1965-04-27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the lay-offs at automobile plants in Windsor and possible lay-offs elsewhere, in the absence of the Minister of Industry I would direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he place before the House the general agreement between Canada and the United States with reference to automobiles, free trade in parts and the like?
I see the Minister is now here, so I will redirect my question to the Minister of Industry and tell him it has to do with the arrangement between Canada and the United States with reference to autos and auto parts. Is it a fact, as I am informed was stated yesterday in a committee in Washington, that under the arrangement which has been made between our two countries the big three in the auto industry in Canada will, if the agreement is consummated by its acceptance by the Congress of the United States, build only one model in their Canadian plants for the North American market, a smaller model of automobile than is being built today?
Is it a fact, as was reported to me from Washington, that the result of one small model being built in Canadian plants would adversely affect Canadian suppliers, particularly suppliers of steel and other materials used in cars; and is it a fact that the tool, die and machine industry of Canada would suffer greatly since only one set of tooling dies would be required for the Canadian automobile industry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had access to the document from which the right hon. gentleman is quoting, but to the best of my knowledge there is not in existence now any plan to limit Canadian production to one small model of one automobile. The motor car manufacturers in Canada are in the process
of endeavouring to make plans to augment, to increase very substantially, their production in Canada. These plans are not yet finalized, but from what I have learned of the progress of the plans to date the intention, as suggested, to limit production in Canada to one small model of automobile is not likely to be the result.


John George Diefenbaker: Whether it is likely to be the result or not, has this been discussed as a possible solution of the problem?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, this has not been propounded as a possible solution of the problem.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Would he care to report to the House on his meeting this morning with Mr. Scott, president of Ford of Canada? Did he discuss with him the movement of their purchasing department to head office in Detroit, and did he also discuss with him the reason Ford cars are being sold more cheaply in Buffalo than they are in Canada?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we did have a meeting with Mr. Scott this morning, attended by the Minister of Industry, the Secretary of State and myself. At this meeting we had the opportunity to review the steps which the Ford Motor Company is planning to take in arranging for temporary lay-offs resulting from the rearrangement of production machinery in the engine plant in Windsor. We shall be meeting later in the week, on Thursday, with Mr. George Burt, the international representative of the U.A.W. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss important questions, and the matters raised by the hon. Member were not discussed at this meeting.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Bumaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question. Some weeks ago following a meeting with the U.A.W. the Minister of Labour said machinery was being set up whereby the trade unions, management and Government would be prepared to cope with the problem of lay-offs. I want to ask the Minister whether any such machinery
April 27, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry has indeed been set up and, if so, what is the nature of that machinery and what will be its function.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not recall the exact expression used by my hon. friend, but there is available within the Department of Labour a manpower service which could be utilized to meet a situation of this kind. However, it does involve its voluntary acceptance by both management and labour.
At the present time we are in the process of securing from all the automobile manufacturers information regarding the extent of the manpower adjustments which may be required as a result of the changes with respect to the Ford plant. As I mentioned yesterday there will be temporary lay-offs over a period of time. The expectation is that the lay-offs which will take place in May and June can be met through extending employment opportunities in the Windsor area, and at present the National Employment Service is on the scene and will be available to assist actively, and I trust successfully, the workers displaced from the Ford plant. At present we are in the process of considering what, if any, additional machinery may be required to meet the problem which will affect the workers of higher seniority who may be involved later in the summer. But I would point out that as a result of the discussions held this morning, and placing the problem in its total perspective, the situation is not as serious as the first reaction might have indicated last week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this continuous process of rationalization which is called for by the United States-Canada agreement on automobiles may result in further employment dislocation, is the Government prepared to set up a special retraining program for automobile workers affected by this economic dislocation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of the subjects raised this morning was whether a retraining program could usefully be employed in these circumstances, and this is a matter which is being explored further this afternoon by officials of the Department of Labour and of the Ford Motor Company. I hope later in the week we may be able to raise this question with the union representatives to find out whether in these circumstances retraining might provide useful assistance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the whole question of this agreement is raising more and more problems, in-

formation about which is lacking to hon. Members in the main, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would give consideration to a suggestion which was made a couple of weeks ago that a special day be set aside on which the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour could discuss this particular agreement and tell the House what plans the Government has to cope with any dislocation which may result from it.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: There will be an opportunity before long to discuss this agreement. Indeed, there will be an immediate opportunity to discuss some of the matters raised by this agreement in the course of the budget debate which begins tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: But not to get a reply.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Could the Prime Minister tell the House how soon we may expect to have the agreement presented to Parliament for discussion, so that some time could be spent going into the whole matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot say exactly when the agreement will be submitted. I believe it will not be long, and it will be discussed with the House leaders when we deal with Parliamentary business after the budget debate.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Minister of Labour. Has he any figures or has he made any study of the possible lay-offs in allied industries which are supplying materials to the auto parts industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been under consideration and is receiving the attention of the Department of Labour and the Department of Industry.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister any figures that he can release to Parliament and to the people of the country as to the possible incidence of this move on related industries? He should have some figures and studies.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite difficult for me at this stage to produce the kind of figures my hon. friend mentions. It ought to be borne in mind in this discussion that whatever changes occur will take place within a context of expanding employment, and that the adjustments will take place in that situation. The Minister of Industry may be in a position to provide additional information at a later time.
April 27. 1965


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With the coup situation in the Dominican Republic developing into a full scale civil war, could the Minister inform the House as to what is being done to protect the lives of the several hundred Canadian nationals who are in that country?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and United States Embassies are working together in this matter. The situation is not one at the moment, as of the latest information, that would require evacuation. However, preparatory steps have been taken if any such need should arise.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer the Prime Minister gave to a question on Viet Nam put by the hon. Member for York-Sunbury, and in view of the Prime Minister's recent speech with which the President of the United States disagreed vehemently, what is Canada's position in reference to the United States stand in Viet Nam at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We dealt with that yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is Canada, in this regard, in disagreement or agreement with the United States stand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman will read yesterday's Hansard he will find the answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I find the answer as clear yesterday as it is today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether he agrees with the summation by the Secretary General of the United Nations that there has been a very considerable, serious disintegration in the situation in Viet Nam. At the same time will he give an answer to a ques-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion that has been asked of the Prime Minister, and which I ask him, that because of this very incendiary situation in Southeast Asia should not parliament have a day-and I would suggest Friday as that day-when the whole matter may be discussed; because this is something serious and perilous and ought to be given the consideration of the House of Commons. We have had no information whatever on that other than extraterritorial statements made by the Prime Minister in another country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I noted that yesterday my right hon. friend asked the Prime Minister whether a day could be set aside, and the Prime Minister indicated that he would give consideration to the matter. I know that he is doing that-


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend asks when. I just cannot give him a positive response to that, but I remind my right hon. friend that we have had a discussion on this subject. My right hon. friend shakes his head, but he took part in that debate, and I thought on that occasion made a very constructive statement.
We are considering this serious situation. However, I cannot agree with the remarks my right hon. friend has made about what he calls the extraterritorial statement made by the Prime Minister of this country. I may say to my right hon. friend that the visit which the Prime Minister had with the President of the United States has turned out to be an even more significant visit, from the point of view of its constructive suggestion, than was anticipated at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It turned out to be a political gaucherie.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend says it turned out to be a political gaucherie. I am not going to quarrel with my right hon. friend, but I am going to say that in a matter which he himself admits is important and delicate I think he would agree on reflection that the Prime Minister, with his experience in these matters, made a very valuable suggestion that was greatly appreciated by the President and which has been emulated by some of the most important men in governments of countries all over the world.

April 27, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Could we get a blow by blow description of what the President of the United States said to the Prime Minister of Canada in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in answer to that question that I have had two very friendly communications from the President since I made the proposal.


John George Diefenbaker: What did he say that day?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. To avoid any more of these episodes, what my hon. friend from Port Arthur calls "these Berchtesgad-ens," I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the President has informed him in advance of anything that is going to be said this afternoon at the President's press conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, the President has not told me what he is going to say at his press conference this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question I want first to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would not agree that since the House discussed this matter some months ago the situation in Viet Nam has become much more alarming and much more serious, and that another discussion ought to be held in the House fairly soon?
I want to ask a second question which is, has the Canadian Government been consulted about the proposal of the British government and the Government of the U.S.S.R. regarding a conference on Cambodia with a view to such a conference eventually turning its attention to a solution of the Viet Nam situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the proposal was not made by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union but originally by the Cambodian Government. It was a suggestion that a conference on Cambodia's neutrality and territorial integrity might take place and might be used as an occasion for what are called corridor discussions on the situation in Viet Nam. The Canadian Government would be willing to give support to this proposal, and support has now been assured by the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and other parties.
However, Prince Sihanouk, who had first suggested the holding of this conference, has
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).l
since indicated that he would not be willing to have the conference unless it were restricted entirely to a discussion of Cambodian and Viet Nam affairs. There may be certain developments in connection with his observations in this connection; we shall have to wait to see the consequences.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether the Government of Canada as a member of the International Truce Commission has been invited to sit in at such a conference in the event it is held?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada has not been invited. This will be a conference made up of the original Geneva powers. However, if the procedure of 1962 were to be followed it could be that the members of the supervisory commission, Canada, Poland and India, might be invited. No such invitation has been put forward as yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Minister agree that in view of the responsibilities which Canada accepts as a member of the Truce Commission she ought to make representations asking to be allowed to sit in, since no nation ought to be asked to assume heavy responsibilities without having some voice in laying down the policy under which the commission shall operate?



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Minister of Justice is not present, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. It stems from the remarks made yesterday by the person who is already mentioned as the next leader of the Quebec Conservatives, namely, Mr. Marcel Faribault.
Speaking about the Canadian constitution, Mr. Faribault said:
Drawn up for colonies, it is unsuitable for a free people.
Adopted outside of our land, it seems to have been imposed upon us without justifiable reasons.
Amendable at the sole instance of the federal government, it affects the dignity of the provinces and lessens their initiative and their powers.
Written only in the English language, it disregards the dignity and the historical rights of French Canada.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if the Fulton-Favreau formula will correct this situation?
April 27, 1965



$27 COMMONS DEBATES

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be asked on the orders of the day to comment on such a large question of historical and constitutional importance. So far as the Fulton-Favreau formula is concerned, I think my hon. friend understands it perfectly well, and we will have an opportunity to discuss it, I hope before long.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question relating to the question just asked. Because of the problems the Federal Government is experiencing regarding jurisdiction and treatymaking powers, and because of the question just asked, does the right hon. Prime Minister not consider the time has now arrived for the setting up of a parliamentary committee to study our written Constitution with a view to obtaining agreement in all parts of Canada on proposed changes and amendments?
I ask this question because of the strong possibility that everybody in Canada recognizes that the Fulton-Favreau proposition will not get through the Quebec House in the foreseeable future. Does this not mean that the time has now come to set up this kind of parliamentary committee? I am sure the Prime Minister would agree with me that it will do a lot to help national unity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be asked to comment on a question which is purely hypothetical, in the sense that it is based on the hypothetical question of a formula not getting through a particular provincial legislature.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are other supplementary questions.


Gilles Grégoire: My question is this. Will the present government wait until all provincial legislatures have accepted the Fulton-Favreau formula before it is brought before the federal parliament for adoption?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already said that this matter should be dealt
Inquiries of the Ministry with by this House of Commons after it has been dealt with by the provincial legislatures, some of which have already taken action with regard to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what has been the reaction, if any, or the reply given to the government of the Province of Saskatchewan in respect of the resolution approving of the formula, subject to the suggestion that the whole matter should be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons, where witnesses could be heard and the public given an opportunity of placing its views before the House of Commons; or alternatively that a committee of the Senate be set up with the same powers? What is the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the legislature of Saskatchewan, a government of the same political stripe as the Government of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we refrain from advising the legislature and the government of Saskatchewan as to how they should deal with this problem. We have received from that government and the legislature a resolution that gives advice as to how we should proceed in this House. Naturally we take into consideration advice from all quarters on important matters like this.


John George Diefenbaker: Taking advice is all right; whether you are going to act upon it is the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question. Before it is considered by the House of Commons, would the Prime Minister consider setting up a parliamentary committee or a committee to look into the legal ramifications of the formula in question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has first to be considered by the House of Commons in order for it to be referred to a committee, if that is considered the right procedure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister undertake now to say that once the matter is considered it will be referred to a committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposal. If the House, after considering the matter, should refer it to a committee that could be considered at the present time a possible procedure.
s28	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONFEDERATION



REPORTED SPEECH BY CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I answered that question and I have nothing to add.']
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following a question I put to him last April 13 concerning a speech by His Excellency the Canadian ambassador in Paris, the minister was kind enough to send me a copy of that speech.
I should like to quote a sentence from that speech and ask the minister if it reflects the policy of the government.
At a time when states and nations seem to be pushed more and more toward centralization by the winds of change, Canada's future is taking shape in an opposite direction, that is toward a federation becoming increasingly loose in some sectors.
I should now like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who decides what direction the evolution of the Canadian federation will take, what is the sector in which this federation is particularly "loose", and if this reflects the policy of this government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in our ambassador in Paris, but I would like to examine the speech in question carefully before answering the hon. member.
On the other hand, the purpose of this statement is clear enough and does not seem to warrant further justification.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
I should like to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he gave the following answer on April 13, in reply to my first question.
He said:
[T ext]
I have seen the report and I have also examined the actual text. The Ambassador was incorrectly reported.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is inconceivable that the minister should tell us at this time that he did not study the text. Therefore, I am asking him to explain the meaning of the words of His Excellency and to tell us whether that represents the views and opinions of the government.
DEBATES	April 27, 1965


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right; I answered to that effect, for I had actually read the text. But I read it a few weeks ago and as we are dealing here with a very important matter and as a responsible minister I should like to have the opportunity to re-examine the situation.


Mr. Lamberi:: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do this work at home tonight, so that we may have an answer tomorrow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall not be here tonight.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Minister not feel that this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. Member for Calgary North.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is under the impression that the matter has been fully discussed and that the Minister has agreed to re-read the speech and make a reply later. It appeared to the Chair that the hon. Member was about to argue the question rather than ask a supplementary question.


William Heward Grafftey: No, I was about to ask a question.


Hon. Michael Starr (Onlario):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. Member who asked the original question was allowed to ask a supplementary question, following which the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi proposed to ask a second supplementary question which was not of an argumentative nature. I submit it is his privilege to do, and that he should be allowed to do so in a sensible way.


William Heward Grafftey: The question was not even heard.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in connection with the agreement made between the Province of Quebec and the Government
April 27. 1965	COMMONS
of France to which reference was made yesterday. Is the Minister now in a position to answer the questions I asked yesterday and outline the sequence of events relating to this whole matter? Can the Minister indicate particularly who initiated and carried on negotiations in regard to this agreement, what documents the Province signed and when they were signed; what documents, if any the Federal Government signed and when they were signed? These are all matters which the Prime Minister said should be made public.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had dealt with this matter yesterday, but so there can be no question in this regard I should like to simply indicate that well before the accord between the Governments of Quebec and France was executed in February of 1965 three way discussions took place among the officials of the Canadian, French and Quebec Governments with a view to working out a procedure by which the arrangements which Quebec wished to enter into with the competent French authorities could have international effect.
The approach agreed upon on all sides was that the Canadian and French Governments would grant their formal assent to or concurrence in the arrangements, and that this would be done by an exchange of notes between representatives of the Federal Government and of France. The exchange of notes was a type of umbrella agreement between the two Governments under which international effect was given to an arrangement which otherwise would have had no standing in international law.
The agreement was signed by Quebec with France in Paris on February 27. By prearrangement an exchange of notes took place on the same day between the French charge d'affaires here in Ottawa and myself. In this exchange of notes between the representative of France and myself, the Canadian Government concurred in-that is, gave its assent to the agreement between France and Quebec.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what Mr. Lesage says.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. The one thing the Minister did not make clear is who initiated these discussions, who carried on the negotiations, and whether they were carried on by the Province of Quebec
DEBATES	629
Inquiries of the Ministry without thp knowledge of the Government of Canada, at least in the beginning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated, as I indicated yesterday, that this was done with the knowledge of the Government of Canada. The Province of Quebec has had cultural but informal arrangements, not executed by formal documents for some time, and it was decided this year in conformity with the practice of certain other provincial Governments that Quebec would like to formalize them. After discussions with us and with the French Government the arrangement which I have outlined was entered into.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the Minister has not made clear as yet when the Government of Canada became aware of these negotiations. He said they were aware of them, but at what time they were aware he has not said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was aware of them, I would say, last summer. As I mentioned yesterday, there was a discussion with the French Foreign Minister last December, and the agreements were not formalized until February, 1965.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question, and I ask this sincerely, in a non-partisan sense. Have the difficulties regarding treaty making powers in which the Minister finds himself not convinced him and the other members of the Cabinet that the time has come when there should be a national conference in Canada to modernize our Constitution, so that in all parts of this nation we can have agreement on a modern Constitution that is suited to modern times? The urgency of this supplementary question is based on the difficulties the Minister is now experiencing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know my hon. friend's question is a very sincere one, but it has already been long since answered by the Prime Minister.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does he intend to have the Canadian constitution amended to allow the provinces to conclude, in the future, international treaties in fields within their exclusive jurisdiction under the terms of the British North America Act?
April 27. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question and I have nothing to add.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday the hon. Member for Hamilton South asked a question with respect to a certain Mr. Beattie, an admitted Nazi, who has been described in several newspaper stories as a customs clerk. I should like to assure him and the House that this man is not now and never has been an employee of the Department of National Revenue.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, but perhaps in his absence I can direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the Government investigating the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of Walsh Advertising Company Limited, Toronto, which carried among other Government accounts the Canadian Army recruiting program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know the answer, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to find out.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: At the
same time I should like to ask the Prime Minister to consider some compensation for the 581 creditors of that company, mainly in the fields of radio and newspaper, whose claims now total in excess of half a million dollars.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a further supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister find out whether the Government checked the credit rating of this company before engaging it to deal with the public on behalf of the Government of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will make that part of the inquiry.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question which I should like to address to the Acting Secretary of State. Would he advise this House if Canadian municipalities may direct the matching grants under the commemoration of the Centennial of Confederation plans toward additions to presently established hospitals or toward the construction of new hospital facilities?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a question for the Order Paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: wish to put a question to the Minister of Defence. Can the Minister inform the House what replacement fighter, fighter bomber or army support aircraft has been selected for the R.C.A.F.?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The decision has not yet been taken.



NOVA SCOTIA-CHANGE IN LOCATION OF TRANSMITTING FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the Minister contemplating moving the transmitting facilities at Albro Lake, Dartmouth, to Mill Cove, Lunenburg County, along with the married personnel of that establishment?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I ask this question because of the urgency of the Chester Municipal School Board having to provide new educational facilities in the area without delay-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that a detailed reply would be received if the question were put on the order paper.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to address a question to the Minister of For-
April 27. 1965

estry. In view of the use made by many furniture and lumber companies in and around the Toronto area of the services of the laboratory on forest pathology which is located near Maple, Ontario, would the Minister advise this House, and assure these people, as to the plans the Government has in respect of this laboratory? In other words, are the plans still in effect to move it to Sault Ste. Marie, or have the plans been changed so that it may remain in this strategic location?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, there is one officer of the department who has relations with all these firms in the region, and he would still have them no matter what the plans may be.


Michael Starr: Has the Minister arrived at any plans yet as to the removal of this laboratory from near Maple?


Maurice Sauvé: No research is done at this laboratory. All the work for these people is done here in Ottawa.


Michael Starr: That is not the question. Is the Government going to leave the laboratory there or is it not?


