular poll involved in this procedure, particularly in rural polls. In the rural areas you could identify the vote much more accurately than you could in the urban centres. I have lived a good deal of my life in the rural area and I know you can predict the outcome of a vote very easily in such an area. You know there will be a certain number of Liberal votes, a certain number for the Conservatives and a certain number for the N.D.P. Then, you have a certain number of doubtfuls, perhaps anywhere from two to six. I suggest if these people happen to be in that category of absentee voter they would soon be identified for all time.


William Heward Grafftey: Not at all; you are wrong again.


Maurice John Moreau: The hon. member says I am wrong. I would suggest that perhaps he could participate in the committee on privileges and elections this session and we might hear his proposals for rectifying the situation.
We also have the question of advanced polls and it has been indicated that the number of people in hospitals who were disfranchised was something of the order of 40,000. Some 80,000 people took advantage of the advanced poll in the last election. I do not know how many of those were expecting to go to hospital, but I suggest a good number of them were, and therefore took advantage of the provision that now exists.
Although I do not have any objection to the subject matter of this motion going to the committee, I would indicate I generally support extending the franchise on as broad a base as possible; but we have to uphold certain principles such as the security of the ballot. We should not be rushed into any legislation that will create extreme difficulties
Canada Elections Act
and from which a whole new set of abuses might flow. I am interested in having the matter come up again before the committee, but we will not get very far towards meeting the problem until we have a permanent voters list and a system of absentee voting.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) referred to the previous committee, of which I was a member, and he has properly put before the house some of the problems we faced in that committee, where we had the advantage of the advice and experience of the chief electoral officer.
I may say I recognize those problems, but I do not believe they are insurmountable and I do not think it is true to say that we have to wait until we have a permanent voters list. In general I approve of this motion being sent to the committee, but I would prefer to see it wider in scope because a great many more thousands of people other than residents in hospitals are disfranchised under our present regulations.
There is one group of people in whom I am particularly interested. They are in full control of their faculties and are able to vote without any advice from anybody. They are the university students. However, they do not have any say about when an election will take place, and many months before the universities close they have succeeded in obtaining jobs elsewhere in order to earn money to pay for their tuition fees. Under the act they have a choice of either voting at their university or in their home constituency, but they end up 200 miles from either point and they are not willing to travel 200 miles at their own expense to vote.
The same thing applies to many people engaged in the construction industry. I have known workers living in northern Saskatchewan, northwest of Prince Albert, and working on construction jobs in southern Saskatchewan. Although the act provides time off for voting they do not have a desire to go back 300 miles to register their votes. I think all this can be overcome and I do not believe it needs a permanent voters list.
Rather than take up the time of the house, and so that this matter can come to a vote, I shall defer the suggestions I have to make, suggestions which come from discussions I have had with many people, and will make them in the committee of which I hope to be a member again, and where we will have the benefit of the advice and experience of the electoral officer. I hope the house approves this motion, although I would like to see it include the other classes of people I have mentioned. However, I am sure that their problems will be discussed in the committee.

Canada Elections Act


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of the motion but I must congratulate the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) for indicating some of the difficulties involved in implementing the proposal contained in it. As he said, this matter was discussed in the committee on privileges and elections in 1960 and again in 1963. The dilemma in which we find ourselves is that though there may be considerable difficulties in implementing the principle of the motion, nevertheless we are all of one mind in saying that the benefits of implementing it outweigh the difficulties involved.
The one solution that seems to remove the difficulties suggested by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and the one which would also enable those people referred to by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) to exercise the franchise, would seem to be a permanent voters list and some kind of absentee voting. I am inclined to feel, at least from the evidence which came forward at the last meeting of the committee on privileges and elections, and from the reference that committee made to the previous committee, that the difficulties are many.
One hon. member suggested, and I do not know whether I agree with his suggestion, that if there were a difference between urban and rural constituencies so far as the residency of a patient is concerned, perhaps the solution would be to make the hospital part of the constituency in which it is located. For instance, in the riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of patients in the principal hospital would be from that riding, but in an urban riding a great many patients in a hospital would ordinarily reside outside that riding.
For a moment I had thought the hon. member for Regina City was going to bring forth the argument that because university students are permitted to vote at their university, then perhaps patients in a hospital should be allowed to vote in the constituency where the hospital was situated. Had he gone that far there certainly would have been a presumption of reasonableness. I may say this is the first time the proposal has occurred to me but as he did not pursue it any further I shall not deal with it because, to be truthful, I do not know if I have a substantial argument. However, in a large hospital in a municipal area, with 500 patients, it is probable that not more than 50 or 60, possibly 100, would actually be resident in the constituency where the hospital is located. It seems to me more desirable that the majority of the patients should be enfranchised by having machinery whereby they could vote

in their own constituencies. In saying this, again I come back to the suggestion of a permanent voters list and absentee voting.
I do not wish to talk about that particular proposal at this time because it is not directly contained in the motion before the house, but I do think the difficulties outlined by the hon. member for York-Scarborough present quite a problem.
To me the only solution seems to lie in a permanent voters list which, if it is to be successful, would involve participation by the federal and provincial authorities, which seems to be a very timely topic, and since we are discussing a great many other things concerning the federal government and the provincial governments then perhaps the laudable motives of the mover of the motion would be fulfilled through a permanent voters list. Not only would that solve the problem of hospital patients, but it would also help those classes mentioned by the hon. member for Regina City.
I think all hon. members have had dealings with electors who feel they have been unjustly deprived of their right to vote. It seems to me it is the desire of all of us to extend the franchise to the greatest number of people possible, and though a great deal of administrative difficulty may be involved, it seems to me that, collectively, the people who have responsibility in this field-and I include among them the members of the committee on privileges and elections-should have sufficient imagination and ability to devise a system whereby the right to vote is extended wherever practicable.
I am not only thinking of people in hospitals. In my own province of Newfoundland, many people engaged in the seasonal fishery find it necessary to move from one part of the island to another, and it is often the case that they find themselves disfranchised. At the present time the seal fishery is under way, and if an election were called many hundreds of people who have left their homes to go to the ice would be disfranchised. It seems to me we should tackle this question on a broader basis so as to deal not only with the case of those confined in hospitals but also with these other cases to which I have referred, as well as those which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) and others who have spoken.
It is certainly my hope that the subject matter of this motion will be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I trust this committee will shortly be constituted, because there is a good chance of continuity in its membership; a number of members who have already served on that committee would

be available to sit on it again. I am sure they have the imagination and the ability to resolve some of these difficulties, and I feel this would be an appropriate occasion on which to do so.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words on the hon. member's motion. I am certain that he introduced it in good faith, and I, for my part, believe that those sick people have a valid reason for not voting. We should therefore, accept it.
Why worry because an infinitesimal part of people, perhaps once in their lifetime, have to forgo their right to vote?
No, Mr. Speaker. To my mind we should rather worry about the very large number of people who are able to do their duty and vote, but stay away from the polls.
That is the alarming aspect, and not the case of a few voters who happen to be in hospital at the time. Illness is a thing that does happen to several people, during an election, and I might well be hospitalized myself and lose my right to vote. That is hardly a catastrophe, in so far as it happens only once.
Rather than amend the Canada Elections Act on such a flimsy point, we should proceed with a few much more urgent changes. If the hon. member has gained some experience in several elections, he should be familiar with the complications arising from those transfers in a riding, more particularly in the last days before an election.
If the Canada Elections Act is ever amended with regard to travelling polls, it should not only extend to hospitals, but to all people having to stay at home because of invalidity or other ailments.


Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I should like to commend the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) for having introduced this notice of motion. I have served as a returning officer and I know what it is like to face disgruntled people who have not been allowed to exercise their franchise.
There is another group of people whose complaints might be considered, if this motion is referred to the committee on privileges and elections, as I hope it will be. These are the people who have moved their place of residence between the date of the issue of the writ and the date of the election. If they have not moved very far it is possible for them to get back to the riding where they are registered so as to exercise their franchise. A man might be able to get back himself, if the distance was not too great, but he could not very well take his family back to vote.
Inquiries of the Ministry
How could this difficulty be resolved? Application might be made to a returning officer who would be in a position, if the legislation were changed, to issue a certificate to provide that the elector's name be removed from the list in his old riding and sent to the returning officer in the area to which he has moved, where it could be added to the list. This would avoid any possibility of the franchise being exercised more than once. I think the committee might give consideration to this suggestion at the same time as it considers arrangements for covering persons in hospital.
I realize that time is allowed for anyone to get to the polls, but if a man has moved, say 500 miles, it becomes almost impossible for him to be present. I had one man come to me, an engineer in the department of highways, who had moved a thousand miles. He had always exercised his franchise and he felt he was being deprived of a right which should not be taken from him. I do not intend to say any more at this time. I just put forward these suggestions for consideration in the committee.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Perhaps this notice of motion could be referred to the committee. I think the debate, generally, has been in favour of such a course, and perhaps a motion might be made to that effect.
Motion (Mr. McNulty) agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-
Montcalm): Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he tell the house if it is true that, due to pressures from the government of the province of Quebec, teachers are leaving the schools in the Arctic, that is, those who teach the Eskimos and are under federal jurisdiction?
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to a story concerning one of our teachers at Fort

Inquiries of the Ministry Chimo who resigned and gave an interview to the press in Winnipeg. This story concerns an unhappy employee, and there is nothing worse than an unhappy employee unless it is an employee who has resigned. I do not want to say anything concerning this employee which would affect his future because I met him when I was at Fort Chimo and I thought he was an exceedingly competent man, and I hope that some day he will work for northern affairs again. However, he has made the statement that he was forced to resign; he was not, because we offered him a post in Ottawa which he declined. He made the statement that he was forced to resign because of pressure from officers of the Quebec government, and I want categorically to deny this in every respect.
This employee had been running a small newspaper. As newspapers go it was rather a pathetic little sheet, but nevertheless it was a newspaper in that area. He had also been engaging in what amounted to editorial comment on the arguments which existed or were building up, or which appeared to be building up, between Quebec and the federal authorities. Our officials remonstrated with him on two or three occasions and finally it was decided that we should move him out of the area. He refused to accept removal to another place. He was then offered the post in Ottawa and came to Ottawa but he resigned shortly afterwards.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct that Mr. McTaggart, the principal in question, was asked by officials of his department not to publish any articles in this newspaper unless they were first submitted to the department for editing?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have such a ruling, a ruling which has been in effect for some years.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the minister whether the newspaper reports that all seven teachers who have been teaching at Fort Chimo have asked for a transfer are correct, and if that is so what are the reasons?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. We think there has been an indication that four teachers are leaving. In the case of two of them, one is a teacher returning to university and his wife, who was also teaching there, is of course going with him. We have had an indication that two others will terminate their employment also.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister checked to see whether it is true that Mr. A. C. McTaggart, a school teacher, resigned to protest, as he said, against the strong campaign led by the Quebec government with a view to taking over the administration of Eskimo affairs?


Arthur Laing: A similar question was asked before the hon. member came in, and I think he will find his answer in Hansard.



QUEBEC-ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Could he tell the house whether, when he last discussed the transfer of jurisdiction of Eskimo affairs with Mr. Rene Levesque, of the province of Quebec, he promised the latter that no referendum would be held among the Eskimo people?


Mr. Habel:: Why not ask your leader?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member has a question to ask, let him stand up.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Cochrane keeps on interrupting without getting up. If he has questions to ask, he just has to stand up like a man.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I ask reasonable questions. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to suggest to the hon. member that this question does not have that tremendous sense of urgency which I think it should have at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But the minister wants to answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The new Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you want to speak stand up and speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northwest Territories.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister of northern affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether there is any truth to the press report of this incident which states that when the minister visited Fort Chimo last fall the Eskimo leaders told him at that time that they did not want

jurisdiction over their affairs transferred to the province of Quebec. Is that an accurate statement of what occurred when the minister visited Fort Chimo last fall?

Mr. Speaker, since the minister has not answered my earlier question, may I ask whether at the time the minister visited the Eskimo people they asked him for financial assistance to help them move to other areas or to the Northwest Territories should this transfer take place? In his meeting last fall did the Eskimo people ask for financial assistance to move elsewhere, as the press reports state?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member put this question on the order paper. This question has to do with something which happened last fall, and I am sure that if he puts the question on the order paper he will get a very full answer.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this question has to do with something which has occurred in the house nearly every day for the last month, namely questions asked of the ministry as to what is occurring with respect to the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimo people to northern Quebec. If the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making an argument.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house of any intention to amend the Canada pension plan so as to incorporate the added advantages which it is suggested are inherent in the plan for the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are quite satisfied with the plan we have put before the House of Commons.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether, in the event of a pension plan being adopted by the Quebec government, the federal civil servants residing in the province of Quebec will be allowed to participate in the provincial plan?
1827
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which can be decided during the debate on second reading of the bill. All these matters can be discussed at that time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
seamen's UNION
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the statements which were issued on Friday by the board of trustees of the maritime unions and Mr. Hall of the S.I.U. of North America. In view of the announced intention of the board to withdraw Mr. Charles Turner and hand control of the union back to the S.I.U. so that its constitution will automatically put Mr. McLaughlin in as president, I want to ask the minister whether he considers that this action will be carrying out the intent and purpose of the legislation which was passed by this parliament last fall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question involves an expression of personal opinion on the part of the Minister of Labour. However, what I will say is that the terms of the trusteeship legislation will apply and the board of trustees will still be in full charge of the situation in the event that Mr. McLaughlin will become president of the union. The trustees will still have the same authority under the law which they have today, and in the circumstances I think it is desirable they should.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Has the minister received any indication from the trustees as to what is meant by the third proposal in the statement, that:
All possible steps would be taken to integrate Canada's maritime unions where it is in the interest of union stability.
Does this mean that the board envisages amalgamating the S.I.U., the C.M.U. and the National Association of Marine Engineers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not specifically inquired from the trustees what is the meaning, in the context posed by my hon. friend, of this particular statement; but I will be glad to draw this question to the attention of the trustees and ask them for an amplification of the statement with particular respect to the point raised by my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask one last supplementary question? Is there some written agreement between the board of trustees and the S.I.U.