Maurice Sauvé: We are considering this now.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Mr. McLagan, President of Canada Steamship Lines, to the effect that the reason for accidents in the St. Lawrence and the seaway is that ships are overcrowded with men? Would the Minister undertake to look into this question to see whether or not this is the reason for accidents on the seaway?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: My attention has not been drawn to that matter, but perhaps I could answer the question asked by the hon. Member yesterday in my absence. The accident to which he referred is being thoroughly investigated, as all accidents are. The preliminary report I had was that it was the kind of accident which would really have nothing whatever to do with the condition of the waterway, but was an accident that might well have happened on the high seas.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. Will there be a public report of this
Inquiries of the Ministry investigation into the accident which befell the S.S. Northcliffe Halil


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the normal course I would not see any objection to it, unless the report contained information which might lead to some action in the courts or prejudice someone in some way. I will look into the matter and give a definitive answer later.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I shall address myself to the Minister of Forestry. Since the minister wishes to look after the interests of eastern farmers, he will surely be anxious to answer the question.
In view of the anxiety shown by the producers of manufactured milk following the government's delay in announcing its policy in that connection, as borne out by the telegram I received today from the "Federation de l'UCC" of the diocese of Nicolet, the major manufactured milk producing area, could the minister tell us whether the administrative details of that new policy which will become effective within a few days, that is on May 1, will be announced today, tomorrow or in the near future?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, those particulars will certainly not be announced today in the absence of the minister.


Clément Vincent: Could the minister tell us whether those particulars will be announced tomorrow, since there are only a few days left?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the interest of the hon. member in this policy and, if possible an announcement will be made tomorrow or in the next few days.



GOVERNMENT PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF FARM LANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry in charge of ARDA, concerning a proposal that was made by the
April 27. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Agriculture on April 13. To refresh his memory I will read the proposal:
I think the Federal and Provincial Governments in Canada will have to consider very soon a comprehensive national program for government purchase and redevelopment of such lands into economic family farm units, which can be sold or leased back to private individuals who can then expect to make a decent living on them.
This question refers to poorly used lands, and my question is this. Is this program going to be carried out under ARDA or under the Department of Agriculture?


Maurice Sauvé: Under certain aspects of the ARDA agreement it can be carried out under ARDA, but I think this would be a new policy devised by the Department of Agriculture.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether the government has yet given any consideration to re-establishing the Industrial Relations Committee, so the work of that committee on the report of the maritime trustees can be completed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been reached on this question. As soon as it has been I shall be glad to communicate it to the House.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the indication given last night by the Minister of Finance that the Old Age Security fund had a $64 million surplus last year and will have a $240 million surplus this year, will the Government consider placing a measure before Parliament to use some of this surplus to increase the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything at the moment to what I have already said on this matter.
(Mr. Hamilton.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the Government consider the matter, and in particular will it consider the right of our senior citizens to share in what the Minister of Finance referred to last night as a booming economy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope all senior citizens will be able to share in this booming economy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is up to you.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he sought or received any statement from the C.P.R. management regarding its position in the next year or two with regard to passenger service. I ask the question not only because of the legislation which we assume the Minister will bring down to deal with subsidies, but also because of the widespread representations by western cities which are discontented with the policies of the C.P.R.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not hear the verb in the hon. gentleman's question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I asked if the Minister had sought or received any policy statement from C.P.R. management regarding the passenger service to be provided by that company in the next few years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have neither sought nor received any, but in view of the hon. gentleman's interest I will seek one and see what the C.P.R. has to say about it.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As a
supplementary question, in view of the fact that I asked a similar question a month ago why wouldn't the Minister be as obliging to me and say he would ask for information?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to play hide and seek with the hon. gentleman too.


Some hon. Members:: Mostly hide.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hyde and Jekyll.
April 27, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES



REPORTED RESTRICTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR POSITIONS

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that job opportunities within the House of Commons should be restricted to the Ottawa area and denied to the rest of the citizens of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I regret that I am at a loss to understand the hon. gentleman's question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps in order to explain my question fully to the Prime Minister I might be permitted to call his attention to an application form recently circulated. Applicants are to apply to the Chief of Personnel in the West Block, but only employees of the House of Commons and employees of the Public Service of Canada in the Ottawa area are entitled to apply for these jobs within the House of Commons. Does the Prime Minister agree with the imposition of these restrictions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into this question. It is a matter which I think concerns the Speaker of the House and the Internal Economy Commission, but I would be glad to look into it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does the Prime Minister not think that such a policy concerns also himself and the Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that the hon. Member could have taken this up with the Chair at the appropriate time. I am not aware of what he is talking about but I will certainly look into it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I did not send out the circular.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question regarding the Air Canada overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg. Would the Minister arrange to have all transfers of personnel at that base from Winnipeg to Montreal postponed until the Thompson inquiry has been completed
Inquiries of the Ministry and the Government has announced its policy concerning the base?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman, who was a Member of the administration some time ago, knows it was not the policy of the Government to which he belonged, nor is it the policy of the present Government, to intervene directly in the internal affairs of Air Canada. I have given the House certain answers to this question previously. I will look into any new circumstances which may have arisen, but unless new circumstances have arisen the answer I gave on previous occasions still stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Minister not feel that the commitment given by the Government in the early part of 1964, one in which I believe Air Canada concurred, should be honoured, and that during the lifetime of that commitment there should be no such transfers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman's question seemed to contain at least three negatives and would require a lot of analysis. Up to the present time, to the best of my knowledge the undertaking given to the Government by Air Canada has been honoured, namely that except in regard to persons transferred pursuant to the collective agreements, which were not to be interfered with, there would be no transfers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was not the agreement to which the Minister refers an agreement which was entered into a month after the Government's commitment was made? Should not that commitment be honoured in all respects?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. gentleman's assertion is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer given by the Minister of Transport I give notice that I will raise this matter at ten o'clock.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I had
intended to ask a question about Air Canada policy, but since two previous questioners have phrased it very well I should like instead to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It has to do with representations received from the Manitoba Legislature by
April 27, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry way of a resolution recommending the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to farm labourers. I would ask the Minister whether the Government has any intention to extend such benefits to this class of worker during the current year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a matter which is under consideration. As indicated in the Speech from the Throne, one of the items to be dealt with this session is the Unemployment Insurance Act and amendments thereto. This should provide an opportunity to consider the particular matter which the hon. Member has raised.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I know he has been in contact with the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough, who perhaps has told him what this is about. I wonder whether the Minister has received any submissions from District 7B, which includes parts of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, regarding a possible postponement of the opening of the lobster season from May 1 and, if so, whether he has made any decision in this regard.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, earlier this week I did receive representations from fishermen, lobster buyers and others asking that the opening of the lobster season in District 7B be postponed because of severe ice conditions along the coast. I immediately ordered an aerial survey of the area. Following the receipt of a report, which reached me at two o'clock yesterday afternoon I announced that the opening of the season would be postponed in District 7B until May 7 and, in addition, that lobster fishermen in that district would be allowed to continue to fish until July 7 to compensate them for time lost in the early part of the year.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Yesterday I addressed a question to the President of the Privy Council in the absence of the Minister of Industry. Maybe the Minister
[Mr. Enns.l
of Industry could answer it today. Is it the intention of the Government to set up a central purchasing system in respect of all non-military cars used by the Federal Government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What provision will be made for the servicing of those cars and the resale of the trade-ins under this arrangement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The details should probably not be given on the orders of the day, but if the hon. Member will put this question on the order paper I will see that he gets an answer.


Siegfried John Enns: Would this arrangement continue to permit dealers throughout the country to submit tenders?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is my intention in the not too distant future to meet with representatives of the dealers to discuss these problems with them.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Did the Minister meet with representatives of the Automobile Dealers Association yesterday, and did he make any statement to them?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to debate this question at 10.30.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 26, consideration in Committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamour-eux in the Chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the retirement, upon attaining the age of seventy-five years, of any person appointed to the Senate after the coming into force of the said measure: to extend the provision of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to such persons; to provide for the granting of an annuity to any person appointed to the Senate before the coming into force of the said measure who resigns his place in the Senate after having attained the age of seventy-five years or having become afflicted with a permanent infirmity disabling him from the performance of his duties; and to provide further for the granting of an annuity to the widow of a person who was granted such an annuity upon resigning his place in the Senate.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I think most Members of the House were very interested to see the resolution on this matter brought
April 27, 1965	COMMONS
before Parliament at this time. It is something that has been in the minds of many Members of this House for a long time, I think, and we are very glad to see that we now have an opportunity to discuss the matter. I think the Government's proposal, as we understand it, is very good as far as it goes; but it does not go very far. In fact, to say it is taking a giant step slowly would be an underestimate as to the length to which this measure will take us. However, Mr. Chairman, even a small step is perhaps better than no step at all.
Since the purpose of the resolution stage, as I understand it, is that the Government may get ideas from Members in all parts of the House on these subjects, I believe now is the time for those of us who are interested in this matter to put forward some of our suggestions. As I say, because the Government's proposal, as we now understand it, is very limited and we know its general nature, I would hope that the Government would take cognizance of some proposals that have been made and others that probably will be made in the next short while and perhaps amend the bills or revise them when they appear before us.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on the suggestion that was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, which the Prune Minister seemed to be taking into very careful consideration; that is, the suggestion that the Government should appoint perhaps more Members to the Cabinet from the other place. I think this is an extremely good suggestion, for one particular reason. We have heard many discussions in Canada, and occasionally in this House, concerning the advantages of the United States cabinet or executive system over the Canadian system. In our system, as we all know here, every Government in the past has consisted of Members of the House that is to say, the Prime Minister has picked the Members of the Cabinet from those elected Members of this House who sit on the Government side. We also all know that because by custom every region and Province in Canada must be represented-and there are also other considerations, seniority in political parties, some religious considerations and other things-the eventual choice that a Prime Minister has in selecting his Cabinet is really very limited indeed. One of the great criticisms of our system of Cabinet Government is that the Prime Minister is so limited in his choice of Cabinet Ministers that a great deal of talent that he might otherwise be able
DEBATES	635
Retirement Age for Senators to employ in his Cabinet often goes to waste or cannot be called upon at all.
The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition was that more Members of the Cabinet should be appointed from the Senate -perhaps two or three; I do not think one should go too far in this matter, otherwise we would perhaps destroy the whole principle of responsible government. This would enable the Prime Minister to recommend to His Excellency that perhaps two or three very highly qualified, outstanding Canadians be appointed to the other place, and then the Prime Minister could call them into his Cabinet. Thus we would have some of the advantages of the United States cabinet system in that some of the very ablest people in the country could in effect be called upon by any Prime Minister to serve in his Cabinet. This is something, of course, that the Americans have done, their whole constitutional system being quite different from ours; but they have had this advantage for very many years, and we have not.
If this suggestion were accepted by the Government it would enable the Government to call upon some of the ablest people in Canada to serve with the Government regardless, perhaps, of the political persuasion they might have. For this reason I think the suggestion made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition-and I noticed that the Prime Minister was paying particular attention to it-should be given much more careful and further consideration by the Government.
There is another suggestion concerning the other place which many people have made in this country. While under present conditions there has been from time to time criticism of the other place and its function, perhaps the other place, unlike the suggestion of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, might not be abolished but could be improved. I would like to suggest that perhaps the whole system of appointments to the other place might be changed. Instead of being based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister to His Excellency, the Provinces should be able to appoint certain Members to the other place.
This would have a great many advantages. First of all, one of the reasons given for having the other place at all is to provide regional and provincial representation, to ensure this in our system of government. As we know, in recent years we have had a number of political parties, other than the two principal ones in the country, which
April 27. 1965

Retirement Age for Senators have formed governments; in British Columbia, Alberta and until recently in Saskatchewan. These are very considerable segments of political thought, whether or not one agrees with them. The fact of the matter is, as we all know, that these political parties have no representation in the other place.
If Provinces were able to recommend appointments to the Senate, then some of the political groups which have had no representation there up to now might be afforded some representation in the other place. There are those perhaps who might not agree with this suggestion, but certainly in the Province of Alberta one political party in particular has been there for a very long time and may well remain there for some time to come. It would seem reasonable that this Party might be afforded, on a regional basis, some representation in the other place. It may well be that in future years other political parties may arise in the country, and if they do in fact attract a considerable segment of public support they likewise should have some form of representation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It has been suggested on different occasions that the other place should be an elected body, as it is in Australia, for example or, more closely to us, as it is in the United States. I do not know whether that is an entirely good suggestion, but it is something that might be considered. I am not sure that it is a good idea; as a matter of fact I believe there are certain advantages to making appointments, which I will come to in a minute. I know that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and the party he represents, as he indicated in his remarks yesterday, are of course quite anxious to see the other place abolished. He based his argument on the premise that in a democracy it was not democratic to have non-elected bodies forming part of the Government; that was what I understood his argument to be. I believe he went further, not only in this debate but in similar debates-redistribution and the like-and propounded the theory that for every individual there should be one vote, and that democracy should rely entirely upon that basis. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre in that particular regard.
Let me say that I agree that the principle of elective representation is the main principle which should be considered in setting up any kind of democratic government. But other principles are also involved which have been set forth by those who have studied

political systems from the days of Plato right down to the present time. If you allow a government to be composed of a simple majority, many minorities will be ignored. It is just as easy to have tyranny in a majority government as tyranny in many other ways. For reasons which I have mentioned this is so particularly in Canada, where you have a very large area with different segments forming the country, such as the far western provinces, the Maritime provinces and the two major central provinces. This leads to different political parties forming the provincial governments, each with a different kind of political thinking.
In a country like Canada, for reasons I have already pointed out, due to the way in which our system works in practice it may not be possible to have representation in the other place of those who are not members of the two principal parties; and this has been the case up to the present time. Nevertheless, as long as other political parties do exist in the country, even though they may be on a provincial basis only, it seems only reasonable, if the theory of the Canadian constitution is to work, that they should have representation in the other place.
The only way in which this would be practical at the present time, Mr. Chairman, under the present set-up is through a system of appointments rather than establishing an elective basis. Although it might conceivably be possible to establish some form of electoral basis, since a number of political parties other than the two main ones frequently come into provincial areas it might be better to have some system of provincial political appointments to the other place which would perhaps get around the difficulty which we are facing at the present time.
While the powers of the other place are very great, it is true that in practice they are seldom exercised. Certainly in this century and even during the last century they have been seldom used, but the other place does have a great deal of power of which a lot of people in the country are not aware.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They used the veto in 1926 on pensions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre reminds me that they did use their veto power in 1926 with regard to old age pensions, but as I say this power has been seldom used. I am not suggesting that it should be used, but if the other place was constituted on a different basis than the
April 27, 1965

present one I think they would with some conscience exercise more of their powers.
As I have already said, I suggest there are two or three ways in which a change could be effected; first of all, by having a number of members in the other place selected or recommended to His Excellency on a provincial basis, which I think would greatly improve the situation. Second, consideration might be given to the possibility of an elected upper house, and I should like to hear other points of view on this question. Third, there is the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that greater use be made of members of the other place in the Cabinet which, on the basis I suggested this afternoon, in effect would bring many of the advantages of the United States cabinet system to Canada without destroying any of our traditions. Thus we could, perhaps, have the best of two worlds. I hope the Government may give consideration to these suggestions, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have always considered the Senate had four functions, the chief of which was to take care of members of this House whom the Government in power wished to switch in order to open up opportunities. Its second major function was to tie in with the party money raising apparatus, appointing those who have recently been called party bagmen, or other people who have devoted long years of service to the party, to that chamber. Then third, and getting closer to the real intention when the Senate was created, it is supposed to represent in a general way regional interests. Fourth, the Senate was to be a chamber for sober second review.
Hon. Members of the Official Opposition have tended to stress in their speeches that some of the force or power behind our arguments against the Senate and for the abolition of the Senate has been really occasioned by the fact that we have not had an opportunity tc receive Senate appointments and therefore there is this almost childish argument of "If we had had the chance to get on the draft it would certainly affect our views". I do not know the answer to that particular argument, but my personal feeling, having discussed the matter with my colleagues, is that I do not think that is so. The very fact that there has been such strong emphasis placed by the two major political parties for 40 years, particularly by the Liberal Party, on parliamentary reform of the Senate indicates that although we feel that even reform of the Senate is not
637
Retirement Age for Senators good enough and that abolition is the answer, there is more than just self-righteousness, or the feeling of being unable to take part in the activities of that chamber, behind the attitude of this Party.
I want to put on record, Mr. Chairman, most of an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of November 17 by Peter C. Newman, the Star's Ottawa editor, a man who, to say the least, has considerable respect for the man who heads this Government, the present Prime Minister. Mr. Newman says:
From time to time, Lester Pearson has talked of introducing to Canada a "new politics", with himseli as the embodiment of the new kind of politician, willing to subordinate selfish partisan impulses to higher ideals.
Pearson's admirers, when questioned about the substance of the "new politics," contend that it can't be applied in a vacuum, that the style and ethics of this minority Parliament are being set, not by Lester Pearson but by John Diefenbaker who's practising a very old, shabby kind of politics.
But there are some things which remain purely the prerogative of the Prime Minister, even in minority parliaments, and it is in these jurisdictions that Pearson's "new politics" can be properly put to the litmus test. One such arena of personal decision is the appointment of Senators.
Last week, Pearson elevated to the Senate John Black Aird, a wealthy Toronto lawyer, under somewhat unusual circumstances. On Sept. 20, at a press conference in St. John's Nfld., the Prime Minister had been asked whether he intended to fill any of the four existing Senate vacancies, including one from Newfoundland.
His answer, unlike most of his off-the-cuff replies, was unequivocal and firm: There would be no further appointments until the Senate reform bill, now on the Commons Order Paper, becomes law. Just 51 days later, Aird became a Senator.
His appointment raised another, less public issue as well. Party leaders rarely commit themselves in advance on such delicate matters as Senate appointments. But during the 1963 campaign, Pearson informed his inner circle that one man he definitely intended to make a Senator was Prof. Frank Underhill, the patron saint of Canadian liberalism...
Underhill has never been in active politics, but he was keynote speaker at the Liberals' Kingston conference in I960 and has, ever since they were history professors together at the University of Toronto, maintained an unabashed admiration for Pearson and all his works.
The appointment of Aird closed off the only Ontario vacancy in the Senate. On the same day that Aird-a Toronto millionaire who celebrated his forty-first birthday last May-became a Senator, Prof. Underhill, now 75 and not in the best of health, was trundling his files into a small cubicle at Ottawa's Carleton University where he has recently begun teaching again.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The pattern of Pearson's nine Senate appointments to date is not difficult to follow.
John Black Aird-41, born in Toronto and educated at Upper Canada College and Osgoode Hall, he is a partner in the law firm of Edison, Aird and
April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators Berlis. director of 17 large corporations including the Rani; of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Aird is fund-raiser-in-chief for the Liberal party of Canada.
The next one is:
Daniei A. Lang-45, born in Toronto, educated at Upper Canada College and Osgoode Hall law school, has, since 1947, been a partner in the law firm of Lang, Michener, Cranston and Renwick. He's chairman of the board of Canada Coal Corp., president of Junior Frood Mines Ltd. and a director of several other firms.
Mr. Lang was campaign chairman for the Liberal party in Ontario during the 1962 and 1963 elections.
Then we come to the next one:
Nelson Rattenbury-55, born in Charlottetown, has since 1945 lived in Saint John, N.B., and from there manages extensive business interests in the Atlantic provinces, including the presidency of Industrial Insulators Ltd., and D. A. Cummings Ltd. of Halifax.
Mr. Rattenbury is chief fund raiser for the Liberal party in the Province of New Brunswick.
Now we come to the next one:
Eric Cook-55, born in St. John's, Nfld., educated at Bishop Field College, he is partner in the law firm of Cook, Bartless and Marshall and chairman of the board of the Avalon Telephone Co. as well as a director of several large concerns, including the Bank of Montreal.
Mr. Cook is president of the Newfoundland Liberal Association.
Then we come to the next one:
Duncan MacTavish-64 when killed in an auto accident on Nov. 15, 1963, five months after his appointment. He had been a leading Ottawa lawyer and director of 29 companies.
Mr. MacTavish was president of the National Liberal Federation from 1952 to 1958.
Now we come to the really prize specimen:
Louis P. Gelinas-62, born in Montreal and a graduate of the University of Montreal, he is a partner in Geoffrion, Robert, Gelinas and a director of 13 large corporations.
Mr. Gelinas is chief fund raiser for the Liberal party in the Province of Quebec.
I might add that he appeared before the Rivard inquiry, and I gather there was an astonishing scene at the time he was asked whether he knew one of the witnesses, Mr. Masson, who had apparently been a Liberal organizer. Mr. Gelinas turned his eyes up to the ceiling and in all innocence said that he did not. We all know that one of the charges being investigated by the Rivard inquiry was to the effect that some $50,000 was going to be earmarked for Liberal party funds, or that this was a contribution that Mrs. Rivard was going to make.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. Member permit a question?


The Chairman:: Order, please. Before the hon. Member asks his question, let me sug-

gest to the hon. Member for Port Arthur that he is now discussing a matter which in my opinion is sub judice and should not be gone into at this time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with you completely, thoroughly and heatedly that this matter and the evidence is sub judice, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have bandied letters back and forth with the Judge of that inquiry. If you insist that I can not discuss this point because in your interpretation this is sub judice I am afraid I have only one alternative, and that is to challenge your ruling.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the hon. Member will realize that it is the duty of the Chair to remind hon. Members of the rules of this House, and certainly there is a long standing rule to this effect, that no Member has the right to discuss a matter which is currently under judicial consideration. If there is any matter now under judicial consideration it is that one, particularly in view of the fact that a judgment is expected to be made by a Justice of the Province of Quebec. I am serving this committee, not directing its proceedings, and I have expressed the opinion that the hon. Member should exercise a great deal of discretion in discussing this matter which I again submit is now the subject of judicial consideration.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, again on the point of order, let me assure you that I am not making any comment about Judge Dorion or about what his decisions may be. I would like to do so but I am apprehensive. I am referring to a man who appeared before that judicial inquiry, namely Senator Gelinas. Surely I can do that, and surely I can refer to the fact reference was made during the inquiry to some $50,000 which was going to go to the Liberal Party fund.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lucien Lamoureux: I believe the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue wishes to make some contribution to this discussion.


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order let me state that the hon. Member for Port Arthur is referring to something which is pertinent to this debate and to the necessity or otherwise of reforming the Senate. It is very important to remember that only incidental to this discussion did he mention testimony given before the Dorion inquiry, and that he has not been discussing the merits of that testimony in any way. He
April 27. 1965	COMMONS
has referred to it as an example of the type of appointments which are being made to the Senate. In my opinion in doing so he is perfectly in order.


Lucien Lamoureux: As I said a moment ago, it is not my intention to precipitate a crisis at this time. The hon. Member for Port Arthur knows the rule probably better than the Chair, and knows how far he may go. I hope he will keep in mind the comments I have made.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order let me point out that the question before us does not relate to how far I may go. For eight years I have been a student here of the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, and realize that a person may go a hell of a long way in this place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact the hon. Member has raised my name as an authority, or at least in whatever he was trying to do, I hope you will permit me on a question of privilege to defy that hon. Gentleman to find any occasion as recorded in Hansard when I repeated, under my immunity in this House, any unsupported tittle-tattle, or anything that was simply gossip or rumour, in circumstances in which I could not be pursued in the courts. I hope I will never do anything of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are other jurisdictions where this kind of thing is called McCarthyism, but it does not seem to me that it matters very much where it is done; it is contrary to our conception of British justice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that speech made by the hon. Member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, but on the point of order let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not have the documentation to which he referred before me, but I think I could find all kinds of examples of this kind in relation to what that hon. Member has done. I would be glad to undertake to look them up.
Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting how far I can go in this regard. I have only referred to one of the appointments made by Mr. Pearson and the reference in this column to that man as a party fund raiser.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. Member will at least agree with me that he should refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister.
DEBATES	639
Retirement Age for Senators


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, let me remind hon. Members that appointments to the Senate are made by the Crown.


An hon. Member:: Let's not be ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. Gentleman is supposed to have some respect for the constitution.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that let me suggest that we should sing God Save the Queen on the occasion of their appointment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the comment of the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate just dots the "i's" to the insufferable and arrogant character of that genius over there.
Let me return now to this question about Senator Gelinas. Let me put it to the supporters of the Government that the very fact that references were made to Mr. Gelinas during the Rivard inquiry, and that attempts were made by lawyers appearing before that commission to tie Senator Gelinas in with the so-called bribe offer, are indications of how dangerous the present set-up is. This underlines the fact that many people in this country are sceptical about the whole arrangement.
Perhaps I can now return to this article written by Mr. Newman.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might now be allowed to ask the question I intended to ask when I was interrupted by the point of order. The hon. Member suggested that when Senator Gelinas was asked whether or not he knew Mr. Masson he looked to the ceiling and said "No". Did the hon. Member intend to imply that Senator Galinas committed perjury?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily implying that Mr. Gelinas committed perjury, but it was my impression-and I went to the trouble of checking with a number of individuals who were at that inquiry-that it was sheer nonsense to suggest that he did not know the person mentioned.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Would you agree that it is your impression that Senator Gelinas committed perjury when asked whether or not he knew Mr. Masson?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would suggest to the hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, that that will probably be determined by the judge. If it is suggested by the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate that this is McCarthyism, I should like to say that this may be answered by the
640	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators fact Senator Gelinas appeared before that inquiry. This, in itself, is enough evidence of the particular situation to which I am referring.
The next appointment referred to, Mr. Chairman, is Maurice Bourget, born at Lau-zon, Quebec, educated Commercial Academy, Quebec, and at Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, civil engineer, member of the Board of Directors of British Newfoundland Corporation, director of several large Canadian corporations. Mr. Bourget was the chief organizer for the Quebec region of the Liberal Party in the last two campaigns.
Then, the next appointment is Romuald Bourque, born in Ottawa and was Mayor of Outremont, Quebec, 1947-63; Liberal, first elected to the House of Commons in 1952. Until he was appointed to the Senate last year his main contribution to the debates in the Commons was his annual speech condemning the use of goofballs. I think we can add also here that the main reason he vacated his Liberal seat in 1963 was so that Maurice Lamontagne could finally get into the Cabinet.
Then, we have another one noted by Mr. Newman when he comments on the brief tenure of Azellus Denis. I do not think we need to make any comments here. I quote from Mr. Newman's article:
Mr. Denis was elevated to the Senate after his own brief tenure as Postmaster General proved an embarrassment to the Pearson government. Among other things, he allowed a set of post office patronage lists to fall into Tory hands.
To be fair, it should be pointed out that with two exceptions, John Diefenbaker used exactly the same criteria in making the 37 Senate appointments of his stewardship...
Still, Diefenbaker had a reasonably valid excuse for appointing party hacks to the Senate. By the time his party had returned to power after 22 years in the political wilderness, only five Tories, left over from the Bennett era, survived in the red chamber.
Pearson has no such justification. At the time of Aird's. appointment, party standings in the Senate were 62 Liberals; 34 Conservatives; 2 Independents and 1 Independent Liberal. There is no longer any question of having to preserve a Liberal majority in the Upper Chamber.
Under the new scale of parliamentary pay, Senators receive an indemnity of $12,000 per year, plus a tax-free expense allowance of $3,000. If the 8 surviving appointees live to 77, the average survival rate for Canadian Senators over the past few years, Pearson's Senators will have cost Canadian taxpayers an eventual total of $2,500,000.
This is political pay-off on a grandiose scale. It has left the disciples of Mike Pearson's "New Politics" disturbed and bewildered.
I wanted to turn from that to another article that was written last July, in 1964, by Bruce MacDonald and is entitled, "Conflict

DEBATES	April 27, 1965
of Interest Issue Looms in Senate's Handling of Bank Bills". The article reads in part:
The possibility of conflict-of-interest issue arising in the Senate is being quietly discussed in financial and political circles as a result of the Upper Chamber's handling of private legislation to incorporate a series of new banks and mortgage companies.
Three bills for bank charters have been introduced in the Senate this session, the first being called for second reading almost four months ago. All of them are still tied up in the Senate banking and commerce committee, which includes among its members four directors of old, established chartered banks. One of them is the chairman, Senator Salter Hayden, a corporation lawyer and a director and shareholder of the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Now, I am not going to go on with Mr. MacDonald's article. It was followed by an editorial in the Globe and Mail condemning this particular situation, in which you get this kind of conflict of interest. Obviously, we have in the Senate a constellation of major business and economic figures which, because of the nature of the private corporation legislation that may be introduced in this particular House, may go through the House or may originate in the Senate, gives these people a great deal of power. As a matter of fact, an appointment to the Senate is almost a guarantee of nice, fat appointments to directorships of various Canadian corporations, so you can have some kind of leverage. In making that point, Mr. Chairman, I indicate just some of the difficulties in connection with the Senate which do exist.
I think we should ask ourselves the question, does the Senate work at the present time? The answer is that some Members of the Senate do, and for them I have a tremendous amount of respect. I want to make the point that age does not seem to have much to do with whether or not they work. Many of you are perhaps aware of what I understand on good authority, that one Senator even has a stock ticker in his office so he can keep up with his stocks and what is happening to his particular corporations. I do not say there is any particular conflict of interest or anything like that in that specific situation, but it is an indication of the kind of interests that are dominant in the Senate. This is also the place where you get your party hacks, where you retire people when it is convenient to get them out of the House.
It seems to me we are a long way from the noble and fruitful role for the Senate. I recall recently when a Senator for Northern Ontario died, the main topic of conversa-
April 27, 1965

tion around here was as to which M.P. would likely get the appointment, or if it would be a big shot who had done a good deal for the party and contributed a great deal to party funds. I can see great and practical political advantages in the Senate as a place to boot people upstairs. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that is the main use within the parliamentary system for the Senate. It is, as well, a place in which to put the party fund raisers in order to give them a position and in order to link up with the major financial concerns of this country. I do not feel that is good enough.
I, along with the Members of this Party, want the abolition of the Senate. However,
I am realistic enough to know that the fact we happen to want it does not mean it is going to be abolished. I could argue that the Senates or Executive Councils have been abolished in all the Provinces except Quebec, and in Quebec they are having their argument with that particular institution. I should like to make the point that if we are not going to abolish the Senate, then let us have some real, genuine reform, so that we know we are going to get a range of policy and representation of the kind we do not have at the present time.
Any hon. Member who wants to take the trouble to look into the Senate index following a debate will realize that there is a small corps of Senators who do a tremendous amount of work. I give all honour to them. However, the plain fact of the matter is that, in general, it is not an active institution, and every Senator that you encounter is very sensitive about this question of reform and giving the Senate something to do. There is a good file in the library, Mr. Chairman, and I should like some of the Government Ministers to take a look at it, in connection with the Senate and proposals for reform. There have been all kinds of constructive proposals, it seems to me. All we have here is a half-baked way of getting the Senate age reduced. It is half-baked in the sense it is going to offer some-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Member, since his time has expired.
I have allowed him a few minutes additional time because of the point of order that was raised.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. Member unanimous agreement to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.

Retirement Age for Senators


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. Member does not have unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am willing to ask again, but I hear a "No". Has the hon. Member unanimous agreement to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is a "No", Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since we are in Committee on this resolution, I wonder if I may address a question about this matter to the President of the Privy Council? He will recall the exchange we had yesterday concerning the part of the proposed Bill that will provide a non-contributory pension of $8,000 a year under the present scale to any person who is now a Member of the Senate, when he reaches the age of 75.
The President of the Privy Council will recall that he asked a question or two while I was speaking, the import of which was that the Government did not think it could get its Bill through the Senate unless it made this kind of a provision.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: What page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am referring to the questions the Minister asked me as reported on page 414 of Hansard for April 26. From what the Minister said it seemed to me quite clear that he felt if the Bill simply provided for retirement at 75, and called upon those who are now there to get a pension only by contributing to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, then they would not support such a Bill and therefore we would not get it through. The question I would like to put to the Minister is this: Why not pass such a Bill in the House, send it to the Senate and find out what is their response to it?
Despite all the critical things we say about their Honours in the other place, it seems to me there are some high principled people over there who would realize the time has come to make some major reforms in the constitution of the Senate, and if it is the judgment of the Government that retirement at 75 is a major reform then I would suggest there are ladies and gentlemen in the other place-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. Is the hon. Member asking a question or taking part in the debate a second time? It is my interpreta-
April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators tion of the Standing Order that, having spoken more than 20 minutes in the first instance, he cannot speak a second time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are in the Chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course I am in the Chair, but if the hon. Member for Edmonton West will read provisional Standing Order 61-A(2) -and I agree the Standing Order is not completely clear-he will see it says no hon. Member shall speak for more than 20 minutes. It does not say "once", and I appreciate this; but the interpretation I would be inclined to put on the Standing Order-and this is the first time it comes to a test-would be that an hon. Member can speak a total of 20 minutes.
Now, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. Member for Edmonton West both participated in the drafting of this provisional Standing Order and I think they will have to admit at this time that it is not clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, I think the Standing Order that you read, the provisional one, has to be read in conjunction with Standing Orders that apply to speeches in Committee, and Members are not limited in Committee to the making of one speech.
When I stood just now to ask a question and speak for a few minutes, quite frankly I did have a few things to say, but I hesitated for a moment to see if there was anyone else who wanted to speak and I thought your Honour would not recognize me if there was someone else wanting to speak. It was on that basis that I proceeded with my remarks, which I intended to be brief; nevertheless I was making a second speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. Member probably will have the unanimous consent of the committee to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Perhaps hon. Members will give me an opportunity to continue the argument I wanted to make a moment ago. The provisional Standing Order says, "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Standing Order...", and this would appear to apply to all Standing Orders, including the one the hon. Member is referring to in order to support his claim to speak a second time.
Again I stress that I am not submitting the problem to the Committee at this time. My interpretation would be that an hon. Member, once he has spoken a total of 20 minutes-
[The Chairman ]
perhaps he could speak twice for 10 minutes each time-would have exhausted his rights under the provisional Standing Order as it has been drafted and approved by the House, but maybe this is a bad time to decide whether this is a correct interpretation or not.


George James McIlraith: So far as the question goes, if it is the wish of the Committee I would be quite content to deal with it afterwards. But the point of order is a quite important one. As I read the new Standing Order it introduces a procedure whereby the resolution stage preceding a bill involving the expenditure of public money is limited. In order to make the limitation workable, the limitation was set at five hours, or one day as the case may be, and I take it to be apportioned evenly as between different Members in the chamber, presumably on the assumption that in the past there had been more Members speaking on the resolution stage of a bill than would normally be heard within the five-hour limitation now imposed. For this reason the new Standing Order made a very clear provision and I wish to read just part of the new Standing Order 61-AC2);
__no Member shall speak for more than 20
minutes during the time when a resolution preceding a Bill involving the expenditure of public money is under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House.
That seems to be an absolute limit to the right of any one Member to participate in this debate, and it is made clear that it is absolute in form because the first words in that subsection are:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Standing Order-
In other words it is quite clear that that limitation to the 20 minutes is absolute in form, and I would hope that the point of order would be sustained so that there can be an opportunity for all hon. Members, or for as many as may wish to do so, to speak in the limited period allocated to this proceeding. Having made the point of order I am not, of course, asking to cut the hon. Member off from his question, which I would prefer to deal with separately.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Would the President of the Privy Council not agree that this is giving a brand new interpretation to this rule, one that was not even thought of at the time it was brought in?


George James McIlraith: No, I would not agree to any such suggestion at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On this point may I say as a Member of the Committee that prepared
April 27, 1965

that rule-and Your Honour was one, too- that notwithstanding the provision that the President of the Privy Council has pointed out, this phrase, "notwithstanding the provisions of any other Standing Order" had direct application to the length of time allowed to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition and to any other Minister with regard to the limitation of 20 minutes, but at no time during the deliberations of the Committee, nor at any time during discussion in the House on the adoption of the said rule, was there any indication or thought that any hon. Member, with your Honour in the Chair in Committee of the Whole, would be limited to speak once and once only.
In any event, this goes completely contrary to Standing Order 59(1) which determines the procedure when your Honour is in the Chair in Committee of the Whole. It states:
The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in the Committee on the Whole House so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
The length of speeches in Committee of the Whole was limited to 30 minutes, and in this connection we have cut the time to 20 minutes on resolution stage; and the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister who proposes the resolution are also limited to 20 minutes. That is the purpose of the phrase "notwithstanding any other rule."
I would put it to your Honour as a Member of the Committee that certainly this is the sense of the Committee that prepared this rule, that, there should not be any limitation on the number of times a Member can speak in Committee, because there was never any idea of derogating from the general conduct of business in Committee of the Whole.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a question by way of clarification of the hon. Member's remarks? Would it be his argument that one hon. Member-following the practice in Committees where Members are not limited- might speak three or four times, while there were other Members of the Committee who would have no right to speak, because of the limitation of the total time allowed for the debate.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In answer, provided there is rotation, and the right of the Chair to recognize hon. Members in rotation, if the Government wanted to put up only one man who would deal with the question in extenso, then he could speak more than once. That
Retirement Age for Senators is also within the purpose envisaged. In committee, just as though we were considering estimates or clauses of a Bill in Committee of the Whole, one or two members can conduct the discussion on behalf of their party.


Paul Raymond Martineau: With great respect I think that to give to the new rule the interpretation which your Honour wishes to give to it would place the Committee in an absurd situation. In Committee of the Whole, Members should be getting all the information they can pertaining to the resolution or to the matter under discussion. Strict interpretation of this rule along the lines you suggest, Mr. Chairman, would mean that a Member who had already spoken would be precluded from asking a question dealing directly with the subject matter before the Committee; Members who had "had their say" could not ask questions as the discussion progressed. My hon. friend from Edmonton West was a member of the Committee which produced this rule and I think he would tell us it was never in the mind of that Committee to interpret the amendment in so narrow a sense.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair cannot go behind or beyond the terms of the Standing Order when it expresses a point clearly. Again, I do not wish to press the matter too far, but upon examination I am sure hon. Members will eventually agree with my interpretation. When a Standing Order says "notwithstanding the provisions of any other Standing Order" this plainly eliminates the application of, say, standing order 59(1) to which the hon. Member for Edmonton West has referred. It does not say "notwithstanding the provisions of any other Standing Order except standing order 59(1)".
I should also like to bring to the attention of all hon. Members the fact that this Standing Order says: "No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes during the time..." and so on. The wording is clearly different from that which we find in other Standing Orders, where time limits are imposed. Standing order 38(7) says that no Member shall speak for more than 30 minutes at a time in the said debates. In other words, he can speak for 30 minutes at a time and then for a second or a third time, for 30 minutes. Obviously, this is not what the new provisional Standing Order says. We find exactly the same provision in Standing Order 31(2); when private Members' business is being considered between five and six o'clock, no Member can speak for more than 20 minutes at a time.
644	COMMONS
Retirement Age jor Senators
Perhaps it would be wise, since we are trying to interpret a new rule, to hear the views of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre who, I believe, bears the main responsibility for drafting this particular Standing Order. One hon. Member has suggested we are trying to put a brand new interpretation on a rule. Well, this is a brand new rule and this is the first time the question has been brought up. If the interpretation of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is different from mine, my suggestion would be that we allow the debate to continue and give an opportunity to the Chair to review the matter and reach a decision on which hon. Members could guide their contributions to future debates.