Inquiries of the Ministry of North America, or was there merely a Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Rcvelsioke): Mr. press statement? The reason I am asking this Speaker, I should like to ask a question for question is to ascertain whether it would be clarification. Is the minister's interest not in possible to have it tabled and available to the welfare and interest of the Canadian sea-the members of the house.	men, who are concerned with this action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there is a joint statement indicating arrangements that have been reached, understandings, between the board of trustees, in the person of Mr. Millard as the representative of the trustees, and Mr. Paul Hall as the president of the seafarers' international union.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could this statement be tabled in the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to ask the trustees for a copy and to table it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the government was consulted and gave its approval to the arrangement made between the maritime trustees and Mr. Hall of the S.I.U. whereby Mr. McLaughlin is to become president of the S.I.U., despite the recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris that Mr. McLaughlin as well as Mr. Banks be removed from all position in the S.I.U.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, from time to time the trustees have discussed their problems with me. On each occasion I have pointed out to them that they are free and independent and are expected to exercise their responsibilities in that way, under the terms of the legislation. I have resisted every invitation-some made in this house-to direct or interfere with or restrain the trustees in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in view of what he said earlier today and what he has now said, whether if Caligula had succeeded Nero he would have regarded that as an improvement in the government of Rome?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to do is respect the law passed by the parliament of Canada, which gives this responsibility to the board of trustees and not to the Minister of Labour.


Stuart A. Fleming: A
further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that if he has a question to ask, he ask it; but I cannot possibly see any supplementary question here.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr,
Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Two or three weeks ago the minister told me that he would inquire to see whether it would be desirable to extend the period of the winter works program in the areas having a more severe climate. Could he tell us today how matters stand in that respect and whether this period will be extended this year in those areas which have not been able to take full advantage of the program since the beginning of the season?


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am just asking the Minister of Labour how far that investigation has progressed. Moreover, I think that question has some urgency, in view of the fact that the winter works program will end in three weeks.
For those reasons I feel that my question is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to reply, he may do so; otherwise may I suggest this is a question for the order paper. The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the minister was rising to answer that question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend and tell him that notwithstanding the consideration given to his proposal, it is not the intention of the government to extend the municipal winter works program beyond the date originally announced, or especially to apply at this stage the seasonal factors that he has in mind. Certainly his submission will be borne in mind for consideration for the future program.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question?
Could the Prime Minister make a statement to the house about the symbol for the 1967 world's fair which was rejected by the house and adopted just the same by the world exhibition corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think that has already been dealt with officially in the house.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Does the Prime Minister know that they adopted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been dealt with, as was stated a short time ago. If the hon. member has a question, would he put it on the order paper? The hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble).


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Prime Minister?
Is the Prime Minister aware that such a symbol was shown on television and that it was used to poke fun at the prime ministers of several countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What measures does the government plan to take to cope with the serious low water situation in Georgian bay and lake Huron?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is certainly a question for the order paper.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation in my riding.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt about the importance of the question, but similar questions have been asked, I think, for the last three weeks.
20220-116J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Percy Verner Noble: I would like to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Prime Minister, owing to the fact that this is a matter of international consequence, has he been contacted by the United States government in respect of this problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I know it is a serious matter, and if the hon. gentleman would put his question on the order paper that would give us a chance to make a thorough examination of the matter.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Is his department at this time receiving appeals from boards of school trustees across Canada urging a simplification of the regulations governing the sales tax as applied to building materials in school construction, without which they claim they will lose money; and if so, will his department consider these appeals?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members do not wish to see me getting up and down all the time, but this surely is also a question for the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the reported heavy fighting in Cyprus yesterday and again today, in which "there were casualties among the British troops of the United Nations force and in the area we understand Canadian forces were to occupy today, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether Canadian troops have taken over these areas in which fighting has been taking place recently; and if so, have any special instructions been issued to them? In addition, perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs would care to comment on whether he thinks the position of Canadian troops under United Nations command has been jeopardized in any way by the unilateral breaking of the treaty by Archbishop Makarios.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members on the government benches do not seem interested in the Canadian troops there.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, there is no information immediately available that has not already appeared in the news media with respect to the position of the Canadian troops. As to the position of the British troops in the United Nations force the situation, of course, is more detailed. With regard to the second part of the question, we are aware, of course, that moves have been made over the week end by powers having treaty interests on Cyprus. It is clear that the problems raised by these actions are of direct concern to the United Nations mediator. These questions go close to the root of the basic problem between the two communities and it would be inappropriate at this time to add to the problem by commenting on something which is of immediate concern to the mediator.
Impartiality is the essence of the United Nations force on Cyprus and certainly I would not wish, and I am sure my hon. friend would not wish, to say anything at any time which could be construed as favouring one side or the other and thus making the role of our contingent more difficult or adding to the delicate responsibilities of mediation now being undertaken by the mediator.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether or not the Canadian troops took over those areas today that they were supposed to take over?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further to add. As my hon. friend knows, the Canadians are part of the United Nations force and they take their orders from the commander of the international peace keeping body.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While agreeing with the minister's statement that this is a very delicate situation which ought not to be upset, may I ask the minister whether it would be possible to transmit this point of view to Archbishop Makarios who seems to be treading on a very delicate situation which may have very serious repercussions for the United Nations force of which Canada is a part?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that Canada's ambassador to Israel, who is also accredited to Cyprus, is in Cyprus and has been in Cyprus for several weeks and no doubt, consistent with the problems that face all on the island, he will
[Mr. Nesbitt.)
discharge his responsibilities in a way that is calculated to do what my hon. friend perhaps has in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even the Prime Minister has to laugh.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Could the minister take steps to see that the new veterans home now under construction in Saskatoon is named the Harry Jones veterans home in memory of the late member of parliament for Saskatoon who served in Her Majesty's forces and also as parliamentary secretary to the minister of the department? Has the desire of the people of Saskatoon to have this home so named been brought to the attention of the minister?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any representations made to me but I thank the hon. member for the suggestion and I will certainly take it under advisement.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. According to the most recent unemployment survey made by the dominion bureau of statistics over 467,000 people were listed as unemployed but during the same period of time the unemployment insurance commission paid benefits to 607,144. Can the minister advise the house why there is this discrepancy of over 140,000 people and whether or not this many people are drawing unemployment insurance benefits when they are apparently not unemployed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask the hon. member for Ontario.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You have been there a year. How long does it take you?
Another hon. Member: You were there longer than that.


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


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Since the minister has taken this question as notice, will he also prepare himself to advise the house which set of figures he thinks is the correct one to use?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the hon. gentleman give any information to the house regarding the promise that was made last week to a delegation from the Ontario flue cured tobacco growers marketing board to the effect that their request for financial aid in processing and storing no sale tobacco would be given immediate consideration? Has a decision been reached on this matter by the government?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I met the delegation and assured them that we would take their proposals into consideration. We are still considering them.


James Alexander McBain: If and when a decision is reached will the minister make the announcement in the house?