Mr. Baldwin:: Perhaps the Chair would like, at the same time, to give consideration to a further aspect. Let us assume that an hon. Member had spoken for only ten minutes on a resolution of this kind before resuming his seat, other Members having intervened. He might then wish to rise and pursue his remarks for a further period of ten minutes. I am not discussing the point at issue between Your Honour and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. But in line with Your Honour's interpretation of this rule a Member could make two or three contributions, even while keeping within the time limit of 20 minutes.


Lucien Lamoureux: I had taken that into account. That is why I mentioned, when the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre began to speak, that he had already spoken for more than 20 minutes. I had taken into account that my interpretation of the rule might mean that a Member could make two or three short speeches or even, shall we say, ten speechettes. My suggestion is that we consider this to be only a trial Standing Order, one which is in need of clarification and, perhaps, revision. If it is the sense of the committee that hon. Members be allowed to contribute more than once to the debate,
I have no intention of limiting debate too severely.


Paul Raymond Martineau: So your ruling does not prevent Members who have already spoken from asking as many questions as they wish.


Lucien Lamoureux: Certainly. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre whether he was asking a question. I felt no one would wish to prevent his asking a question, although he had taken part in the debate already to the extent of more than 20 minutes. If the hon. Member is, indeed,
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	April 27, 1965
asking a question at this time, this will facilitate the position of the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think Your Honour has resolved the question in a sensible way by drawing attention to the fact that this is a new Standing Order; if there is a lack of complete precision in its wording we would do well to work it out as we go along. As a member of the subcommittee which drafted this provisional Standing Order I can say it was not in our thought that Members should be confined to speaking only once. In any review Your Honour might make I suggest you study the half a dozen occasions upon which this rule has come into effect. There have been only two or three occasions when the five-hour or one-day limit had to be brought into play, but there were several occasions on which discussion took place, back and forth, on the basis of short interventions. I submit it was not our intention to limit contributions to one only. It was our intention, if there were many speakers, that they should be limited to one speech until the allotted time had gone. I would say that if someone else had wanted the floor when I rose, then in all fairness Your Honour should have given the floor to someone else rather than to me. But I rose, no one else seemed inclined to speak, and then I proceeded to put my question. Perhaps I will put it, now, to the President of the Privy Council. If there is doubt as to whether or not their Honours in the other place would pass a bill which provided for their own retirement at an age of 75, why not bring such a bill before this House, ask this House to pass it and then send it to the other place and find out whether they would agree to this measure of Senate reform?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: In answer to that question, may I say that my difference with the hon. Member is as to the interpretation he placed on my interjection of yesterday. He has attributed to me a reason why this part of the proposed legislation is in the form it is. Perhaps we should discuss the legislation in more detail on the Committee stage of the Bill. What I want to make clear now is that we take the view that those Senators now serving in the Senate were appointed or summoned, I believe the correct word is, under legislation, namely section 29 of the British North America Act, which clearly provided that they would hold their appointments for life. We feel that to take away or change such a right after their appointment, the legislation
April 27, 1965
being in that form, would be a clear infringement of a right which they possess, and we do not wish to do it. It is somewhat analogous to a breach of contract, although perhaps that is not a good analogy to use here. However, it is the same point that arose several times in this Parliament and in the United Kingdom Parliament when attempts were made to change the tenure of office of the judiciary. The better opinion, and certainly the opinion I have always held-although there is one case in Canada where it was not followed by the former Government-is that such an appointment having been made for life, it is wrong arbitrarily to take it away. That being so, we provide a pension which will make it possible for those who wish to retire, having reached the age of 75, to do so. But there is no compulsion on them to retire, because they were appointed with the distinct belief on their part that they were being appointed for life. They had a right to hold that view, because it was and had been provided in the British North America Act for almost 100 years, that they should hold the appointment for life, as distinct from the Members of the House of Commons who have to face elections regularly.
The position is wholly different in so far as persons to be summoned to the Senate in the future are concerned. Of course, I see no difficulty at all in their case; in my view any age limit could be applied to them, or any other limitation as to the expectancy of retaining their position in the Senate. That is the reason the provision is in the Bill. I asked the hon. Member how he would get his Bill passed, because if you once accepted his proposition that the basis on which they were appointed or summoned to the Senate meant nothing, then of course next year we could come along and provide that the age limit be reduced from 75 to 45, which would wipe out a whole group or all of them; or, if the hon. Member should ever have the responsibility of office, he could change the 75 to any other number of years that would effectively wipe out the Senate in this indirect way. That is a principle that I think is quite improper and quite wrong. I hope I have answered the point raised by the hon. Member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister this question. Does the Government assume that their Honours in the other place would not agree to a change in the Constitution of the Senate if it was presented to them as being a matter in the public interest? In 22620-42
Retirement Age for Senators other words, why does he assume that because they have a lifetime contract they would not consider supporting a change in that arrangement?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it clear that I did not make any such assumption; but the Government did assume that it would be improper for the Government to make that change in that way. If they are agreeable to it or wish to bring it forward, that is fine; but it would be quite improper for the Government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You did it for Judges. The same principle applied there.


George James McIlraith: Exactly, and that is why at the time I opposed the provision in the judges' legislation to which the hon. Member has reference. I think that on mature reflection a good many who supported that judges' legislation at the time may have been a bit troubled about it since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask another question, Mr. Chairman. If the Government feels that it is proper to offer to Senators who are already there a choice between continuing for life or retiring at age 75 on a non-contributory pension, would it not also be proper to offer the Senators a choice between continuing for life or retiring on a pension that they would pay for, in the same way that we pay for ours?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I quite follow what the hon. Member is suggesting. If he is suggesting that we might offer them another alternative of contributing to their pension if they wish to do so, because the contributory pension carries with it certain additional rights that the annuity does not, that might be considered when we come to the Bill stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not suggesting it as a third choice.


George James McIlraith: A fourth choice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. I am suggesting that there be only two choices; either that they continue for life, or that they have the right to retire on a pension by paying for that pension, rather than getting this $8,000 pension completely free.


George James McIlraith: I think the answer to that is, of course, that for some of them it would be manifestly impossible, if you figure out the capital sum involved. I think that is the rather harsh answer, but I believe it to be the fact.

April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true that the same situation applied to Members of this House? They had the option of deciding how much past service they wanted to cover.


George James McIlraith: No, that is not a parallel case at all. The Members of this House were elected to the House on an expectancy of continuing as Members until the next general election was called, which is limited by the same Act, the British North America Act, to five years. They had the fixed certainty, at the time they were elected, that they would be out as Members of the House of Commons at the end of five years. It is a wholly different case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the Member for Port Arthur and I take it that his position is the position of the New Democratic Party, who believe the Senate should be abolished. It was once said by the head of the Political Science Department, by the late George Brit-nell, that the only wise Senate that ever existed was the Irish Senate, and they passed a bill to abolish themselves. I do not go as far as the Member for Port Arthur, but there certainly does seem to be a necessity for reform of the Senate. In the few minutes I will take this afternoon, however, I will defend the Senate; I will defend it all the way, because I think it is an important place and performs an important function as far as our Parliamentary institutions in this country are concerned. Certainly the Member for Port Arthur could draw inferences and relate experiences where appointments have been made that probably would have been better left unmade; but that does not mean that the body itself has not a proper function. We should take a look at ourselves in this House if we are to criticize the other place. All of us may not be just as we should be as Members of the House of Commons. We can all throw stones in that regard.
I want to ask this question, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I am defending the Senate, but I am not defending all the Senators in the Senate. My hon. friend from Port Arthur has dealt with that point. However, he did trim his argument at the end of his remarks; he said that if you are not going to abolish the Senate, it should be reformed.
What is the function of the Senate? If you go back you find that it was set up as a union of two distinct cultures and two distinct nationalities at that time; there were minorities, and those minorities had to be protected. There were three important functions. First

of all, the interests of the Provinces had to be protected against legislation passed in this House of Commons; that is, protected other than by the constitution itself. Then it was to protect minorities. Those minorities might at that time have included the Province of Quebec, and at this time includes the Province of Quebec. The Senate is to protect minorities, as I say, and perhaps I may illustrate by giving a hypothetical case. You might have a government elected that left out one section of the country. It might be that a federal government was formed that left out the section of Western Canada entirely. In fact the Liberals were close to that situation; if it had not been for the Minister of Agriculture getting elected in Calgary South they would have had great difficulty in finding a Minister from Alberta and Saskatchewan.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
If something passed the House of Commons which would be detrimental to Western Canada, then it would be an important function of the Senate to protect a minority interest in Western Canada, or for that matter a minority interest in the Province of Quebec or a minority interest in the Maritimes. That is an important function of the Senate. Another function, examples of which many people could draw on from their experience, is to correct the errors and impulses of the House of Commons. They are the three important functions.
Now why, Mr. Chairman, was the Senate devised in that way? There were to be 24 Senators from Upper Canada and 24 Senators from Lower Canada. There were to be 24 from the Maritimes and, after some amendment, 24 were to be appointed from Western Canada. Then an additional six were appointed from Newfoundland, which if my arithmetic is correct brings the number to 102. The membership of the Senate is not based on representation by population but on certain of the localities, and interest in those localities, whether they be economic, social, political or cultural. That is why we have a Senate.
I do not think we can go as far as the original planners had in mind with regard to the Senate. I think it was Sir John A. Macdonald who said, when talking of setting up the Senate and defining its functions:
There would be no use of an Upper House if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering
April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators
the Liberal side; but this gentleman was a personal friend of his and one who on a particular occasion had stood by him in very trying circumstances. 1 am sorry to say that X have not yet found in the ranks of the Conservative party a man of such independent views as John Macdonald was in the ranks of the Liberal party.
Therefore he might have appointed a Conservative, as Sir John A. Macdonald appointed a Liberal. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the appointments have been political appointments and I do not think that anybody can hide that situation.
I should like to see the Senate reform in this regard, and one of the suggestions made on several occasions and again this afternoon is that the provinces should have something to say in the matter. For example, I think no one has fought the Social Credit party politically in Alberta as much as I have, but a man like the Hon. E. C. Manning, Premier of Alberta, has served for 20 years as Premier of that Province, has a complete knowledge and experience of the petroleum and oil industries, and would be an excellent appointment to the Senate, if he would accept one. Therefore it seems to me that the suggestion that some of these appointments should be made by the Provinces is a good one.
Another suggestion which is being made is that part of that body should be appointed for a set period, and part of it elected. How that should be worked out, a Committee should probably consider, but it does seem strange that once Senators are appointed they are appointed for life, a state of affairs which cannot be changed no matter whether or not they serve their country well. I suggest that we should have a division, with some members elected and some appointed. In particular some should be appointed by the Provinces so that in this way the interests of the provinces are protected. Men who have served their Provinces well and have experience of their localities could serve their country well in their capacity in the Senate.
It is very easy to take extreme examples, as did the hon. Member for Port Arthur today. I was rather amused by this-I mean amused in the right sense-because it is easy to point to one individual and say what he has done, that he may have appeared before a commission and rolled his eyes in a certain way when asked a particular question. But that does not mean that the constitution of the whole body is wrong. We have had good men in the Senate, like Mr. Power and Mr. Meighen, and there are men there today doing a good job. I repeat that their first
fMr. Woolliams.]
job is to protect minorities. If minorities are to be protected in this country and if the Members from the Province of Quebec, who surely are a minority, want to see them preserved, then the protection of those rights is in fact guaranteed by the Senate. I am sure that any Government here, or group of men, would defend the Senate and its function in respect of any legislation passed by a Government which was harmful to a minority, and I am sure that hon. Members here from the Province of Quebec, just like the Members for Western Canada, would support that view.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Certain appointments have been political in nature, which did not really serve the best interests of this country, but that is no reason for doing away with an institution set up for specific purposes and functions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. Member for Port Arthur leave to continue beyond his
time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, to complete my remarks, very briefly I should like to touch upon a point raised by my hon. friends to the right, particularly by the hon. Member for Edmonton West, in relation to tyranny of a majority.
Let me say at the outset that there is something of a democratic principle involved. It is my understanding that if a majority which is elected acts in a tyrannical way, the solution or answer within a democratic process, aside from whatever judicial processes may give protection, is to be found at the next election. In a sense the argument the hon. Member has put forward, that the Senate provides protection for minority rights under this kind of a situation against the tyranny of a majority, is in fact a suggestion that we must have something which is not democratic and related to the electors within our system. I personally cannot accept that suggestion.
Perhaps I might now refer to a statement made by-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would be glad to answer the questions in a moment or two when I have concluded my remarks.
I should again like to refer to the statement made by Sir John A. Macdonald in regard to the Senate's function. This statement was contained in a memorandum prepared for Senator Robertson regarding tha
April 27, 1965
reasons given by a proponent of Confederation for the constituency of a second chamber. The memorandum in part states:
In introducing the motion for approval of the resolutions passed at the Quebec Conference in the House of Assembly, Attorney General Macdonald said, with regard to the proposal to constitute the legislative council:-
I will only read a portion of the quotation as follows:
"When I speak of representation by population, the House will of course understand that universal suffrage is not in any way sanctioned, or admitted by these resolutions, as the basis on which the constitution of the popular branch should rest."
My point really is that Macdonald had a view that did not even envisage the House of Commons as being popularly elected. As my hon. friend knows, there was a limitation on the franchise at that time, and that since the Senate was constituted there have been changes. I do not think any Member here of any party would argue against the idea that on the basis of our Parliamentary system the House of Commons is popular representation by popular choice. This kind of argument by a man who, in a sense, put over Confederation seems to be one more good argument for the fact that the situation has changed. I do not think a minority, with the exception perhaps of large business interests, has ever really been protected by the Senate and I think there are many examples to prove this.
I have in my mind an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine of August, 1961 written by Jean-Luc Pepin, who is, I am sure all hon. Members know, a Liberal Member of Parliament. I think my understanding of the French language is sufficient that I can say with safety that he lists five different sweeping recommendations in regard to Senate reform. As far as he is concerned, apparently the Senate is an accepted institution. One of his proposals relates to a change in the method of choosing Senators in order to reduce the average age. He proposes a number of requirements, including Senate representation in the Cabinet, and Parliamentary Secretaries drawn from the Senate in order to tie that chamber in more effectively. He also suggests, as did the previous speaker, that some of the Members of the Senate should be elected. He was arguing at that time as a political scientist and I should like to quote his last two sentences. I hope my French speaking friends will forgive me for my pronunciation. His last two sentences are these:
Retirement Age for Senators [Translation]
Perhaps then we might see a rehabilitation of the Senate. Otherwise, we would have to insist upon its abolition.

In other words he says that if we cannot attain this kind of reform he favours abolition. Since that individual is a supporter of this Government and very close to the Cabinet, I draw that fact to the attention of hon. Members.
I should like to quote from an article written by Charles Lynch, who I suggest is in many ways our most popular journalist. This article appeared last year in the Ottawa Citizen, and Mr. Lynch said:
Years ago in a bull session, I heard Lester Pearson argue against the case for reforming the Senate.
His view, if memory serves, was that it would be fatal to inject men of youth and vigour into that withered old arm of Parliament because the first thing they would want to do would be to do something.
Inevitably, such Senators would chart a collision course with the House of Commons, and parliamentary paralysis would ensue.
That was long before Mr. Pearson became a party leader in the Commons, much less prime minister-but subsequent events seem to have borne him out. Every time the senators shake their lethargy and start taking their responsibilities seriously, the machinery of Parliament, which is pretty wonky at best, shudders to a stop.
Mr. Lynch was referring to the stand taken last year by Senator Grattan O'Leary, and in the last part of this article he states:
Mr. O'Leary in the Senate reminds us of what might have happened had Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery accepted the governor-generalship of Canada when it was offered him after the war. Fortunately for Monty and the rest of us, he declined when informed that the job carried no power.
Monty would have wanted to whip the country into shape and make something of his office in terms of power-a ghastly thought.
So it is with Senator O'Leary-unless he's kidding,
Mr. Lynch has humorously asked the question whether it is possible to reform the Senate and give it any power without making it a really dangerous institution, making everything haywire. It seems to me that what Mr. Lynch is suggesting is that it should be allowed to go on sleeping. That may be a defensible position.
My suggestion in connection with this legislation is that it is not drastic enough or radical enough to really disturb the Senate's sleep. It is completely inadequate as a reform proposal, particularly coming from a Party which claims to speak for reform.

April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators
Mr. Chairman, I see that it is now five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Perhaps I should present my second interpretation of the Standing Order this afternoon. If the hon. Member will read the provisions of the Standing Order he will see that Standing Order 61A when read in relation to Standing Order 16 provides for the suspension of private Members' hour at this stage when we are considering a resolution preceding a money bill in Committee of the Whole. Obviously that means that the private Members' hour is superseded. In view of that fact, we will continue with our consideration of the resolution now before us.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude my remarks by referring again to this conflict of interest, and I do so at this time to underline the need, if we are going to have reform, for drastic reform. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on July 8, 1964, but before doing so let me make it clear that the Globe and Mail does not advocate the abolition of the Senate as I and the Members of my Party do. This article states in part:
The public, which is perhaps more simple and direct in its thought processes than some senators, is likely to be disturbed by what has been happening in the Senate Banking and Commerce Committee.	, . .	.
To put it simply and directly, what has been happening is this: the Committee has been processing private legislation designed to create a number of new banks and mortgage companies. Some of the Senators on the Committee are directors of existing banks to which the new banks would be rivals. Or they are directors of the parent companies of the new mortgage companies. Or they are both.
One of these director-Senators, Senator T. A. Crerar, declared his private interest in the matters before the Committee and withdrew from its deliberations. A number of others, Senator Salter Hayden, chairman of the Committee, Senator P. J. Bouffard, Senator Gordon Isnor, Senator Eric Cook and Senator Hartland de M. Molson, possessed similar private interests, admitted them, but did not withdraw.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Banking Committee then proceeded to approve the legislation permitting the establishment of the new mortgage companies, which could benefit the companies of which some of the members are directors, but found it necessary to delay the legislation permitting the establishment of the new banks, which would compete with the banks of which some of them are directors.
The Senators gave reasons for what they did, and what they did may have been right. The trouble is that it does not look right.
Senator Hayden defended his action and the action of other director-senators. It would be quite improper as well as illegal, he acknowledged, for a Senator "to vote upon any question in which
IMr. Fisher.1
he has any pecuniary interest whatsoever, not held in common with the rest of the Canadian subjects of the Crown".
This, to the simple and direct minds of those other Canadian subjects, would seem to prevent director-senators of companies interested in establishing new mortgage companies from voting on the subject. Directors get paid.
Senator Hayden's defense of this kind of voting was a little complicated, but he was entirely simple and direct on the matter of Senators who were bank directors voting on banking issues. It would be wrong for a Senator to legislate for his own bank, he explained, but right for him to legislate for the rivals of his bank.
We can look for a vast torrent of explanations from the red chamber to prove that these senatorial activities are all right and proper. But the explanations won't wash. The position of our legislators is like the position of our courts; not only must justice be done it must be seen to be done; not only must legislators avoid conflicts of interest, they must be seen to avoid them.
It is doubtful if directors of banks, mortgage companies, trust companies or any sort of financial institution should sit on the Banking Committee, especially at this time, when the committee will be considering the report of the Porter Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, which could affect all their companies. Their special knowledge of such affairs would not be lost if the Committee were composed entirely of lay Senators; they could always be called, or requested to appear, as expert witnesses.
It is certain that no Senator who has a personal interest, either direct or indirect, in an issue before the Committee should take part in judging that issue. However pure his heart may be, he is still creating in the public mind the suspicion of a conflict of interest. The only course open to him, if he respects the body of which he is a Member and the country it serves, is that taken by Senator Crerar-to declare his interest and withdraw.
This editorial again highlights what is a very real factor in the make-up of the Senate at the present time. In other words, it is eminently a conservative institution, particularly in its active Members, if by "conservative" anyone wants to interpret it as meaning people who represent major financial and corporate interests. I would not want to rule out, Mr. Chairman, the idea of those interests having representation in some ideal forum. However, when such gentlemen tend to dominate a particular institution or when they are able in a sense to perpetuate an interest in financial matters, and these financial interests are added to many times because Senators are so popular as directors of large corporations, then in fact the Senate has lost any real trace of a wide representation of the country. I say this with all due respect to people like Senator Gladstone, Senator Roebuck or Senator Yuzyk, who appear to have been appointed to represent, to a degree, certain special interests.
If we are going to have reform so that Senators represent particular interests, then
April 27, 1965
we have to have something more explicit than we are being provided with here. Otherwise, the whole matter of reform and a better composition of the Senate is being left again to the prime ministerial prerogative. His performance in the past, as Mr. Newman's article indicates, has been a pretty sad one. It is for Liberals themselves to be concerned with the issue Mr. Newman raises, the fact that the so-called "new politics" of the Prime Minister have been revealed in terms of Senate appointments as being a pretty shoddy business. This is for the Liberals themselves to settle.
I should like to suggest to the Liberals, in terms of forming some kind of reform of the Senate, that they must come forward with something more than this if they are really going to convince us that they want to use the Senate for other than a place to put party hacks or party bagmen who have collected funds for the party.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the hon. Member would answer a question I wish to pose? He stated at the beginning he was not worried about a tyrannical majority because an election would take care of it. If a majority implemented some bill which was against a minority, and assuming that minority may be in Western Canada or the Province of Quebec, would not that majority likely be reelected and cause the minority to suffer? Is this not the very reason for the Senate, to protect minorities?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just cannot see this, because I think there have been many bad Bills over the years introduced in this House-I am sure there have been although I cannot enumerate them-and the fact that the Senate was there never really prevented those Bills from being passed. The only thing the Senate ever did was to try to stop the old age pension, and they put on a bit of a circus in connection with James Coyne, which I know the hon. Member for Bow River did not particularly appreciate. If those are the only examples one has to draw upon after a history of some 98 years, you really have not got very much to draw upon in so far as the point raised by the hon. Member is concerned.
Surely, he is being very cynical about the electoral process, about the matter of voting, if he wants to suggest that, given an area of freedom of communication such as we have in this country and in this chamber, and given the operation of any tyrannical majority, be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever
Retirement Age for Senators the case may be, which introduced something that would offend or hurt a minority, that there would not be recourse at the next election against them and for the opposing political party. It seems to me that has to be the protection under democratic principles. [DOT] (5:10 p.ra.)


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add but a few remarks to those which have already been made on this resolution.
In the first place, the age of a senator or of a candidate to the Senate should not be the main consideration. The measure before this committee seems to attach the greatest importance to age itself, by facilitating the retirement of senators on attaining the age of 75 and even compelling them to retire at that age.
In support of this statement, I will refer to the opinion of a universally recognized authority in this matter, namely Dr. Wilder Penfield, who stated that often a person could render his best contribution in the later part of his life and that it was advantageous for a man or a woman of a certain age to change his or her career and direct his or her activities toward other fields of action.
Therefore, it seems to me that not age but rather the senator's ability to perform his duties ought to be the determining factor. As we all know, some people are already burnt out at 45, while others are still in full possession of their faculties at 75 or even at a more advanced age and their long experience makes them especially useful to the community and the nation and quite capable of filling a Senate appointment.
Incidentally, I have in mind a perfect example to illustrate how a man's career can be usefully extended. I refer to Dr. Penfield, whose appointment to a reformed Senate would be an excellent one.
As for the Senate reform itself, I think everybody agrees that it must be done. Of course, there are those who advocate the abolition pure and simple of the Senate. Others ask for a reform, but even there, opinions are divided. I am not in favour of the abolition of the other place because I feel it plays a useful role. Indeed, parliament does not have unilateral jurisdiction to abolish the Senate.
As someone pointed out, the Senate was established partly to protect the rights of minorities, of the provinces and of particular areas. Representation in the Senate is much more vital to the provinces themselves and if

April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators parliament moves to abolish the other place, it will have to consult the provinces beforehand. I am surely in favour of a reform which would go much deeper than the timid proposal under consideration here.
In my opinion, the reform should be twofold. First, it should concern the choice of appointees to the Senate and, second, it should deal with the duties which the Senate must or should carry out.
With regard to the appointment of Senators, several of the reforms suggested could be considered. First of all, in resorting to the present method of appointment by the government, the Prime Minister should use better judgment. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) opened old sores by reviewing the appointments to the Senate made by the present Government. Much better judgment should be used than has been the case up to now and it is especially important that the choice should not be based solely on the political credit of a candidate to this office. Yet, this has been undoubtedly and precisely the case up to now with regard to the twenty or so appointments to the Senate made since 1963.
It is useless, I believe, to propose a broadening of the duties of the Senate as long as the methods of appointing Senators are not changed. It is imperative for the Government when making its decision to be more discerning, to select candidates known for their competence in various segments of public and even private life, apart from any other consideration.
I would be in favour of the appointment of candidates as qualified as Mr. Robert Fowler and Mr. Marcel Faribault; they would make very good senators. This reform in the very set-up of the Senate could take place as of now. However, it is necessary to consider more substantial reforms by changing the pattern followed for those appointments. In fact I think that the matter of appointment of Senators should be left to an independent committee. It might be said that such a committee could not be really independent and that it would still remain, to a certain extent, under the Government's thumb. That may be true, but as far as redistribution is concerned, Commissions have been appointed and they are performing their duties in an unbiased way. As far as I know, no pressure has been exercised on the Commissions either by the house or the government. An independent commission could do this work just as impartially and select the best qualified candidates.
With regard to the reform of the Senate, making that body elective could also be considered. I think that in the long run it would be the best way of ensuring that a candidate has the necessary qualifications to perform his duties. I would therefore suggest, if we choose to proceed by way of constitutional amendment, that Senators be selected on an elective and province-wide basis. In other words, a certain number of candidates would be proposed for each Province and the electorate would then choose the Senate representatives for the whole province at the time a general election is held on a province-wide basis, without regard for the boundaries of the various ridings. An independent commission, after consultation with the provincial authorities, could establish a slate of candidates for each Province, and Senators would be selected from that slate by the voters. Highly qualified candidates would thus be chosen and at the same time, this would remove the blot on the democratic principle caused by a non-elective body, invested with the authority to suspend the legislative power of Parliament.
In addition to amending the method used to select candidates, it would be advisable to amend drastically the functions that this reformed Senate would be called to fulfil. In my opinion, what that house could do best would be the work of a constitutional committee. I would very much like a Senate made up of the best authorities in Canada hearing evidence throughout the country on those constitutional matters. That would be giving the Senate a very useful role, worthy of that body, in short a role it could play in all respects.
Thus that constitutional committee, made up of all the appointed senators, could sit the same number of days as the House of Commons, and we would no longer see the Senate idle during long weeks, even months, when the House of Commons is engaged in a never ending debate.
I suggest that the government pay serious consideration to those suggested reforms of the Senate, respecting appointments as well as the duties to be fulfilled by that body. The discussion on this resolution could even be postponed until the government has had the opportunity of bringing drastic reforms within the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this measure is too vague to reach the objective which was set, and in my opinion, the government should postpone it and introduce a better drafted and more useful motion or resolution.
[Mr. Martineau.l
April 27. 1965

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Peters:: Some people can carry themselves out of the chamber. They are preparing themselves for the Senate. They are getting used to sitting on their seats without doing anything.
The operations of Parliament have become a common topic across the nation; people are looking at it in terms of Parliament as a whole, the Senate as well as the House of Commons. I think the Government has accepted this by suggesting that some modification be made in the arrangements pertaining to the other place. It is interesting to note that there is a similarity of opinion among many Members of this House with regard to the operations of the Senate, and I believe this opinion is shared by many of the citizens of this country. There are large numbers of Canadians, in fact, who feel that the whole institution of Parliament including both Houses has got itself into serious disrepute. I believe everyone who considers the question of the Senate does so in the terms of what he or she wishes to see accomplished by that institution. It is a fact that Parliament is divided into these two parts. This is because we have inherited our institutions from the Mother Parliament, a parliamentary system which involves a House of Lords. There are those-and some of them are very close to me in this chamber-who would agree that the establishment in Canada of a House of Lords in its entirety would be a good thing. I am sure there are many in Canada who would not disagree with the idea of hereditary titles. I notice that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre laughs; he thinks he might be called Lord Winnipeg or something like that. However, I think it would be an advantage to have attached to us an august body which would avoid many of the pitfalls which are present today. There are those who say a man can be born into a certain role. Certainly this is true in the case of many of our financial institutions and large corporations where sons follow their fathers, for no good reason except that they have been left considerable fortunes and money seems to make money. If we had a House of Lords in Canada and titles were hereditary, no longer would Prime Ministers be able to appoint to the other place politicians or others whose only qualifications were services rendered, services
Retirement Age for Senators which had to be rewarded. Listen to the argument. Many people in Canada support the idea that religious bodies should be represented in the Senate, and that these representatives should be appointed by the churches themselves rather than by the party in power. Well, in Great Britain when a clergyman reaches the rank of bishop he becomes automatically a member of the House of Lords.
I know there are judges in this country, even if they were politically appointed, without proper qualifications for the job, many of them political hacks in the first place lacking even legal training-I know many of them would feel it appropriate if senior judges were automatically made Members of the Upper Chamber as is the case in England. This might be a new approach to the correction of some of the ills of the Senate as it is presently constituted. If we were to apply the English system with automatic appointments from the bench and from the ranks of the ecclesiastical authorities we might do better in having broad-minded and reasonable people in the other place than is the case at the present time when Senate seats are used to reward those who have raised a great deal of money for a political party, and so on, with the result that the Upper Chamber has become a haven for retired politicians.
It may be wise, then, to give consideration to the British system, its development and its application. For my part I believe the Government is being unfair in what it is doing at the present time. I say this because I have an arch-enemy in the Senate in Senator Roebuck. I think he is a very good man who is opposed to social changes, many of which I favour. I would be the first to say that although he has lived for more than 80 years he has not lost any of his ability. Indeed, in my opinion he is far superior to many of those much younger than he is, who sit in this House or in the other chamber. I hope that when I reach the age of retirement I will have the good health and the mental capabilities that Mr. Roebuck enjoys. If we pass this measure we are saying to Senator Roebuck: You no longer have a contribution to make. I think this would be stupid, particularly when there are others who, as my hon. friend from Port Arthur has said, had no capabilities in the beginning and will never have anything to give to the Canadian people. Though I may disagree with aspects of the proposal which
April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators Senator Roebuck has made, I must acknowledge they have been worth-while and capably executed.
I am sure that age is not a satisfactory criterion of ability, and this is borne out by the records of some of our judges. If the Senate is intended to provide the opportunity to take a second, sober look at things, what we need in that institution is some thought of any description, and those who are capable of providing it should be given an opportunity of doing so. Some of those in the Senate who are over 80 years of age are attending their duties regularly. Why change the situation? I think the general public is well aware that many of the Senators are carried into that institution to fulfil the requirement which says they have to make an annual appearance or lose their right to sit and receive indemnities. We used to see this practised in the mines. We used to see miners brought there in casts, and held there so that they would not be able to obtain compensation. No one thought these miners carried in on stretchers were there for the purpose of mining. The only reason they were brought there was so the mine did not have to pay a penalty to the Compensation Board. I think perhaps this is what happens to some of the Senators that we have; if they were to be retired they would have to be kept by the political party which put them there, and the party is not prepared to do this.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The people of Canada are interested in our parliamentary institutions. They certainly are interested in the House of Commons, and I think we do not really have to say much about that because the Canadian public are going to do it for us. I think they will also look at the Senate and wonder why the Senate has not been able to eliminate some of the things which they think are wrong with this particular institution. I believe when they do this they will wonder about the method of appointment, and what this is for. We are all aware of the system that is used at the present time. We know that this is a retirement place for tired politicians, for defeated candidates, for others who have not been able to make the grade in the political field but have filled war chests of the political party which they support. I think it is safe to say that pretty nearly every Member of the House of Commons will be able to enumerate those Members of the Senate who have not been ap-

pointed on that basis. Let me say that there have been some who were not, but I think it is generally known by the Canadian people that the majority of the Senators were appointed on that basis. I believe this means that the Canadian public are interested and should have some say in what happens in any change in or reform of that institution.
We could make the Senate an elected body. I think that if you took this proposal as a referendum to the Canadian people, they would be opposed to it. I believe they would be opposed to it for the same reason they are upset about the operation of the House of Commons. They have one elected body that is not doing very well, so why get another? The general public would, I think, make short shrift of the idea of electing a second body. There is a third way in which appointments could be made to the Senate. It seems to me these could be made by the provinces. I really wonder whether the Liberal Government has given any consideration to this, because are the Provinces not running this Government at the present time? We have no leadership in Ottawa today. The Liberal Party is not giving it; it is going to the Provinces. Every time it has a major proposal to make, it goes to the Provinces and has a conference. We have had more Dominion-Provincial Conferences in the last few years than we have ever had before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Boulanger:: Very good.


William Arnold Peters: They say, "Very good". I think the Canadian public are demanding that Ottawa make some decisions. To use an example, the Government said it was going to provide a good Canada Pension Plan for the Canadian people, so they went to the Provinces. What did they arrive at? They arrived at the lowest common denominator that could be accepted by the Province that least liked the Pension Plan, and agreed to the basic minimum that was possible. So the Canadian public did not get a decent Canada Pension Plan; they got the lowest common denominator that could be provided. This is not what they want in the Senate. They do not want anybody representing the Provinces in the other place. Had the Fathers of Confederation, who were faced with the autonomy of states at that time in the four bodies they were looking at with regard to Confederation, wanted representation directly, they would have said they wanted representation from the Provinces, by the Provinces to the Fed-
April 27, 1965
eral Government, rather than asking for representation in the Senate on another basis. Therefore I think the Canadian public are not interested in this suggestion. The Liberal Party will find out one of these days that the Provinces should not be running Canada, but the leadership should come from the Federal Government. If this was put before the Canadian public in the form of a referendum, I do not think you would find much support for an elected body in the other place. So I believe that provincial representation is not the answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: -not even to the Members from Quebec, because they are having a great deal of difficulty in their own second chamber in that Province and have not been able to do anything about it.


Prosper Boulanger: This is not right.


William Arnold Peters: I wonder how many times the Member who is making the interruptions, who wants to have Provincial representation in the other place, has given consideration to the objections that have been made by the Assembly in the Province of Quebec, and whether it has not been the policy of his party to set up a strong provincial organization that is not willing to be dictated to by their Upper House. I think he would be one of those that would agree-


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. Member a question, please? I would like to ask whether he has read the last speech of their new co-leader in Quebec, Mr. Robert Cliche, with regard to the opinion he is stating right now.


William Arnold Peters: No. He probably made it in French and I have not had the opportunity of reading it. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman, and I will read it and will be happy to comment on it another day.


Prosper Boulanger: You will be surprised.


William Arnold Peters: Nothing in the Province of Quebec would surprise me, from anybody in that Province. I cannot really be surprised very much about anything that develops in that Province. I may be interested, and I may be in support, but I do not think I will really be surprised. Mr. Chairman, this leaves us with the last way in which the Senate can be reformed. I think maybe this is the lazy way, the easy way; but it sure as heck is one that would be worth while implementing. I refer to abolishing the Senate. We
Retirement Age for Senators in the C.C.F., and now in the New Democratic Party, have always felt that the House of Commons was supreme; that this was the elected body; it was elected to do a job. It is not that we want people in the Senate, because if we had wanted them the offer has been made on several occasions and could have been taken advantage of; but we did not want representation in the Senate. However, we were always fearful, as I am sure the Government today is fearful and certainly the previous Government was fearful, of actions that could be taken by the other place that would thwart the wishes of the Canadian public. I believe this means that if the Canadian public were given an opportunity, as they should be, they would decide that changes should be made in the Senate of Canada and would support the idea of the abolition of that body.
When we say we want to abolish the Senate, it does not really matter what has happened in the past. If the Senate had proved its worth in recent years, and it has had the opportunity on several occasions, I believe, many of the Members of this House would appreciate what was being done. I heard one Member mention a few minutes ago something about the action the Senate took recently, which was the only one he could think of, in relation to tariffs. I think if he will check that particular matter he will find that the same type of legislation was introduced at a later date and there really was not any philosophical reason why it was being opposed, and that most of the proposals we made at that time are now implemented.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: In the hon. Member's remarks concerning the Senate I believe he was referring to a provision in the class or kind legislation which was refused here and passed by the Senate. There was no provision for an appeal to be made to the Tariff Appeal Court. I am sure that on checking the facts he will realize that no such provision existed in Canadian law and the Senate did play a very useful role at that time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, that matter was debated for some time in both this House and the other place. While I agree that they were able to provide a check at that time, I think this really does not provide the second, sober thought that we want in main-

April 27, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators taining that institution. On the other hand, many things have been done by the Senate, not the least being with regard to some of the problems that have developed in relation to the financial operation of the Senate and the presentation of Bills, and recently the fact that many of the Senators who had a personal financial interest in the legislation with which they were faced made a decision in terms of their own interest rather than in the interest of the Bills that were presented to them. The fact that the Senate, under a good deal of pressure from the political parties who had appointed its Members, and from other sources as well, were willing to reconsider the decision which they made was due partly to action taken in this House, where blanket support would not be given as suggested.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If the Government is interested in Senate reform I believe it has an obligation in other fields. I think the way the Senate has been treated by the House of Commons in the years I have been a Member of this chamber is a disgrace. How many times has the Minister who has introduced this Bill been aware of the fact that both the Senate and the Governor General or his representative has had to sit around and wait for the Members of this chamber to make decisions of great magnitude, involving large sums of money, and then be expected to pass the matter within a few minutes?


Maurice John Moreau: That was because you were talking.