REPORTED U. K. PROPOSALS RESPECTING PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the United Kingdom government consulted with the Canadian government regarding the trade proposal which it has just submitted to the Geneva conference, whereby the countries outside the commonwealth would be entitled to import some raw materials from the United Kingdom under the same terms as the commonwealth countries?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to reply to this question? We have asked our delegation to the United Nations conference to give us a full report on these proposals, including the text of the statement referred to in the press reports and also referred to by the hon. gentleman. Until we have seen the text of the statement on these proposals I would hesitate to comment on them.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I should like to say one thing, however, that as far as restrictions on primary products are concerned the house will recall that in my statement on the GATT ministerial meeting in May of last year I pointed out that Canada would be prepared to join with other developed countries in removing barriers to the trade of less developed countries in these products. At present Canada has no quantitative restrictions on imports of products of interest to developing countries and our tariffs on tropical products and raw materials are generally low or have been removed altogether.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell us whether he has been informed of this proposal in advance, since in his speech to the conference-a speech which was well received-he referred to the possibility that Canada would agree to such an eventuality?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the president of the board of trade did not attend the conference 10 days ago. He arrived this morning only. We are not aware of this speech and we have asked for the information just mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As soon as this information is available to us, we shall provide it to the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: 1 wonder whether I could ask a supplementary question. Inasmuch as the minister stated at the conference that Canada was considering abandoning certain commonwealth tariff preferences it now enjoys in the markets of commonwealth developing countries in order to stimulate trade in certain non-commonwealth developing countries and inasmuch as the proposal placed before the conference today resembles very much the proposal made by the minister, I wonder whether the minister had advance information on that proposal?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated what the position of the government is on that, as has my hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What I said on the subject was as follows:
Canada would be prepared during the course of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations to examine carefully any tariff preferences now enjoyed by Canada in the markets of developing countries which may be regarded as prejudicial to the trade of other developing countries.

Supply-Justice



TARIFF POLICY-INVESTMENT PROGRAM BY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Sienson (Peterborough):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. What steps is the minister taking with regard to Canadian General Electric's announcement 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?


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely a good example of a question for the order paper.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  REQUEST FOR LARGER SHARE OF REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a specific question to the Prime Minister. Since Mr. Lesage's ultimatum claiming about $150,000,000 more expired yesterday, does the Prime Minister propose to assure the house that the province of Quebec will get that amount before the end of the year, in order to avoid a disaster?


Mr. Speaker:: I must rule this question out of order. It is a hypothetical one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have put a very specific question to the Prime Minister, and I am convinced that he will want to answer such an important question for the future of confederation.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I do not think the Prime Minister should answer the question because I have ruled it out of order.

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



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $10,000.
Mr. B re win: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity when this supplementary estimate is being discussed to call the attention of the minister to some matters 
which I regard as being of very great importance to the future of this country. I appreciate that the minister has only recently assumed this particular responsibility and that he has other heavy responsibilities. However, I believe that in the past there has been a lack in his department of leadership in the field I propose to mention. This field, Mr. Chairman, is the preservation and protection of the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual.
We have recently witnessed an incredible situation in the province of Ontario, an exhibition of insensitivity of those in high places to some of the most elementary principles of democracy. I do not propose to discuss the situation in Ontario at length. Fortunately, that matter has been dealt with adequately by the people and legislature of that province. However, the incident points up in my submission the urgent necessity for the incorporation in the constitution of Canada of a bill of rights which will prevent invasion of the fundamental liberties by provincial legislatures.
The bill of rights passed by this parliament has obvious admitted defects. The Leader of the Opposition himself, whose name is associated with this bill of rights, recognized that the bill is only a first step. It has no application at all to the actions of the legislatures of the various provinces, or to matters within their legislative field. It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, historically speaking, that most of the grave threats to civil liberties in Canada have come from the provinces. I do not forget that it was a former federal government that passed the orders in council providing for deportation for Japanese Canadian citizens whose only offence was their racial origin.
Guy Favreau: I rise on a point of order, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not likely to forget it because I had to represent-


The Chairman:: Order; the Minister of
Justice on a point of order.


Guy Favreau: There is no hon. gentleman in this house whom I would less desire to curtail because he is always sincere in his statements on matters of justice and other matters. However, in view of the fact discussions on these estimates, which are supplementary estimates, are now proceeding into the ninth day I suggest that standing order 59(2) should be applied. It states that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the matter of a bill of rights should not be deemed to be included in the objectives of vote le which is

for the purpose of making a 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. I repeat there is no attempt on my part to curtail discussion, but surely the hon. gentleman's remarks are not relevant within the meaning of standing order 59(2).


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will remember some time ago, a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, you were in the chair when we first started discussing these supplementary estimates. I supported then the proposition that there should not be a general discussion covering the whole waterfront, but on each department where there was a general item discussion related to the general activities of the department would be in order. I believe that was the generally accepted view of the house.
What is now before us is item le of the Department of Justice. It includes certain other things which are in addition to money already voted for item 1 of the Department of Justice. I think anything that can be considered as being related to the Department of Justice, its general activities, should be considered in order now under the terms of the understanding under which we started this discussion some weeks ago.


Gilles Grégoire: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. We were also under the impression, when we began to discuss supplementary estimates "E", that on the first item of each department called, we would be allowed to deal with the general administration of one department only. That is why we refrained from starting a general debate on item No. 1 of the supplementary budget as a whole.
We are therefore surprised today to find that attempts are being made to curtail the debate on certain departments, because we feel that since we are dealing with the last supplementary estimates we are to see this year, we are entitled to a general discussion. No matter what the rules say, since an agreement was reached officially in this house, we should like to see it respected.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am in the same position as the Minister of Justice. I have no intention of trying to limit the discussion. I recognize that when we started a study of the supplementary estimates it was agreed by members of the committee we would have a general discussion on the first item of the department where there was an administration item such as this le for the Department of Justice. I am sure hon. members will recognize, in spite of this, that there must be some limitation.
Supply-Justice
It does not mean, I am sure, that we should discuss everything that pertains in any way to the Department of Justice, and I believe hon. members will want to exercise some limitation.
I had some reservations myself about the tenor of the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood, and I felt that perhaps what he was saying was related more closely to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and concerned the Immigration Act.
Before I sit down, for the benefit of hon. members I may quote not only standing order 59 (2) referred to by the Minister of Justice, but also page 738 of May's sixteenth edition which says:
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.
This, of course, is a general rule we have to bear in mind, even though we have recognized the fact that we could have a general discussion, and I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood will want to keep that in mind.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I shall exercise the restraint you suggest. On the other hand I do propose to talk-if I am permitted to, and I think I am under the ruling you have made-about what I regard as one of the primary responsibilities of the Minister of Justice and his department. As I was saying, I do not propose to extend these remarks. Indeed, if I had not been stopped, I might possibly have finished by this time, but I will say to the committee and the minister that this question of a constitutional bill of rights for the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens, in my opinion is an important responsibility of his department.
While I recognize that the minister has only recently assumed his responsibilities, I hope that when his next estimates are presented he will be able to say something very definite about this matter. What I am saying today is that we, in this corner of the house at least, are serving notice that we expect some action from him in this regard.
I was pointing out the weaknesses of the existing bill of rights as passed by this parliament, and saying that one of its weaknesses is that it has no effect on provincial legislation which has constituted the main threat to civil liberties, with the exception, perhaps, of the Japanese Canadians, with which I was very familiar. With that single exception the invasions of civil liberties by provincial governments and legislatures has been more frequent. I am not going to cite them all now.