William Arnold Peters: That may have been, but I would not have objected to waiting till the next day if the Members of the Government had thought that the Senators had been able to offer anything concrete or material to the discussion in this House. I would have agreed to allow them time to make their decision.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. Member's time has expired.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment of two or three minutes duration. Since I spoke yesterday I have listened with great interest to various remarks which have been made, noting particularly that no Member from the Liberal Party has had anything to say about the resolution before us, excepting the sponsor who spoke briefly. Nevertheless there has been expressed a variety of suggestions about ways to reform the Senate. We in this Party are fairly clear

about our attitude toward the Senate, that it is not possible to reform it and that it should be abolished. But these other divergent views really reflect what people at home are perhaps thinking, and have been thinking for many years, about the Senate.
The suggestion has been made that the Senate might be an elected body entirely. There has been the suggestion that perhaps part of it be elected and part appointed. There has been the suggestion that it should be appointed to represent a particular economic or social interest in the nation. It has been suggested that it should be given certain work to perform, that Bills should be introduced there, that they should have Parliamentary Secretaries and that Senators should be members of the Cabinet. There have been a variety of suggestions which basically seek to make changes in the operation of the Senate so that it will become a useful and functioning unit within the parliamentary system. We have even had reference to articles written by Members of Parliament who are silent or absent at the moment. One Jean-Luc Pepin was referred to, as was John Napier Turner, who is probably on his way to Russia at the moment, or at least getting ready for the trip. They also wrote articles about the Senate, pretty stringent articles, and each came to the conclusion that the only way out was to abolish this useless and expensive appendage.
What I wish to suggest to the President of the Privy Council, who introduced the resolution and will probably be piloting the Bill through the House, if his activity at this stage is any indication, is that the Bill is a proper subject for study by a Committee of the House. In this way the divergent views which have been expressed here, and the views of anyone else in the Upper Chamber interested in either reform or abolition of the Senate, may be made known so that the entire subject matter can be dealt with at great length. Then when the Committee reports to the House it will have the benefit of discovering the attitude of Canadians from all walks of life in regard to the Senate. Then out of that course of action, even though our position is that the Senate should be abolished, there may be some meat which will help make the Senate a useful and functioning body within our parliamentary system.
Even though I would seek to abolish the Senate, because I really think it serves no useful purpose in society, except for the Cana-
April 27, 1965

dian taxpayer who pays the salary of Senators to enable them to go around and collect campaign funds for the party in office, I still recognize the fact that the Senate will not be abolished today or indeed in this session of Parliament. In fact, it will not be abolished for a long time to come, if ever, because regardless of which party may be in office, whether the Liberal Party or the Party to which I belong, we will still need the consent of the Senate to its own abolition, which looks like a pretty formidable obstacle to overcome.
Therefore I would suggest to the President of the Privy Council that he might be well advised to consider establishing a Committee. I do not know whether I would go so far as to suggest a joint Senate-House of Commons Committee because there might be some biased members on it if that course were taken. But if broad terms of reference were given to the Committee to examine the whole structure and functioning of the Senate in the hope that some report might be made to the House and subsequent legislation introduced which would be really worth while, that would perhaps be preferable to introducing a simple, insipid measure such as this, which attempts to retire Senators in the future at 75 years of age. I toss this suggestion out now before the debate concludes, which might be within half an hour, so that perhaps the President of the Privy Council could give an off-the-cuff answer to this proposal, and before second reading might be able to take some deliberative action to get this incisive study under way.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think I should answer that question now. The hon. Member is quite correct that I would not feel it appropriate to attempt to say now what will be done with the Bill after second reading, whether it would be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole House or referred to one of the Standing Committees or a special Committee. However, I will take that point under consideration and see that when we do come to second reading stage of the Bill I am prepared to give an answer.
There is one difficulty which immediately arises, of course. If the Bill were referred to a Standing Committee the points he has made could not be discussed before the Committee because on second reading the House would have passed on the question of principle and the matters he now raises would not be relevant to the clauses of the Bill before the Committee. I merely want to mention that
Retirement Age jor Senators possible difficulty at this moment; but I will be in a position on second reading stage to say whether or not the Government will consider referring the Bill to a Standing Committee.


Frank Howard: If I might follow up my suggestion that the Committee be given broad terms of reference to allow a broad inquiry to be made, I would point out to the President of the Privy Council that in a previous Parliament the subject matter of some bills relating to the Northwest Territories was referred to a Committee and the Bills themselves retained their position on the Order Paper, to be dealt with following the report of the Committee. It is possible to do this sort of thing and to give a Committee broad terms of reference necessary for an in-depth or detailed examination, yet the Bill still retains its position on the Order Paper so that it may be then dealt with, or some other Bill introduced at the appropriate time in replacement thereof. So it is not an insurmountable problem.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this matter but it seems to me there is a good point to be made by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not think we should be hidebound by rules and procedures when it comes to examining this matter. It seems to me, however, that this Bill is a forward step in fixing the age of retirement of Senators, and consequently we should pass it. But this House wants to get on with its business, and while it is doing so we should set up some kind of inquiry as suggested by the hon. Member as to the whole role of the Senate. It seems to me that these two courses of action should not be contingent one upon the other, but should be separate actions. One course of action should be taken immediately and the other should be a special inquiry into the role of the Senate.
In view of so many things which have been said in this House today about Senators, bagmen and the like, may I say from my position in this House that I am completely satisfied that a Committee is to examine the cost of elections. I will have nothing further to say until that Committee reports to the House.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I hope its terms of reference are broad enough so that when it examines the costs of elections it will have a certain sense of responsibility in discharging its duty, and will examine that question relating to the source of election funds in Canada, and related economics.

April 27, 1985
National Housing Act


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed and 1 want to indicate that opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraiih thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-98, to make provision for the retirement of Members of the Senate.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase-
(a)	from two and one-half billion dollars to three and one-quarter billion dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of making direct loans to borrowers to assist in the construction of houses and housing projects;
(b)	from one hundred million dollars to three hundred million dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance or pay to the Corporation to make loans and grants relating to urban renewal schemes and to meet obligations incurred under urban redevelopment agreements;
(c)	from fifty million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the amount in the special account established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund out of which advances may be made towards public housing project developed jointly by the Corporation and a province or any agency thereof;
(d)	from one hundred and fifty million dollars to two hundred million dollars the maximum amount the Minister may advance to the Corporation for the purpose of making loans for university housing projects; and
(e)	from six billion dollars to eight and one-half billion dollars the maximum amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: It is my duty pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39A to advise the Committee that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock are as follows: the hon. Member for Danforth, and the hon. Member for York-Humber, the Canadian Centennial.

The house again in Committee of the Whole on the resolution concerning the National Housing Act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, hon. Members will recall that during the last session the National Housing Act was amended in several respects. Considerably more flexibility was introduced to increase the possibilities of housing for low income families, as well as for persons with special housing problems, including elderly people and people in other deserving categories. Urban renewal provisions were introduced to encourage not only conservation but rehabilitation of our cities and other urban communities. The earlier provisions of the Act for the clearance of slums and the redevelopment of such lands were extensively broadened.
It will be recalled also, I am sure, that in the course of the debate in May and June of last year, in response to requests that came from all parts of the House, I made a very positive statement and gave the assurance that we would embark immediately-by "we" I meant the officials of Central Mortgage and myself as the responsible Minister-would embark upon an educational program to ensure a wide and thorough understanding of the amendments that were passed in June last, more particularly an understanding on the part of municipal leaders.
Since these amendments became law in June, I have visited eight of the ten Provinces. I have spent a great deal of time in these Provinces discussing the more detailed aspects of the new legislation with provincial Governments and their officials and, in conjunction with the officials of the Provinces, with representatives of the various Municipalities. I was accompanied on these visits by the President and other senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing. I think it can be fairly said that we worked as a team with a view to ensuring the widest possible knowledge and a thorough understanding of the said amendments and their possibilities.
Frankly, Mr Chairman, I have been more than pleased, I have been greatly encouraged, by the co-operation we have received from all the Provinces in which these conferences or symposia have taken place. I have been greatly encouraged also by the enthusiasm and interest that have been shown by Mayors, Reeves, Municipal Councillors and other Municipal leaders, and people who have been interested in housing and in urban renewal, in all parts of Canada. Actually, while we
April 27, 1965

visited eight Provinces, we had conferences in only six.
We started off in September in the Province of Nova Scotia. I think all Members who attended, and there were several Members of this House present, will agree that it was a very successful meeting. Premier Stanfield and his Cabinet colleagues joined wholeheartedly in the educational program in which we were engaged and we had two very useful days in Nova Scotia. Since the press communique that was released on that occasion is typical of communiques that were released in the other Provinces since that date, it might be well to read it to the Committee. This is the communique that was issued by the responsible provincial Minister and myself:
The discussions, which ranged over a wide variety of housing and related matters, were highly successful and provided new evidence of the need for a continuing and spirited attack on urban blight and the provision of low cost housing. They revealed, too, an enthusiastic response to the new legislation, and the steadfast intention of the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia and its municipal authorities to avail themselves to the fullest possible extent of the federal aids now afforded and to prosecute fully their efforts to resolve the vexing problems confronting them.
It was only a matter of weeks from the conclusion of that conference in Halifax when we received an application for an urban renewal study from the City of Glace Bay, which has since been acted upon. Others have come in from Nova Scotia. Within a week or so of the Nova Scotia conference, we were in Newfoundland. Indicative of the interest that was aroused at that time, the dynamic and enthusiastic Premier of that Province, Mr. Smallwood, and several Members of his Cabinet, together with the representatives of the Municipalities on the Island of Newfoundland and in Labrador, spent two full, two busy days with us. We now have a fairly complete survey of some areas, but in addition we have positive evidence of the success of the visit in that we have approved applications for urban renewal from St. John's, and other parts of the Island.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In November, the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the Province of Alberta and I were invited by the Union of Municipalities of that Province to attend their annual session in Lethbridge. I was accompanied by the President and other senior officials of C.M.H.C., and I think it was a most fortuitous arrangement because we had the Mayors and senior officials of almost every
National Housing Act
municipality in Alberta present on that occasion. It afforded a wonderful opportunity for us to outline and explain the possibilities of the new legislation. I am very grateful to the executive of the Union of Municipalities of Alberta for their kind and timely invitation.
Shortly before Christmas we were in Toronto and several Members of the House from three or four of the parties were present on that occasion. We had representatives there totalling some 600 people from Southern and Eastern Ontario. This was followed by a meeting in January, in Vancouver, of the municipal and provincial leaders of the Province, representing the government and the cities and towns of B.C. Then, in the latter part of January we had a further meeting at Sault Ste. Marie where the provincial Ministers concerned were joint hosts with the Federal Government. The meeting was attended by representatives of most of the towns and cities of Western and Northern Ontario.
I am pleased to announce that another symposium of the same nature will be held in Charlottetown on May 8, still another in Fredericton, New Brunswick on May 10, and on May 29 there will be a similar one at Winnipeg, and on May 31 at Regina. These will round out visits to all the Provinces.
In every case the Provincial Governments have joined with the Federal Government in invitations to the Municipalities to attend, and they have participated enthusiastically in the discussions, which I feel have been very fruitful. I might add that following each and every one of the conferences that have been held we have conducted intensive education programs in conjunction with the provincial authorities, with a view to educating, or perhaps passing on would be a better term, to the Municipalities information regarding the possibilities of the new legislation.
The response of the Provinces, in the form of provincial legislation to implement the legislation that this Parliament passed in June last, has been timely. Legislation has now been passed in Alberta, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba it is before the respective Legislatures. In fact, the Manitoba Bill may have gone through today.
Similar legislation was passed last year in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In Ontario, the Ontario Housing Corporation has come into being and it has done a magnificent job in the eight or nine months that

April 27, 1965
National Housing Act
have elapsed since their complimentary legislation was passed.
By the end of last month, as a result at least to some extent of this educational program and other educational moves that have been taken, Federal contributions were requested and granted for a total of 60 urban renewal studies. That is the initial step which leads to a program of area development, rehabilitation and conservation in our cities, and I think the groundwork is now being laid that will show that a nationwide campaign is under way to reclaim and modernize vast sections of our towns and cities. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the potential impact of this demand that is coming from all ten Provinces for Federal financial assistance.
Grants for the preparation of definite urban renewal schemes, first provided for in last summer's amendments, have already been made for ten renewal projects. These proposals range from a five-acre scheme to improve traffic conditions in Burnaby, B.C. to a vast 1,000 acre renewal undertaking planned for the City of Hamilton. I might say I think the Hamilton scheme is the most imaginative, most comprehensive and most carefully thought out of any brought to my attention during the past year. Other centres currently preparing renewal schemes include Moncton, St. John's, Sudbury, Trois Rivieres, Windsor and Vancouver.
Since June last, the Federal Government has also undertaken to assist two municipalities in the implementation of schemes actually approved earlier. The first involves a contribution of $4.4 million to Hamilton to acquire and clear some 30 acres of land in an over-all renewal project of some 270 acres in the north end of that city. Through this form of assistance the Federal Government will share as well the cost of undertaking an extensive municipal works and services program that must complement the urban renewal scheme. The second grant, which is approximately $2 million, will enable Vancouver to acquire and clear 28.5 acres in three separate renewal projects in the east end of the downtown section of the city, partly in the riding of my hon. friend from Vancouver East. Grants for the servicing of renewal projects undertaken earlier in Kingston and Ottawa have also been authorized.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, last summer's revision of the Act also introduced new and substantial assistance to aid Provinces and Municipalities which wish to undertake public housing for low income families and

individuals. As an alternative to the usual joint Federal-Provincial partnership arrangements for such projects, Provinces and Municipalities are now offered long-term loans equal to 90 per cent of the costs involved for this type of development.
This new form of Federal aid has attracted wide attention throughout the whole of Canada, but especially in Ontario where their new Housing Corporation has embarked upon an ambitious program aimed at providing a minimum of 12,000 loan-assisted public housing units within the next three years. This Provincial Corporation is now engaged in evaluating the need for this type of accommodation in Municipalities throughout Ontario. Discussions have already commenced with officials of Metropolitan Toronto and 37 other communities for approximately 4,500 units. As provided in last year's amendments, the Federal Government has also undertaken in each case to meet one half of any losses sustained in the operation of these public housing projects.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
While this new program gives promise of making a substantial contribution to the supply of sorely needed public housing accommodation in Canada, the past nine months have also seen an upswing in the number of projects authorized for development under Federal-Provincial partnership arrangements, which have been in force for some little time. During this period agreements have been signed for eight such projects, which will provide a total of 1,031 units and require an investment of approximately $10.5 million of Federal funds. Two developments approved for Vancouver will consist of a total of 564 units, while 211 dwellings are proposed for St. John's and 184 for Halifax. The remaining four projects will be in Kingston, Hamilton, Oshawa and Swift Current. Augmenting the increasing volume of public housing activities there has been marked interest in the new provisions of the Act authorizing 90 per cent loans to non-profit corporations for low-rental accommodation. These loans can be used for the construction of dormitories and hostels as well as for self-contained family units.
There is another aspect of last year's amendment to which I wish to refer. Hon. Members will recall the aid given for housing on university campuses. Each year has seen increasing demands made for Federal assistance for university housing projects. In 1964 alone, loans amounting to almost $40 million
April 27, 1965

were authorized for projects accommodating some 7,200 students. A further $10 million was committed in the first three months of this year and new proposals have been received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for projects involving an additional $5 million.
Since the inception of this program only four years ago, Federal funds in excess of $120 million have been extended under the Act for 103 university housing projects which will provide on-campus accommodation for more than 24,000 resident students. I hope Members of the Committee will agree that we have not been inactive-when I say "we" I am referring mainly to the efficient and dedicated officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-in our efforts to ensure that the provisions of the National Housing Act are fully and thoroughly understood and implemented in the way this Parliament intended when it passed the amendments.
With this statement as background and in view of the fact that so many provinces and municipalities have already evinced an interest to the point of taking action, it is readily apparent why the present resolution is now before this committee. As for residential construction, in the past year it reached a level never before recorded in Canada. The figure of 165,658 housing starts financed from all sources was 11.5 per cent higher than the previous year. There were 150,963 dwelling units completed in 1964, surpassing by almost 18 per cent the number in 1963, and at year end there were 107,718 units under construction. All three of these figures were greater than those in the previous record year of 1958. Under the National Housing Act overall lending activity in 1964 covered 55,640 units. Of these units, 28,681 involved direct loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Most of the direct loans were in support of the Winter House Building Incentive Program which, Mr. Chairman, has been eminently successful in providing increased winter employment for the building trades-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I have to interrupt the Minister to point out that his time has expired. Has he the consent of the Committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: April 27, 1965
National Housing Act
on the amount that the Minister may advance to C.M.H.C. for making loans and grants under the urban renewal and urban redevelopment provisions. The limit at present is placed at $100 million plus any amounts which may from time to time be approved by Parliament. Last year we inserted in the amendment a figure of $100 million. Some of the Members of the Committee asked where that figure came from and I explained at that time that the Government felt it was a good round figure to start with, but that if there were indications that more money would be needed we would come back to ask Parliament for that money. We are now back, and we propose an increase of a further $200 million, a total of $300 million.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Clause (c) of the resolution is intended to cover a proposed amendment to section 35A(5) of the Act. The present subsection places a limit on the amount, which the Minister may advance to Central Mortgage for meeting its share of capital costs and operating losses under Federal-Provincial agreements for public housing projects. The limit now stands at $50 million, plus any amounts that may from time to time be authorized by Parliament. It is proposed by the amendment to increase the $50 million amount to $150 million. This authority, like the previous one, contemplates an annual return to Parliament to provide additional funds. However, with the Federal-Provincial partnership having to plan two or three years in advance it is not particularly satisfactory to have a limit which covers one year only. The increase is intended to cover a period of two or three years.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, clause (d) of the resolution is intended to lead to an amendment of subsection (2) of section 36C of the Act. That section now authorizes Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans for university students up to an amount of $150 million. As of the beginning of this year only some $41 million of this authority remained uncommitted. It is proposed under the amendment to increase the authority to $200 million, which it is estimated will be sufficient for the next two or possibly three years.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed monetary increases outlined in the resolution will, I believe, ensure that the National Housing Act will continue as a vital legislative instrument to materially assist the urban growth process, to aid our lower income families, and continue-perhaps I should say, strengthen-the tradition of close and effective co-operation
tMr. Nicholson.]
in housing and allied matters among Municipal, Provincial and Federal Governments.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the Minister for giving us the review of last year's operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; then I would go on to point out that no Act of recent years has ever been put on the statute books, in my opinion, that has accomplished more, with the support of all parties, than the National Housing Act. In the ten years this Act has been in existence it has been amended eight times, twice by the Liberal Party and six times by the Progressive Conservative Party. This Act has been used by both parties in the Federal Government to take a part in the economy of Canada which I do not think could be matched by Provinces working entirely by themselves. This Act is one of the classic examples of why the initiative in the economic field should never be lost by the Federal Government, because no Act, as I said earlier, has achieved as much as this one.
I would like to point out in passing that during the period we were in office we faced two recessions. I would suggest that of all the measures that we put into effect, whether it was loans to farmers, loans to small businessmen, export credits, tremendous programs of public works, etc., none achieved the results equal to the work that was done under the National Housing Act. I cannot give the Committee the precise number of billions of dollars that we used during that period, but I can remind the Committee that the construction industry is one of the most important and one of the most sensitive that we have in Canada in affecting the national economic health. I think the Act, being passed in 1954, amended in 1956, six times in the years we were in power, and then again last year, is indicative of the fact that we are still learning how to use this Act. The report of the Minister of how he has visited most of the Provinces and carried the knowledge of what this Act can do to not only the provincial representatives but the representatives of Municipalities and organizations is a very important part of the work that should be done under this Act.
In passing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to the late Stewart Bates, who served under Ministers like Hon. Bob Winters, Hon. John Garland, Hon. Howard Green, Hon. David Walker and Hon. Davie Fulton, as well as the present incumbent. I think the Minister would share
April 27, 1965

with me the feeling that the work of Stewart Bates and all those around him has helped Governments, regardless of which party was in power, tremendously in the carrying forward of the administration of this very important legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal at great length with the actual, precise work that has been done under each section of the Act, but I am going to say at the beginning that I do not believe anyone in the House will be in opposition to the resolution before us this evening to make available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the amount of money necessary to do the jobs laid down under the eight sections of the Act. However, I do want to point out to the Minister some of the feeling of the Opposition Party called Progressive Conservative. We have been looking at this legislation, and we know the legislation has to be constantly changed to meet the rapidly changing conditions. I would like to put before the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition four or five suggestions which might be of value to him in discussing the changes that can still be made in future amendments to the legislation.
Regardless of how much good this Act has done, we must face up to the fact that there are still gaps that remain unfilled. It is to these gaps that I wish to direct my attention. The first gap to be filled is in regard to what can be called substandard housing. I know that under the Act this can be dealt with under the public housing section or under the home improvement section; but I would suggest that in this field of substandard housing, which can be described as housing which is going downhill, there is an area where much more can be done. There is a reluctance on the part of the Federal Government, I know, to move any stronger into this field because it has connotations which are provincial. To keep the record reasonably clear I would like to take the liberty of putting on the record one or two clippings from the press that were published after these conferences which the Minister attended. The first one will be from the Toronto Star of December 18, 1964. I will read these quickly to show that this problem is a real one. This article was written by a staff writer, who says:
The Federal Government will consider legislation to make home improvement loans available for major renovation of existing dwellings in its next
National Housing Act
round of amendments to the National Housing Act.
This is the next paragraph, which goes on to say:
Postmaster General John R. Nicholson offered the possibility to a joint federal-provincial symposium on planning, public housing and urban renewal here yesterday.
But he said the Provinces would have to express the desire for an extension of home improvement assistance, the ultimate responsibility for housing being a provincial and municipal affair.
For all our talk and efforts, nearly 100,000 Canadian families live under housing conditions that are appalling-a disgrace to the communities they live in, he said.
Then quoting the Minister:
"They cannot find other accommodation on the open market at rents they can afford, and 20 per cent of all dwellings have "very primitive bathing and toilet facilities'*.
He listed redevelopment, rehabilitation and conservation as the means of halting this "despair".
On the same date in the Globe and Mail I read this, also written by one of their staff writers:
Postmaster General J. R. Nicholson, the Federal Minister responsible for housing matters, made it clear during a symposium that ended in Toronto yesterday that he opposes extending National Housing Act loans to all houses.
N.H.A. loans are available on existing houses in urban renewal areas. Although the house-building industry and real estate boards have been urging governments for years to make N.H.A. loans available on all houses, Mr. Nicholson said at a press conference that he could not support such a step.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The argument in favour of N.H.A. lending on existing houses has been that it would encourage purchase and rehabilitation of many houses in areas where blight is beginning but can still be checked.
I read those quotations from the two Toronto dailies to show the confusion which can arise in the minds of writers covering the same event.
I now read from a local paper, the Ottawa Citizen for December 26, an editorial which appeared on that day:
There will be broad dissatisfaction over the statement by Postmaster General J. R. Nicholson, the Federal Minister responsible for housing matters, that he is opposed to the extension of National Housing Act mortgages to all houses.
N.H.A. amendments now being implemented are certainly a step in the right direction. They provide for loans, guaranteed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on the purchase of older houses in designated urban renewal areas. But N.H.A. mortgage provisions still do not cover the purchase of existing homes on a general basis.
Mr. Nicholson said that action to permit loans on existing houses might be opposed by the Provinces, which have the power to reject N.H.A. amendments in this field. But it would be interesting to learn what steps if any, the Minister

April 27, 1965
National Housing Act
has taken to determine the views of provincial leaders on this matter.
Then, missing a paragraph, the article continues:
Mr. Nicholson has placed emphasis on the needs to rehabilitate the older parts of cities-and understandably so. A move by the federal government to permit N.H.A. mortgages on the purchase of all existing homes would do much to serve this end. At present, development is encouraged in the suburbs rather than in urban areas because of the location of vacant land. Couples unable to make the high down payments required on new homes could buy older houses in the downtown areas if the right N.H.A. amendments were made. These same people could be expected to make improvements to their properties.
I quote those two articles and the editorial, Mr. Chairman, not to contradict what the Minister has said but to show that there is still a gap to be tilled. I do have another clipping from the Globe and Mail which deals with the same subject, but I do not think it adds anything to what I have said.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is one gap to fill which may require not only amendment perhaps of the National Housing Act but even greater education, direction and persuasion of the provincial Governments to enable them to take action in this field. Because many of us know from personal experience that there are large areas in our urban centres where it would be better economics to repair houses and build them up to modern standards than to move the people living there into suburban areas, trying to relocate them in that way. This has been the experience of many cities in North America. One of the classic examples to be found is Pittsburgh, not very far away from the area where this symposium was held. In Pittsburgh a good deal of attention was given to the rebuilding of older homes, thereby putting an end to substandard conditions, as a cheaper and more economical way of dealing with the question of housing in large cities.
The second gap, which is very noticeable, in housing legislation in Canada is that there is no provision for those people who want to upgrade their homes. Upgrading can be defined in various ways. A classic example is the case of the young couple who buy a home with two bedrooms with the expectation that they will be able to live in it for 20, 25 or 30 years until their children grow up. But their plans do not quite turn out as they expect and a few years later, after they have started paying off their mortgage and building their environment around this particular home, 
they find children have come along and they require a four bedroom house.
When such a family has to move to a four bedroom type of accommodation they are caught in two ways. First of all, what are they going to do about the equity which they have built up in their home? How do they get rid of the mortgage they already have on the home? Second, they have to accomplish this within some reasonable period in order to be able to start building their new home. I could dwell on this point for some time, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have made my point, which is that this is a gap which does exist so far as the needs of our people in the cities are concerned.
A similar, related type of problem is where a family has to move from one city to another because the firm who hires the husband has transferred him. Once again the husband is up against two difficulties, one of getting his equity out of his original home and getting started on paying for the second home; and there is the difficulty that he incurs real estate fees in getting rid of his first home and more real estate fees in buying the new one. This imposes a heavy burden on any person transferred in such a situation, or who is required to move from a two bedroom house to a four bedroom house. I suggest to the Minister that this is a gap which it would not be too difficult to meet. There are precedents in regard to the question of resale of house mortgages, and so on. As far as I can discover from the Act this particular difficulty is not provided for.
The third gap in the legislation is in the matter of urban renewal, which is probably the most exciting part of the new legislation. I know that when we were in office we put in the sections which provided money for cities to look at the problem, study it and begin to work out a plan. We also got ready to move the amendments which the Minister had the honour to move last year, so there is no question of not being willing to move with the times. My contribution to the debate on the matter of urban renewal will be on a wider scale, I think.
I am not quarreling with what the Minister and his officials are doing in this legislation; I think it is good. But I do think that the officials themselves sense, and as I read the words of the report issued last year they know that there is something wider which must be done. Urban renewal is not a matter of just clearing out worn-out parts of a city and rebuilding them with either residential housing or industrial plants or
April 27, 1965

providing park areas. Urban renewal must be part of an over-all plan for a community. This is dealt with in one sentence of the report, and I think the idea has to be extended so as to tie it in with metropolitan planning. [DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The day is over when any city thinks it can set up a parks board to plan parks; that a city can set up a transportation committee to plan transportation in the city; that it can set up a body to deal with education and plan for new schools; that it can set up another committee to deal with social welfare services and to provide all the other things necessary in a city. The whole planning operations of cities must be brought together into a co-ordinated activity. We must look ahead, not just for two or three years but for decades. If a city of 500,000 people is involved the citizens must visualize this city as one of a million, a million and a half or two million people. They must visualize the responsibility which they have for that area, and in addition the responsibilities they have in respect of the surrounding areas which depend upon that city. They must consider these responsibilities as well as their own direct constitutional responsibilities within their own boundaries.
Mr. Chairman, that is the concept of modern metropolitan trends which now occupies the thoughts of leaders in North America. The proof of that statement lies in the fact that during the past five years three universities in the United States have established urban sections to their post graduate programs. These graduate sections are concentrating on problems of urban living and development. The first thing they have found is that any city in the course of developing from 100,000 to 500,000 people, or from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people, or from 1,000,000 people to 2,000,000 people makes exactly the same mistake as other cities have made which have gone through these same growth stages.
As a result of the studies made by these graduate schools in the United States, we are beginning to learn that one of the greatest wastes of a modern industrial state is not the result of planning on the part of the Federal-Provincial Governments, but because of the lack of over-all directional planning at the urban level. These mistakes are exceptionally costly, running into billions of dollars. Recently a Toronto newspaper headline referred to a one billion dollar bungle. Apparently a one billion dollar arterial highway
National Housing Act
program was completed, at which time it was found that it was built in the wrong place. Similar mistakes have been made by almost every other city in the world which has gone through these same growth stages.
I am suggesting that under this urban renewal program and other programs dealing with research, the administration of the Act has the power to go far beyond anything that has been done to date in working with these cities to give that leadership in respect of over-all planning that they must have in looking to the future.
If anything I have said is offensive to any city in Canada, or for that matter in the world, I accept full responsibility. These cities have made a tremendous effort to improve planning over the past 20 or 30 years. However, this final step must still be taken and I suggest to the Minister that in that final step the Federal Government, through the officials who administer Acts such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, has a great part to play in carrying forward that initiative which it has developed over the past ten years, in order to move into this new stage of reducing costs for the development of metropolitan areas which has been so sorely lacking in the past.
The next gap to which I should like to refer, and this is perhaps the last one I can deal with during the time at my disposal, relates to the subject of ownership, not only of farms but of homes and resources. One of the great dangers of this modern industrial growth and urban development is related to the recent trend toward rental type accommodation. This type of trend is unsound in a democratic country which prides itself in offering every citizen the opportunity to own a farm, a home or to partake in ownership of resources. I think the obvious answer to this problem has been shown by private enterprise which has made available, in many communities in the world, including Canada, an opportunity for people to build up an equity in apartment blocks. I believe this Act could be easily amended to create that type of incentive to Canadians to acquire ownership or equity in the apartment blocks in which they live.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Has the hon. Member leave of the Committee to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. I think I will

April 27, 1965
National Housing Act
only require three more minutes to complete my remarks.
I would point out that the Act could easily be amended to allow for encouragement in ownership of apartment blocks. In this regard, as well as in respect of ownership of homes, they must give consideration under other legislation to the provision of some relief in the way of taxes on real estate. Several suggestions have been made by my leader and various real estate boards and associations across this country in respect of exemptions of taxes on municipal properties by way of changes in Federal income tax exemptions. Perhaps consideration could be given to placing high on the priority list of exemptions the interest paid on mortgages by individuals purchasing homes. I hope the Minister will give some consideration in this regard in his attempt to develop encouragement in the ownership of homes and apartment blocks. I mention this because of its vital importance.
Mr. Chairman, I have several documents before me including clippings and editorials which touch on this subject, but rather than read them specifically let me say there are many, and I urge the Minister to read them.
The next gap in this proposal is related to the development of isolated areas in Canada. No consideration is given specifically to those developments which take place around mining sites. A good example of this is the difficulty which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has experienced in respect of the Elliot Lake area. Another example is the new development taking place around Pine Point. Not only are there new mines being developed there, but a new smelter is to be developed very soon. This development will result in a population growth of 10,000 to 20,000. Surely there should be some special type of arrangement made for the financing and developing of areas of this kind, so that if the area is closed down in ten to 40 years an amortization plan can be worked out whereby the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not be stuck too severely, and the people who move into these areas will not be penalized. This same concept should apply to areas which develop around factory and industrial sites where many hundreds of people are engaged in these operations. We must find solutions to many of these problems so that the equity which is built up by individuals moving into these newly developed areas can be picked up, relieving them of any penalty they would otherwise suffer. The

same thing applies in reverse when factories close down.
It is not clear whether these problems should be solved entirely through amendments to housing legislation or in co-operation with programs of the Department of Industry, but they certainly are worthy of consideration and solution.
The sixth and final gap I see in this legislation relates to increases in land value. At this time people living outside cities may purchase lots for $500, for example. Following growth and development of these areas, these same lots increase in value to as much as $2,000. This means, of course, that late comers to the area must pay $2,000 for these lots before making down payments on homes. It is my belief that this question of increasing land values in areas surrounding cities is of vital concern to Governments. Governments must realize that if we are to have proper metropolitan planning we must know in advance where our cities are going to develop, and obtain these lands so that prospective home owners will not be subjected to tremendously accelerated land values.
I am sorry I do not have sufficient time at my disposal to deal at length with these various insufficiencies of the legislation, but I hope the Minister will give consideration to the gaps which I have outlined. I hope the Government will bring to the attention of the administrators of this Act those areas which I have suggested which could be developed and improved.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the cheerful and optimistic statement made by the Minister this evening, and it is obvious that if one did not look beyond the surface of his report he would be encouraged. However, if one takes the trouble of scraping below the surface of this report, he will realize the various problems with which the Minister and his Government are confronted, and perhaps realize that the Minister is attempting to make a virtue of a necessity.
As we in this Party have done before, I should like to urge the Prime Minister to make the national housing administration the responsibility of a new Cabinet Minister. In looking at the figures mentioned in this resolution we note that there is to be a $750 million increase, a $200 million increase, a $100 million increase, a $50 million increase and a $2,500 million increase. Clause (e) mentions an increase from $6 billion to $8,500 million which is equivalent to the entire
April 27. 1965

budget proposal by the Minister of Finance. Surely this job is of such a magnitude that it should be the full responsibility of one Minister.
I realize that the present Minister is a very capable man, one of the most capable in the Cabinet. He has become known in certain circles as "Mr. Clean". He has risen from the rather modest position of Minister of Forestry, after getting that Department going, through the Post Office Department, which was put under his charge after the former Minister was promoted to that other place, to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which was an almost daily embarrassment to the Government. In addition to his responsibility in respect of the administration of the National Housing Act, he has responsibility as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and as the Minister of two or three other portfolios.
[DOT] (9:00 p.mj
It leads me to believe, Mr. Chairman, that this Government just does not take this particular problem very seriously. They think that this National Housing Act, with all its ramifications, with the fantastic job that it is forced to do today, can be looked after by a Minister who is looking after three or four other departments. I question whether or not the Government have really got their eyes open as to the extent of this problem. I suggest the Prime Minister look around, search amongst his ranks, for a suitable replacement to take the load of these other portfolios off the Minister and put him full time in this particular field. If he cannot find any suitable persons amongst his cohorts, the practice has been long established whereby he can appoint other people.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, it was only because of the tremendous load of work that has been placed on this Minister that on two successive days he was caught making completely contradictory statements. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Member representing the Conservative Party and I seem to be using the same material for our speeches tonight. It seems to me we have brought this House a long way when that happens. However, I must say it is very comforting for us to see this development.
In a recent article in the Globe and Mail, dated December 17 of last year, the Minister stated that nearly 100,000 Canadian families lived in appalling housing conditions which were a disgrace to their communities. This is true, Mr. Chairman, but it is a disgrace to
National Housing Act
more than the communities. This is a responsibility not only of the communities but of the Provinces and of this Federal Government. The disgrace must be shared equally by all three. Having said this, we were very surprised the very next day to see a report in the Globe and Mail in which the Minister was quoted as saying he was opposed to National Housing Act loans for old houses. The reason he gave, and this is in quotation marks was, "lending for improvement of houses is the function of the private part of the economy". Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister was not so loaded down with work, if he had the time to sit down for five minutes and really think about this, he would realize that if this is a job for the private part of the economy they have failed dismally in that job over these years. It is only because of that failure the Government is finally being forced into this field to try to correct the situation.
As I say, on December 17 the Minister appeared to have some grasp of the situation when he said that a comprehensive program of conservation must be undertaken to check blight because demolition is the wrong approach in areas where decline is starting to show. In the face of that statement, how can he turn around the next day and say that lending for the improvement of houses is the function for the private sector of the economy? When the private sector has failed so dismally, how can he hang on to this idea that this is still the solution? How many years of failure does it take before he realizes that this is not the solution and never has been? We have even more double talk.
I sometimes wonder if this apparent confusion, this foggy thinking, is not one of the factors that has contributed to the problem we are now facing when we are finally trying to cope with this problem. In the article of December 18, the same one in which the Minister was quoted as being opposed to National Housing Act loans for old houses, another gentleman, Mr. Donald Guard, planning director of the City of London suggests that some better name be found to replace such terms as urban renewal or redevelopment. The article reads, in part:
He felt such terms put some kind of stigma on an area Residents panic when the label is placed on their district, he said. Mr. Cumming said that if a better word can be suggested, it would be adopted. There may be some persons who object to having their district tagged an urban renewal area, he said, but there are others who simply do not want to face the fact that their area is deteriorating.
You see, Mr. Chairman, this strange feeling that they seem to have, this apprehension

April 27, 1965
National Housing Act
toward an attempt to improve the living conditions of the people. I would say that, to some extent, it is caused by this foggy thinking, this double talk, by statements one way one day and directly opposite the next.
It should be no news that the Minister announced last fall that 100,000 houses needed improvement. If we look back to August 28, 1962, we find the same statement being made then by Mr. E. W. Dempster, who is chairman of the board of the zoning and legislation committee of the Toronto Beal Estate Board. He mentioned then that at least 100,000 houses needed maintenance repairs to avoid costly urban renewal projects by public authorities. Now, we find the Minister saying the same thing some 28 months later. This would appear to me to be nothing more nor less than an admission of complete failure in this field up to date. The Minister admits that there has been no improvement over the last 28 months.
What of the future? To what can we look forward? First of all, I would suggest anyone interested in this subject could do no better than to read a report entitled, "Housing for Canadians". It is a report by Mr. James A. Murray, a professor at the School of Architecture, and was made after a two-year study of public housing which was paid for by the Federal Government and the Ontario Government jointly. This report sets out a certain number of requirements in the housing field and, as I say, it was made after a two year study in this field. It revealed some rather terrifying prospects ahead for this country and for this Government, which has the responsibility. It says that from 1961 to 1981 we are going to need one million subsidized units for low income groups and elderly people. We are going to need another million housing units for the moderate income group, $3,000 to $4,500 a year, people who can pay an economic rent as long as the Government provides the money at cost for capital expenditure. Again, according to this report, in the last 15 years in this field we have only built 42,000 units.
Now, Mr. Chairman, a little simple arithmetic shows us that to meet this problem in the next 15 years we are going to have to do 48 times as well as we did in the last 15. In the Budget Papers presented by the Minister of Finance the other night, page 21, we find the following:
Housing and Social Capital.
Expenditures on new housing in 1964 increased nearly 19 per cent over the previous year. This increase was as large as that realized during the three-year period 1960 to 1963.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I would say a 19 per cent improvement on nothing is still not too far from nothing, in the face of the problem set forth by this housing study. It goes on to say:
The chart of population by age groups shows that there are rapidly increasing numbers in the 2024 and 25-29 age groups who normally establish in their own households. In addition, higher incomes in general have permitted "un-doubling" of composite families, with older members and relatives apparently able to afford accommodation of their own. These factors may account for the rising proportion of apartments and multiple units which now amount to over 50 per cent by volume of all new housing construction.
This report goes on to say that people who can afford to pay for housing will need another 2 million units in the same period of time. I am sure the Minister realizes this because he has travelled the country from coast to coast and has met with people interested and concerned in this field. He must realize what a staggering job lies ahead.
So far as the present amendments are concerned, they are only a drop in the bucket, and long overdue. We will support them, in fact we would support them if they were ten times the size they are now, but even then they would not begin to cope with the problem.
Dealing with the amendments we passed last year, which were similar to the present ones, Professor Murray said in his report that-
-to supplement these subsidized housing programs, a large moderate income "full recovery" housing program was also necessary. With this conclusion we are in the fullest agreement. Unfortunately, the recent amendments to the N.H.A. provide no special incentives for launching such a program.
In other words it has not even yet scratched the problem.
I have not got the time to go into greater detail. One matter we have to deal with is the over-all age problem across the country. If we go into regional areas we will find these problems in many towns because in some they need old age units and in other areas there are younger populations in the districts. Possibly we will have time at some future date to deal with that facet of the problem.
One other matter I would like to deal with before my time runs out, is again one that was touched on by the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle but unfortunately, as Conservatives and Liberals have tended to do over the years, when they touch a problem like this they just skip over the top of it and do
April 27, 1965