Supply-Justice
There was the press act of Alberta, the padlock act in the province of Quebec, and the acts of the legislatures of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island that restricted freedom of association.
There has also been the recent act of the legislature of British Columbia that interfered with the rights of trade unions to contribute to election campaigns, and we have had a situation where the cabinet of the province of Ontario brought forward legislation that has justly been described by the press as the most offensive and dangerous legislation ever introduced in that province. It was described, by the ill-fated introducer of it as, "drastic, dangerous, new and terrible."
We all know that a vigilant press, an aroused public and a determined opposition secured the withdrawal of that legislation, but what I am trying to point out is that the bill of rights had no application to that threat, and apparently had no educative effect on the members of the Ontario government who sponsored the legislation. Even in respect to legislation passed by this parliament, a series of decisions has made it clear that the bill of rights is ineffective as its general language gives way to specific legislation inconsistent with it.
What I suggest is needed, and I recommend this to the Minister of Justice, is the incorporation in the constitution, and binding on parliament and the legislatures of a clear statement of fundamental principles setting out the basic liberties of the subject. I think one of the primary duties of the department is the considering of the constitutional structure of Canada as a whole, and also giving a lead to securing such a fundamental bill of rights as I have mentioned. Then there would be no danger of provincial or federal invasion of this particular field.
This would of course involve consultation with the provinces, and will also involve consultation with other experts in the field. More than a month ago I put a question on the order paper to the minister, question No. 229, which has remained unanswered. It was in respect to this very matter.
The whole problem of federal-provincial relations which is concerning all thoughtful Canadians can best be resolved, I suggest, in the context of effective federal leadership in the field of a new declaration of fundamental principles upon which the whole Canadian compact and constitution is based.
Before I sit down I want to refer to just one other aspect of individual rights which I suggest is urgently needed, and I merely suggest it for consideration. It is the question of a proper system of criminal legal aid. I have had, and no doubt the minister has had,

many briefs on this subject. As a matter of fact some of the best briefs I received were from the John Howard Society of B.C., and the B.C. civil liberties association. I do not propose to read this at length, but the brief of the John Howard Society of B.C. points out that our Criminal Code provides that a person is entitled in a criminal case "to make full answer and defence personally, or by counsel," and the bill of rights provides for a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. These declarations which are in important statutes of this parliament, the Criminal Code and the bill of rights, require a fair hearing and evidence that a person should be able to make answer to criminal charges. But can a trial be fair and fundamentally just when an accused person attempts to defend himself without counsel?
That question has been dealt with by the United States supreme court. I shall not quote its judgment at length, but as recently as 1963 that court said:
... Reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.
That seems to be an obvious truth. I point out that the crown provides for the prosecution of those charged with offences in order to protect the fundamental rights of the public, but the fundamental rights of the accused cannot be forgotten.
The minister may say that this is essentially a matter for the provinces but I suggest that section 91 (27) of the British North America Act gives responsibility to the federal parliament in criminal procedure, and thus indicates that the federal parliament must take a lead in this field. I know many provinces are seeking to develop adequate systems of legal aid and I suggest this is a field for co-operative federalism. One of the responsibilities of the minister should be to call together those who represent the provinces in this field and work out a fully satisfactory means of providing legal aid, which in the United States is said to be a high constitutional right of every individual accused. This is something which should also be developed in Canada. The rights of people accused in Canada should be no less than the rights of people accused in the United States.
These are the two subjects, that of a constitutional amendment to make an effective bill of rights, and criminal legal aid, which I respectfully suggest to the minister could be receiving his earnest attention. I do not expect him to answer these questions now, but I do serve notice on him that we will

look to him for a real lead in this field. For far too long the Department of Justice has been a department which has, no doubt, provided useful services to the government and to the country, but I think it has done all too little to blaze a trail in the development of the civil rights and liberties of all Canadians. I hope that under the leadership of the present minister the situation will change, and I serve notice on him that we shall continue to draw these matters to his attention.


William Heward Grafftey: In my brief remarks this evening I wish to touch upon the activities of the penitentiaries commission, which falls under the jurisdiction of the minister. I have asked him questions in relation to the subject I intend to bring up tonight. I have written a number of letters to various ministers and now I feel obliged to bring this subject up in the House of Commons this evening.
All of us in this house realize that the Minister of Labour has spent, and rightly so, hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money to encourage Canadian employers to employ older workers. Indeed, we are told-and it is apparent from the hon. gentleman's estimates-that employers are actually paid bonuses if they employ people over the age of 45. The other day in the house I put a question to the Minister of Justice. I asked him whether the penitentiaries commission withheld employment to applicants over the age of 45 years for positions other than custodial positions. The hon. gentleman told me-and I believe I am paraphrasing his reply correctly-that only those applicants who applied for jobs of a custodial nature had to be under the age of 45.
Some people may say this is only a small matter, Mr. Chairman, but I believe it is a matter of the kind which backbenchers must regard with a special concern. A gentleman in my constituency who is a war veteran- he had a very good record in the second world war-holds a licence as a plumber. I do not imagine that anybody, by any stretch of the imagination could declare that a plumber in a penitentiary was carrying out a custodial function. Well, on February 26, 1964, he received the following reply from the regional director of penitentiaries:
Your application for employment as a plumber has been refused.
Why was it rejected? The reply went on:
The maximum age for this position is 45, and you are 48 years old.


An hon. Member:: Discrimination.


William Heward Grafftey: Happenings of this kind create a high degree of cynicism in the public mind. Far too often, governments say: Do as I say, not as I do. I do not intend to belabour this
Supply-J ustice
point further this evening. As I have said, I have written to the minister. I have written to the Minister of Veterans Affairs about this matter because he realizes that when people over the age of 45 are refused jobs of this kind in the government the whole notion of veterans preference is completely set aside. I have written, also, to the Minister of Labour because his department is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to persuade employers in the private sector to employ people over the age of 45.
I think the incident I have cited shows that a ridiculous state of affairs exists. I am not, primarily, bringing the case of one man before the committee this evening. I think the government should start a whole investigation into the civil service commission and into the penitentiaries commission to see if any more anomalies of this type exist. I know that the minister, with his usual sincerity, will investigate this matter as quickly as possible and give us a satisfactory answer.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to make a few remarks to the Minister of Justice. I know that he is responsible for making sure that every bill submitted to the house does not violate the constitution; I know also that he does not shirk that responsibility. As a matter of fact, the other day, he gave a categorical opinion on the constitutionality of the pension plan bill and in particular on the constitutional aspect of section 3 of the said bill.
I must admit that I was a little bit dismayed to hear the minister give such a categorical and definite opinion on a matter which seems to raise very serious doubts in the minds of our country's experts in constitutional matters because such matters seem rather complicated.
In fact, section 3 provides that any nonparticipating province will have to submit to the following procedure:
1.	First of all, give the federal government a 30-day notice of its intention not to participate in the national program;
2.	On receipt of such a notice, the federal government reserves the right to decide on the validity of the alternative program proposed by the province-
Mr. Chairman, I believe I have imitators on the other side of the house. If my dear friends wish to explain the problem, I am quite willing to yield the floor to them-
3.	According to the provisions of that section, it would seem that once a province has joined the national program, it will no longer be able to withdraw from it.

Supply-Justice
In my opinion, those three conditions restrict the legislative authority of the provinces concerning those pensions.
On the other hand, the provisions of clause 94A of the British North America Act are quite clear and leave no doubt as to the absolute jurisdiction of the provinces as regards pension legislation.
Here is part of that provision:
-that the parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada-


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


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I realize the importance of the question asked by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. While I may have answered rather quickly the other day, it was simply due to my conviction on that point, but it does not mean that the matter does not call for a general discussion.
But hon. members know, and we announced it, that the bill on the Canada pension plan is to be called for second reading at any time now. I think that it would give us an opportunity of discussing the merit of clause 3 of the bill, rather than under the administration item of the Department of Justice.
I am certain that, even if we were discussing the main estimates, and not just supplementary estimates, this discussion, under the item now before us, and even under the main budget, could hardly be justified.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, as regards the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice, I must say that I raise this question because the constitutionality of our laws depends on the minister and his authority.
We are now considering item 1, and you have just accepted a discussion which was quite far from the subject. But, on the other hand, in order to assuage the minister's impatience, and perhaps your own, I may say that I have almost concluded my remarks. I have only two or three words to add.
When I was interrupted so pleasantly by the Minister of Justice, I was reading the provisions of section 94A, which, I believe, are clear and give the provinces an absolute right to legislate in matters of pensions. This section goes even farther, and indicates that the federal government cannot, through any legislation, prejudice this legislative power.
Now, as I have mentioned, here is a project the constitutionality of which the minister has to determine, and which encroaches, in three ways, on the absolutely clear power of the provinces to legislate in this field under their own jurisdiction.
In the circumstances, since the minister replied a little more quickly than he should have, I simply suggest that he should ask his

officials to examine the various aspects of this section and that he should study them himself.
If I raise this matter at the present time, instead of waiting for consideration of the bill itself, concerning the pension plan, it is because I am convinced that the minister, having seen to what extent this measure encroaches on provincial jurisdiction, will withdraw, amend or repeal section 3, and place before the house a bill which, at first sight at least, will appear constitutional.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just one word and ask the minister whether he intends to amend the Criminal Code so that the provinces that want to may organize lotteries and sweepstakes. I am vitally interested in that matter. I know the minister will co-operate, because it concerns a promise made by several candidates of his party during the last election campaign, especially in the province of Quebec.
I have here a clipping from the newspaper La Presse of March 4, 1963 where it is reported that the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), now parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, speaking in Malartic, promised, on behalf of his party, that the Criminal Code would be amended in order to enable the provinces wishing to do so, including the province of Quebec, to have lotteries. I know that the minister's answer will be yes, since the hon. member for Dollard and some others-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Since the hon. member has now expressed his opinion and made his representations, I may take this opportunity to make a ruling on the point of order raised a while ago by the Minister of Justice.
Of course, I feel sure that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has realized the soundness of the point raised by the minister in the sense-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: If the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue will let me conclude my remarks. -In the sense that we cannot anticipate an order of the house, in the case pointed out by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, who himself admitted that he had to limit his observations, in a certain measure, in view of the fact that there was already an order of the house on the same matter.
In the case that has just been raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, we are faced with the same difficulty. There is at least one bill, namely Bill C-19, which is now listed on the order paper of the house. In the circumstances, hon. members are not entitled to enter into a debate with respect to that matter.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I shall raise another point.
I know that the government intends to appoint a judge who will be in charge of divorce cases for the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.
May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he intends to consult not only the civic authorities but also the religious authorities in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, because I do not believe that it is possible, under the constitution, to impose on the provinces concerned something they probably do not want, without consulting them and obtaining their assent.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, of course, the legislative measure mentioned by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is not aimed at setting up divorce courts for the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.
I do not want to say much about it, because it is now on the order paper and will be discussed as soon as the order of the day is called. But nevertheless, it is indeed an act for the sole purpose of investing upon a judge the powers of a divorce commissioner, a position which was established by the house during the last session.
However, I think that when the bill in question receives second reading, I shall have the opportunity of explaining to the house what it is all about and the nature of the powers that this legislative measure will confer on an additional judge of the exchequer court.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, since this is another bill before the house and I cannot speak about it, just as in the case of sweepstakes, I shall try once again to deal with a subject which does not concern any bill now before this house, which will permit me to make my observations while conforming to your requirements.
Recently, the chiefs of police of Canada held a convention during which certain films shown over the television networks, particularly the C.B.C., were strongly criticized.
The Canadian chiefs of police association has submitted a brief to the Minister of Justice-when the former minister of justice was head of the department-asking him to find some way, not to impose people on the C.B.C., but rather to exert more pressure so that the C.B.C. itself might select a special committee made up, for instance, of educators, parents and religious authorities, in order to exercise some supervision on films shown on television, especially those shown at the time young people settle down before their television sets.
Police chiefs in Canada were unanimous to state that one of the main causes of crime
Supply-Justice
and juvenile delinquency in general throughout Canada was the showing of movies exploiting crime, sex, and passion on television at hours when young people are among the viewers.
Without alluding to anybody in the C.B.C., I would ask the minister whether it would be possible to find a practical way so that T.V. networks, such as the C.B.C. itself, might set up an organization to supervise the movies shown at hours when young people are listening.
Because he received many letters from all over the country, from authorities of all religious denominations, educators and parents, the minister must be aware of the general concern over the freedom taken in that respect by the C.B.C. national television network which is financed by taxpayers throughout Canada.
Consequently, I would ask the minister whether it would not be possible to find, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), a compromise which would enable the C.B.C. to recommend to the government the establishment of such a committee and to act upon the representations made by parents, educators, religious authorities, and also by the chiefs of police at their recent convention.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to labour that point too long either, but I wish to say that I have inherited from my predecessor, as suggested by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the very policy concerning the association to which he referred earlier.
Mr. Chairman, for reasons which can be readily understood, I have not yet had the opportunity of considering to my satisfaction the problem and of establishing definitely under whose jurisdiction this whole matter comes nor the solutions likely to be brought forward. The problem can obviously be considered from many angles. First, the viewpoint of Canadians and parents who have to exercise their authority on their children; second, the time at which the programs are shown; third, the question of censorship and liberty of television; fourth, should the state-owned network be treated differently from privately-owned networks.
I can assure my hon. friend that as a citizen of this country and as a father, I am very much interested in this problem and that I shall do my utmost to discuss this matter with my colleagues.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Does the minister consider that each province could use its own censorship organization to supervise programs or films presented

Supply-Justice
on the television networks? The province of Quebec has its own censorship organization; is the minister not of the opinion that this comes under provincial jurisdiction?


Guy Favreau: I realize that all questions ought to be answered, provided they are in order according to our rules and regulations. But I feel sure that my hon. friend is now asking me for an opinion on a constitutional matter that I have no right to give to the house.
All I can say is that, when I was teaching law, that was a question I liked to ask the people in my class and they did not always come up with a perfect answer, in the sense suggested by my hon. friend. I feel it is premature to discuss it here, for this is not the right moment for that. Furthermore, the question is purely theoretical, since it is meant to determine whether or not such an act, if it were passed by the provinces, would be constitutional. But, to the extent that the matter falls within the scope of the question, I promised to take it into serious consideration, and I shall do so.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, before the item is passed I know that the minister wants to answer the question asked by my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temiscamingue on the constitutionality of section 3 of the bill concerning the Canada pension plan.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think that the hon. member for Three Rivers was not in the house when that point was raised by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, but a question was asked and an answer given by the Minister of Justice, and we agreed that such matters were not in order and should be discussed some other time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the question was in order and I thought that the minister was ready to give me an answer, but later on I did not get any.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Peace River. Is the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue raising a point of order?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have no wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but before going on to another item, even if it is in order, I think that the minister should give us some explanations. After all, he comes to the house to have some votes passed, and the least he could do is answer the questions put to him.


Lucien Lamoureux: I think the question has already been answered, though perhaps not to the satisfaction of the hon. member, but I think that under standing orders, the substance of the question raised is irregular because it tends to prolong the debate.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is no question of drawing out the debate; the minister has only to answer yes or no.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, we have here a quite important question of policy and, even if we were discussing the first item in the main budget, I think that it is not up to me to answer a question specifically asked by my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temiscamingue because, according to the functions he has assumed, the Minister of Justice is the adviser of the crown in all constitutional matters.
It is therefore obvious that the same pretext might be used to raise questions with regard to the constitutional character of every statute, every clause and every item before us, and, for purely mathematical reasons, it would be an endless procedure. It seems to me that the discussion will be much more in order when the bill presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes up for second reading.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in June, 1963, I asked the minister at that time a question with regard to the matter of the legality of the means proposed by the government in making a change of administrative responsibility for the Eskimos in northern Quebec. On June 28 I asked him this question dealing with the transfer of responsibility for the Eskimos:
If any such agreement is reached, will it be submitted to parliament?
The minister then said the question was a hypothetical one and did not answer it. Since that time I have posed the question a number of times, as have other hon. members. It has now been admitted that an agreement of sorts has been reached between Canada and Quebec and I think this is an excellent time for the minister, sitting here not only in his capacity as Minister of Justice in respect of whose estimates we are now having a discussion but also, of course, as one of the ministers dealing with the question of this particular transfer, to answer this question. I make this very definite statement, Mr. Chairman, that as I understand it, the method which the government proposes to use is completely unconstitutional and should not be permitted. I want to illustrate this very briefly and put these points before the committee at this time. As has been admitted Canada secured, after trying to evade it, responsibility in 1939 as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the result the court answered a very simple question. The question was:	Are Eskimos of
northern Quebec Indians within the meaning of term 24 of the British North America Act,

section 91? The answer was very simply: Yes, they are. This was the entire answer made by the Supreme Court of Canada. This being the case, by section 91 Canada has exclusive jurisdiction; but not the government of Canada, the parliament of Canada. I think-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have some doubt as to whether the point raised by the hon. member falls within the ambit of the resolution now before the committee. Perhaps the hon. member might enlighten the Chair as to how this relates specifically to the item before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, this matter turns on a question of the constitutionality of a step which is to be taken in connection with the transfer of responsibility for certain Canadian people for whom this parliament is responsible. It has been admitted in the house that this transfer is going to take place. I am suggesting that the method by which it is to take place is unconstitutional. In my view the Minister of Justice, as attorney general, chief law officer of the crown and adviser to the cabinet, is now answering for his estimates and is in the position where he should be prepared to hear argument that this is not a constitutional process which the government proposes to take.
I am basing my view, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that we have agreed indirectly that there shall be general discussion, which normally possibly would not take place but because of the desire to push through interim supply this general understanding was reached. As a matter of fact, just to illustrate my point, I had prepared myself to and wished to discuss this particular issue on interim supply, but I yielded to the request of the government and did not do so. Now the estimates of the Minister of Justice are before the committee and this issue I am dealing with involves the constitutionality of a very grave and important proposal that the government has made. I am submitting that the way they intend to do it is unconstitutional and I think the minister is the proper person to entertain this argument.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? He made the statement that it had been admitted in the house that a transfer was to be made. Would he refer me to the quotation in Hansard where that statement was made?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sure my seatmate will be glad to look that up while I am proceeding with my argument.


Mr. Macdonald:: That is a weak response.


Gerald William Baldwin: It was during the course of a discussion when the Prime Minister, as I
Supply-Justice
recall, made the statement that before the transfer was made there would be consultation with the Eskimos.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The point I had in mind was that even though we are having a general discussion that discussion should relate to matters which affect the administration of the Department of Justice. The point being raised by the hon. member is very similar to others raised previously by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue and the hon. member for Three Rivers. In each case there is anticipation of legislation which may or may not come before the house. Perhaps there is not this difficulty in the case of the hon. member, but to my mind the discussion which he is starting now relates more closely to the administration of northern affairs than the Department of Justice. I wonder whether the hon. member has taken that into account?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I say that if there were legislation dealing with this matter on the order paper I would not need to say anything. I would not be making this argument; I would not be speaking. What we are complaining about is that there is no legislation when there should be. That is germane to my complaint. There is no legislation. What I submit is proposed to be done here is proposed to be done, if it is going to be done at all, by order in council, which I submit is completely unconstitutional, completely improper. That is the point of my argument. There is no legislation before us at all. I suggest that the Minister of Justice has an explanation to make here.
I will not be very long. I should like to make these points to illustrate my reason for suggesting that what is proposed is unconstitutional. The minister may be able to satisfy my anxiety on this score. If he can I will be very happy indeed. I was pointing out that the 1939 case vested jurisdiction over the Eskimos of northern Quebec in parliament and not in the hands of the government. Surely it has been settled many years ago that the legislative branch is supreme and that the government only has such power as parliament chooses to give to it. Until the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is in a position to indicate to the house that the government has jurisdiction to make this transfer, then I suggest there is no way it can be done save by legislation.
I will complete my very brief argument on this point and then sit down and hope that the minister may answer me. I recall that when my colleague spoke on this matter on an interim supply bill he indicated that the government should bring in legislation and

Supply-Justice
then made the point that the effect of a statement made by the parliamentary secretary appeared to negative the suggestion and to indicate that legislation would not be brought in to implement the proposal.
I submit that if you examine section 91 of the British North America Act, Mr. Chairman, you will see the impropriety of what the government proposes to do. Without securing an act of parliament it is going to transfer jurisdiction by administrative process to a province. As far as that aspect is concerned, let me say that I make no objection to the fact that it might be eminently desirable in the long run for changes of jurisdiction of this kind to take place. This is not my argument. I am concerned with the manner in which it is proposed to be done. The government proposes to do it by means other than legislation. Let us consider what may be involved here-the health, education, welfare, the method by which property descends, devolution of estates and so on, relating to these Eskimos.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order which I will not press too hard, but because the supplementary estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will be coming up at any moment now, I suggest very respectfully that item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice is hardly the place for this discussion. However, inasmuch as the hon. member has already gone quite far in asserting his very interesting position, I suggest that he be allowed to proceed even on my estimates but that we be allowed to answer this part of his speech when the northern affairs estimates are called.


Lucien Lamoureux: I think this is a very reasonable position. Actually it is the position that the Chair adopted in the case of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue who was allowed to complete his argument, although perhaps he did not have as much time to do so as the hon. member for Peace River. I feel that the committee of supply is not the place to get an opinion from the Minister of Justice on the constitutionality of a statute. However, as the Minister of Justice is willing to listen to the point of view being expressed by the hon. member for Peace River I feel he should be allowed to complete his argument.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order.

On your point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must say that this discussion is quite relevant, since the Minister of Justice himself took part

in the discussions regarding the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Lucien Lamoureux: I think his participation was to the extent of saying he should not be required to give an opinion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, this is one of those famous compromises by which democracy works, though sometimes at greater length than it normally would. This is my submission. If I am correct in the assumption I have made from all of the questions and answers and what has been said on the subject, that it is the intention of the government to call this change an administrative change only and work it out by order in council without coming to parliament, then I submit this procedure is unconstitutional. I was making the point as to precisely what would be involved in these changes. They may call it administrative detail, but in fact it involves everything concerning the lives and the fortunes of 2,500 Canadians. True, there may be left in the hands of the federal government the empty shell of jurisdiction but active participation in all matters affecting these people will be in the hands of a provincial government.
If this is the position, what is going to happen to federal-provincial government responsibilities under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, that is if the federal government is going to follow the policy of making constitutional changes by order in council, rather than coming to parliament?
If this is the position, why is it not possible for them also by order in council to authorize a provincial government to issue a charter to a company to build a pipe line in order to permit that company to go to the national energy board? Why is it not possible for the government, upon the same basis of reasoning to give a provincial government authority, such as Mr. Bennett's government in British Columbia, by order in council and despite the provisions of section 91 of the British North America Act, to grant a charter to a group of people in British Columbia to operate a chartered bank? Why is it not possible, on the same basis of reasoning for the federal government, not parliament, to give to any other province authorization to raise its own army, and do it by means of order in council? This is precisely the basis of reasoning on which the government is now operating in their announced intention to proceed to make this constitutional change without coming to parliament. Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction. I use the word "parliament" as distinct from government. Parliament has exclusive



19B4

[Stage Direction]
jurisdiction with regard to Indians, and this includes the Eskimos of northern Quebec. Until parliament has given the government the right to give to a provincial government any of its responsibilities in respect of these Indians, then the action which the government proposes to take is completely unconstitutional and not within the purview of the government as opposed to parliament. This is the simple issue I raise, and I think it deserves an answer.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. The minister, as he pointed out a while ago, had an opportunity to practise and teach law in the province of Quebec. He was in a position to be personally aware, as I am also, of the delays caused in that province by the rather large number of cases cluttering up the roll of the superior court. Therefore, does he intend to appoint enough new judges to meet the needs of the people, thereby providing for the smooth administration of justice in that province?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that situation. I know that the roll of some of the courts of my province are overcrowded and I also know that this causes delays. I must explain how vacancies are filled in the superior court. There are two jurisdictions in the provinces which see to the establishment of courts, as well as to the appointment of a certain number of judges for a particular court. Once the province has set the number of judges for appointment to a court, it is under the Canadian constitution that the federal government must fill the new vacancies and appoint those judges.
I have just received a communication from the chief justice of the province of Quebec who is at present discussing the situation with the attorney general of that province. If ther are no further developments, the whole matter will rest with the province and we shall not interfere.
As far as the appointment of any judge is concerned, both federal and provincial statutes must be considered.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to put another question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister also intend to see that judges of the appeal court and of the supreme court, are in sufficient numbers to meet the requirements of justice in our province?


Guy Favreau: In the case of the supreme court, and the exchequer court, this matter, of course, comes under federal jurisdiction. But to my knowledge, no complaint has been received to the effect that the number of judges in those two courts is insufficient.
Supply-Justice
Mention was made earlier to a bill now on the order paper and tending to increase the number of judges in the exchequer court for a specific purpose, that is to grant powers to the commissioner for divorces. I am not aware of any complaint to the effect that there are not enough judges in the exchequer or in the Supreme Court of Canada or that there is any backlog in those courts.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a few questions regarding the construction of a penal institution in my riding, more especially in St. Pie de Bagot. I should like to know what reasons led his department and that of public works to cancel the decision previously taken to build a medium security prison in my riding, and especially in St. Pie de Bagot.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, that matter was settled before I took over as Minister of Justice. I do not think I can say anything more at this time. It might be possible to discuss this further when my department main estimates are considered.
I am not fully informed of the reasons which led to the decision reached in that case. I can say, however, that they are the same reasons which caused my predecessor to uphold, for instance, the decision he took in the case of Drumheller after extensive consultations. It would be neither honest nor realistic to go further than this. I readily admit that I am not aware enough of the facts referred to by the hon. member to give a complete and satisfactory answer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The minister could merely ask the necessary information of his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Macdonald) who is beside him at the present time. Indeed, I myself could, I think, inform the minister. But before going any further, I would like also to ask the minister whether he has considered taking the necessary decisions to make good the great injustice committed by his predecessor concerning the riding of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. Since the minister does not seem to have enough information to give a reply, I could make a summary of what happened at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary but I shall just say that we have here a shameful example of patronage on the part of the present government.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is permissible for an hon. member to make, on supplementary estimates, such unfounded accusations concerning recent events about which I am not sufficiently informed to make comments, as the hon. member is fully aware. Furthermore, those remarks are hardly relevant to vote No. le which provides for

Royal Assent
the approval of an expenditure of $10,000 to pay for the expenses of the international criminological congress which will be held in Canada in 1965.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the Minister of Justice. However, I do not think I have to accept the directives he wants to give me. I have before me all I need to prove to the Minister of Justice that it is not an unfounded charge, but facts which speak eloquently for the action taken by the Liberal party and the present government. I will certainly not miss this opportunity to put before the house and the country the true facts so that the people of my riding in particular, those of Quebec and Canada as a whole may know how much the present government has indulged in smalltime patronage.
In 1958, Mr, Chairman, the Department of Justice was planning to get new prison facilities because St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary had become too small. Therefore, at that time, I took steps to find, together with employees of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Justice, the lands necessary for the construction of a medium security penitentiary in my constituency. This institution was going to cost about $4,500,000 to build, and the work would allow the hiring in my constituency, of a good many people, about 200 heads of families. As you may well imagine, the citizens of my constituency learned with satisfaction that the then minister of justice, Mr. Davie Fulton, had decided to grant to that part of the country, a penal institution which would have brought great prosperity first to the town of St. Pie, and second, to the whole St. Hya-cinthe area.
Mr. Chairman, it is now a quarter to ten and I see that the President of the Privy Council wishes to be recognized.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for yielding me the floor. We are expecting momentarily a message from the other place for royal assent at a quarter to ten, and I wonder whether in the circumstances it would be more appropriate for us to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, April 1964.
Sir:
X have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 6th of April, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I would ask the house leader if he will announce the business for tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: Tomorrow we will proceed with the balance, I hope, of the supplementary estimates, after which the rest of the time during the day will be used for the debate on the second reading of the Canada pension plan bill, and the next first full two days will be taken to conclude the debate on the budget.


Mr. Peters:: May I ask the house leader when it is his intention to establish the standing committees?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it is the intention of the government to establish the standing committees right away. It is a matter of mechanics, getting the steering committee together to provide the names for the various parties. The proportion of the members on the various committees has been worked out already.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent of the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.
It being eight minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 7, 1964