not get down into the heart of it. This again is one of the millstones that is holding back any sensible, comprehensive housing program across the country, and it is the matter of land speculation.
In the same article of August 28, 1962, Mr. Gavin Henderson, the executive director of the Conservation Council of Ontario, had this to say on land use:
It is largely the widespread speculation in land over the last 15 years or so coupled, of course, with outworn assessment practices, that has been responsible for the appalling waste of some of the best agricultural land in the province. Because land speculation can have such a powerful and detrimental effect on the social and economic welfare of both present and future generations, a revision of our attitude toward this activity is, I suggest, long overdue.
Before he closes this debate I would like the Minister to tell us if the Government has even recognized this problem, let alone taken any steps to try to meet and overcome it. There is certainly nothing in this resolution that we can see to deal with it. There is legislation to come before us under ARDA to try and overcome some of the problems we face in rural areas. We have a trend which is world-wide, not only country-wide, of rural people moving to the cities. They are not prepared for city life and the cities are not prepared to handle them. We have the additional problem, which is becoming more and more prevalent, of the terrific increase in mental illness and crime which accompanies these sprawling slums in our cities.
Once again I would like to read from this report, which is known as the Murray report:
Attention is drawn to the rapid growth of population of Canada, estimated to reach 27 million by 1980, of whom 70-80 per cent will be living in urban areas. "With the inevitable pressure of population, it is problematic that land will continue to be treated as a speculative commodity rather than as a national asset, particularly in the centralized urban areas. When land is assembled by the public purse for central area renewal, it should be leased, not sold; in the redevelopment process, buying once with public funds should be enough."
Before closing I would like to ask what steps the Government is taking to meet these problems I have outlined? Has it really recognized these problems for what they are? I call on the Government to recognize these things and say to it, do not try to hide them; face up to them. As I mentioned earlier, let us take this present Minister, who I am sure commands the confidence of the House, and turn him loose on that problem. Maybe then we can be a lot more proud of what we are doing in this field.
National Housing Act
I would like to close by again quoting from the Murray Report something that is very appropriate to my remarks:
This country is rich; rich in natural and human resources; too rich for ease of conscience while so many Canadians of modest means, or advanced years, must live out their lives in squalid dilapidation and miserable overcrowding, yet surrounded by every sign of extraordinary affluence. The uncertainty, ineffectiveness, inequitable availability and stigma of housing help extended, is nothing less than a national, provincial and municipal disgrace. For those Canadians unable to achieve decent housing it is more than time that 20 years of housing neglect give way to 20 years of housing progress. ... Present and past activities in low income and elderly persons' housing bear absolutely no relationship to any realistic appraisal of the need in Canada.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly in support of the resolution. It seems to me the Government is indicating somewhat of a paradoxical position with respect to this measure, because in recent times we found it introducing steps which have been restrictive so far as the construction industry is concerned. On the one hand it imposes an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and now it turns around and is making additional moneys available to C.M.H.C. for citizens who desire to build homes. I suppose that the increase in cost occasioned by the sales tax requires that additional funds be provided, and possibly that is one of the reasons for this amendment.
In reading the Speech from the Throne we note the Government indicating an interest in developing a program for the full utilization of our human resources and the elimination of poverty among our people. I believe we would all agree that in the development of our human resources one of the most important factors is the provision of adequate housing.
Even though it is possible to raise a family in poor housing conditions, the full human personality cannot be fully developed for acceptance of its place in society if living surroundings and environment are not conducive to such development. So we should give every encouragement to those who are contemplating building and owning their own homes.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The next paragraph has to do with urban renewal. Here again we recognize a tremendous need. Many citizens and groups of citizens across the country are fully conscious of the need to enter upon major renewal projects. It has been brought to the attention of the authorities and of the public in general that

April 27. 1965
National Housing Act
inadequate housing is a factor contributing to the incidence of social problems of various kinds. In introducing this clause I believe the Minister has recognized the need and is acting in a way which will go some way toward providing solutions.
The resolution also deals with public housing units. I think this is most important. In communities from coast to coast various agencies and organizations are desirous of moving into this field to assist in providing houses for those of our citizens who perhaps are in the low income brackets. They face severe difficulties in obtaining the necessary capital. They try to get co-operation from the various authorities and they do a tremendous job. I think it is essential that the Government should take a definite step forward to provide capital to assist these agencies in such a worth-while project.
Finally there is a reference to university housing projects. Everyone recognizes that with the development of educational facilities in the field of higher education there is need for the adequate housing of the mounting university population. In all these various fields the Federal Government has a responsibility to fulfil and there is an indication in this resolution that the Government recognizes this responsibility and is moving forward.
Once again I emphasize the importance of housing in the over-all social picture of our country. Too often we become obsessed with the economic opportunities which face us as a nation. We become obsessed with the dollars and cents and we forget the necessity of concentrating first of all on our human resources and encouraging the development of human personalities in order to enable our people to enjoy the cultural and spiritual aspects of life as well as its material aspects. Therefore I speak tonight in support of the resolution now before us.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to join with the other hon. members and say that we give full support to the few minor amendments to the National Housing Act.
I say few minor amendments because we are somewhat amazed to see that the minister, in spite of all his good will-because he is one of the best qualified members of the cabinet-could do no more than touch lightly on the matter. It seems to me that it is a little characteristic of this government to only touch upon matters. In fact, under the

pretence of proposing amendments, the government has touched upon the Income Tax Act, the Senate Act and now, the National Housing Act. I do not know whether that is the main quality of diplomacy in politics. If it is a quality, this government is really expert in those matters.
We had expected a little more substantial amendments dealing especially with construction standards, the conditions of acceptance of such constructions and dealing a little deeper with construction, in urban centres or in rural communities.
Nevertheless, we are happy about the increase in the amounts. It must be noted that it is only a guarantee given by the government to the chartered banks so that the said banks have the assurance that there is no risk for them in granting loans. Indeed, the government will back them up.
Of course, it would be an entirely different story if logically the national bank was used, but the government is not yet ripe for this and it should be given a little time to mature.
The minister said that housing for the aged would be accelerated. This is good news for, in our areas, in our constituencies, especially those in the province of Quebec, we have not benefited too much from this act for the simple reason that we were probably used to build large community homes for the aged, some for men, others for women.
In the province of Quebec we believe in the indissolubility of marriage but, on the other hand, we have always considered up to now that elderly persons had to be segregated before passing away. That is why, in the case of a married couple, the man is placed in one home and the woman in another.
That is what is being done in our areas and I hope that this accelerated program will enable us to accommodate our old people in our own communities and not 125 miles away from our towns.
I earnestly hope that this program will be understood in all parts of the province of Quebec and that one day, in each of our communities, towns and villages, there may be a home for older couples so that in their declining years they may reside in security in their own community.
I wonder if some private contractors could not be given further encouragement. For I have seen contractors building homes for the aged, in some villages, who had to discontinue their building operations because no municipality was sponsoring the housing
April 27, 1965

project. They had invested their own capital to build those homes in some sparsely populated villages where, even now, about 20, 25 or 30 couples could be accomodated in those homes.
There is also a marked improvement in urban centres. We are very happy about the amount that has been voted and we hope that our city councils will realize the taxpayers' needs and especially will take the trouble to study this legislation in order to benefit from it.
I have been very glad indeed a few minutes ago, to hear the statement made by the minister in which he mentioned having toured the provinces to discuss the implementation of these plans with the authorities concerned. I believe that if the minister or someone from his department, would go and meet each township council, in order to advise them and show them the benefits that are available to them through Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, the government would in this way render a most useful service to the whole population.
It is all very well to pass and to amend legislation; but we realize when travelling through our ridings that 75 per cent of the provisions are completely unknown to our administrators. This is the reason why I said during certain meetings in my riding that it would be imperative that members sit a shorter time in parliament, say six or seven months, and that they take five months to go in every community in their riding and teach the officials the meaning of amendments to legislation, so that all citizens, urban as well as rural, can take advantage of the legislation passed by parliament.
I regret that the minister has not considered introducing an amendment to the act dealing with improvements to older houses. We are now building new towns, neglecting the older parts of communities, precisely because the present terms of loans to owners of old houses are not acceptable.
I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to tell the minister that the conditions we have at the present time because of city zoning- zoning which is practically never discussed- are very embarrassing. I have noticed this anomaly in every town in my riding, and we realize, like the minister, that the owner of an older house who asks for a loan to renovate his house is unable to have one because the city council has not passed a resolution to determine whether this house is in an area designated by them.
National Housing Act
In my opinion, this constitutes a gap in the legislation because, in passing this amendment, we could have offered loans for the renewal of all older houses to those who would like to take advantage of that, without the requirement that this zone must be designated specifically by the city council.
Thus, many loans are lost.
Through personal experience, I may say that in my riding, this year, many loans were lost which could have helped to renovate many old houses which could still have been rebuilt but which are now abandoned due to a lack of a proper amendment.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We are also somewhat surprised to find that in large cities, the construction of multiple unit buildings or community housing projects is being encouraged by the C.M.H.C. Instead of building 6, 12 or 20 units under the same roof, for instance, a contractor, in order to benefit from the C.M.H.C. legislation, will build multiple unit apartment buildings belonging to the same owner who will be granted such loans.
We are in favour of private enterprise, but we are also in favour of family homes. We would have liked to find in those amendments some encouragement to prompt heads of families to acquire their own homes, instead of living in those community housing projects. That is why we hope the legislation will be further revised soon.
I share the opinion of the previous speaker that when you take charge of a department, Mr. Minister, you seek to make a complete clean-up. You have almost made three complete clean-ups and I am sure that if you keep this department for a while, you will take under consideration as soon as possible the suggestion being made to you.
I frankly admit that we, French Canadians, who like to have our own homes, hate to see families crowded in community housing. This contributes to the loss of our French-Canadian mentality.
We were anxious to see which amendments to the National Housing Act would be introduced tonight. There is nothing in all that. We had hoped to see an amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, because today a farmer cannot get a loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to build a house on his farm. Barely 5 per cent of those applications are accepted or likely to be accepted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is imperative to amend this legislation so that farmers may also benefit

April 27, 1965
National Housing Act
from the advantages afforded owners and family heads in urban centres.
Now, only a few words on the extra charges that those who borrow from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have to pay now. Because of a tax increase or for various reasons, the monthly payments are raised. In some cases, those monthly payments are so high that the owner must let his house go. I think that the government would have been wise to introduce an amendment to postpone the payment of these extra charges resulting in those increases until the last instalment has been paid in order not to disrupt the family budget. When somebody builds himself a house with a loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, he prepares a budget and plans to pay $55, $60 or $75 a month. But the following year his monthly payments are raised to $85 and $90. Now, you will agree that it becomes impossible for this worker to balance his budget, with the result that, after making sacrifices for four and five years and paying for certain improvements and repairs, including that famous 11 per cent tax, he often has to let his house go.
In my opinion, all those disadvantages are far from encouraging family heads to benefit from opportunities offered by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Nevertheless, we shall support the resolution because it brings us something, even if that is barely 5 to 6 per cent of what was expected from this amendment to the housing act.


Mr. Cantin:: Mr. Chairman, you will surely forgive me if I seem somewhat parochial this evening but, on second thought, I feel the topic I wish to discuss truly is of national importance.
To walk through the streets of old Quebec is to relive the first chapters of Canada's history. A careful observer cannot fail to notice it, as the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) reminded me no later than last week, on the occasion of his first visit to old Quebec. The narrow streets, the architecture of the churches, houses and monuments, the stones themselves are a testimonial to our history. Here and there, various ugly structures of a more or less recent past mar the harmony and the artistic beauty of the general picture but luckily, old Quebec still retains its charms.
After 300 years the old city still remains a tourist's paradise. For several years now various bodies have been advocating the restoration of old Quebec. To name only a

few, there are the Quebec historic society, the chambers of commerce and the Quebec City council. Lately, the province itself joined in through its historical monuments society and its department of municipal affairs.
The bill that will follow the passing of the resolution now before us will provide, I hope, the financial means to achieve such a restoration.
Last February the general director of the Quebec district chamber of commerce, Mr. Roger Vezina, wrote me a letter which contained the following suggestion:
After agreements have been reached between the federal government and that of a province, the central mortgage and housing corporation could undertake or share with that provincial government or any body designated by that government, in projects for:
(a)	the acquisition, renewal or improvement of historical areas or sites to be devoted, wholly or in part, to housing developments;
(b)	the acquisition, renewal and improvement of historical buildings to be used wholly or partially for housing purposes.
Mr. Vezina added that such legislation was essential to prevent old Quebec from becoming a blighted area and to favour its restoration.
In reply to that suggestion the minister responsible for C.M.H.C. sent me a letter dated March 26, 1965 which I should like to place on record:
I wish to thank you for having forwarded to me the speech which Mr. Roger Vezina, general director of the Quebec chamber of commerce, made before the Societe St. Jean-Baptiste. The senior officials of the Corporation have given careful consideration to that speech, which precisely advocates the adoption of measures to preserve the architectural characteristics of old Quebec.
In replying to Mr. V6zina, you may perhaps underline' that the government of the province of Quebec, to my knowledge, has already taken steps to achieve the aim he supports. As far as the provisions of the National Housing Act, are concerned, no doubt some parts of the old city could rightly take advantage of section 23B, wherein it is provided that the federal government makes grants and loans to a province or a municipality for projects of urban renewal. Such projects do not consist solely in the demolition of dilapidated sections or zones and their replacement with new housing projects; they also provide financial assistance for the renewal of an existing section. Such renewal may comprise improvement of public facilities and services, as well as a program designed to encourage the individuals to renovate their residential properties.
Indeed, the National Housing Act authorizes the corporation to grant loans for this purpose to owners of houses located in urban renewal districts. However. I must point out that although such a financial assistance could very well be granted in the case of some districts of Quebec City, the federal government can take no steps before it has received an official request for assistance
April 27, 1965


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, in rising generally to support the amendment put forward this evening by the Minister I should simply like to say that this Party in general, as
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion stated by the Member for Qu'Appelle, has supported this principle of an ownership democracy for some time. This means that it is our feeling that everything possible should be done by the Government to encourage the ownership of homes by Canadians, that everything possible should be done to encourage the ownership of independent businesses by independent businessmen and that everything should be done to encourage good farmers to own good farms. We believe that everything should be done to support the principle of property ownership, because when the state owns too much, in the general sense of that word, a democracy, in the truest sense of that word, becomes imperilled.
On many occasions when I have proposed this principle Members opposite have suggested that I was in fact enunciating a Conservative Party principle of landed gentry ownership in years gone by, or perhaps even in centuries gone by. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the desirable notion that everything should be done by the Government to encourage ownership of farms, independent businesses and homes, and in so far as this amendment encourages and projects that principle, like the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle, we support its general purport.
We also recognize that in Canada far too many people in our rural areas are living in abject poverty. While it is good to encourage home ownership we must realize that many Canadians do not have the means of even beginning to own their own homes. It should be recognized that when a married man with a family of four in many instances does not have the means to make a down payment on a home or keep up the monthly or semiannual payments on a C.M.H.C. home, something is drastically wrong and there is a need to attack the more basic problem in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, is it possible that we can finish this stage tonight and get the Bill before the House?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I should like to call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under provisional Standing Order No. 39A deemed to have been moved.
April 27. 1965
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-USE OF MATCHING

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I thought it necessary to question the Secretary of State or in his absence the Acting Secretary of State, as to whether or not there has been any restriction placed by the Centennial Commemoration Committee on the granting of Government funds to such memorial projects as extensions to public hospitals or the erection of new hospital buildings. I am personally interested in hospital work, and in making inquiries as to projects approved by the Canadian Government and Provincial Governments with regard to the commemoration of the Centennial of Confederation, I found that in the several hundreds of applications that have already been received and endorsed, Provincially and Federally, there are no direct hospital grants.
A careful inquiry into the list of approved projects and an examination of the names shows that three enterprises in the nature of welfare work have been submitted by Municipalities and approved by the Provincial and Federal Governments concerned. For instance, the good people of Bowness, Alberta, have suggested and the Alberta Government has approved, and the Federal Centennial Commission has verified, that they wish to build an old people's home for senior citizens at Bowness with these triple matching grants. In the Eastern section of Ontario, in the area represented by the Deputy Speaker himself, the United Counties of Glengarry, Stormont and Dundas, have decided to use their centennial commemoration moneys for the erection of an inter-denominational chapel at an old people's home on the outskirts of the City of Cornwall. In Nova Scotia, the Province has decided to use the centennial commemoration grant from the Federal Government of $2.5 million to erect a research and teaching medical school on the campus of Dalhousie University. I do not know of any more worth-while projects for the commemoration of the Centennial of Confederation than the three I have mentioned.
However, as yet, no hospital projects have been brought forward for Federal consideration. I would ask the Secretary of State for Canada if it is because of any roadblocks at the Federal level that hospital projects have not been advanced as suitable memorial projects for the Centenary of Confeder-
[Mr. Grafftey.l
ation? Is it because of some obstacle in the Provincial field? I do not know the answer. On behalf of hospital people from one end of Canada to the other I would ask if the Secretary of State or his representative could advise us as to what the obstacle may be so that steps may be taken to utilize these vast sums of money which have been made available by the Federal Government by way of matching grants so that they can be utilized for hospital purposes. I know of no better way of observing the Centenary of Confederation than by erecting hospital additions or new buildings, so that we who are living can honour those who have gone before us.
I have not had time to check all the hospitals in the Dominion of Canada, but it is amazing to find the number of hospitals that have been erected in the ten Provinces of this country as memorials either to the war dead of the first or second World Wars, or to individuals. Just a quick resume, and I could use up half an hour let alone seven minutes, reveals that in Nova Scotia we have the Fishermen's Memorial Hospital at Lunenburg and the Eastern Shore Memorial Hospital at Sheet Harbour. In New Brunswick we have the Restigouche and Bay Chaleur Soldiers' Memorial Hospital at Campbellton and the Queens-Sunbury West Memorial Hospital at Fredericton Junction. In Prince Edward Island we have the Kings County Memorial Hospital at Montague. In Newfoundland, you have the Western Memorial Hospital at Corner Brook and you have four Grenfell Mission Hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador, honouring Grenfell. In the Northwest Territories, you have Stanton Yellowknife Hospital at Yellowknife. The list is almost endless.
I say that if we can pay tribute to our war dead and to those who have gone before when we have centres such as the Plummer Memorial Hospital at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, the Maimonides Hospital in Montreal and the Jeffery Hale's Hospital in Quebec City, surely we could have hospitals across this nation bearing names such as Centennial, or the Centenary of Confederation, so that that name could ring from one side of the country to the other and they would be suitable memorials of the Centenary of Confederation which we will be observing in 1967.
I would sincerely and earnestly ask the Department of the Secretary of State to let us know if there has been some obstacle in the
April 27, 1965

way of making grants available to hospital associations across the country for memorial purposes, or is there an obstacle in some other sphere of influence?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the special centenary grants for a major project in each Province are not to be confused with the program of Federal-Provincial grants to assist local centenary projects of a lasting nature.
The Dalhousie Medical School project falls under the former and not the latter program. The special Federal grants to be matched by each Province, amounting to $2.5 million for each Province, are for major projects preferably of a cultural nature, and preferably in the provincial capitals. The Government of Nova Scotia decided that this money should be directed to the Dalhousie Medical School.
The other program, the one to which the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) referred, involves a three-way division of costs among the local group, the Province and the Government of Canada. The Centennial Commission has adopted the policy of not considering any local project for a Federal
Business of the House grant unless it comes with the approval of the appropriate provincial authority. In other words, the approval of projects is the concern of the Provinces in the first instance.
No prohibition against hospital projects has been introduced by the Centennial Commission. To my knowledge no hospital projects, other than perhaps the ones the hon. Member has mentioned-if we adopt a broad interpretation of the term-have been brought forward. Hon. Members, of course, know that the Government of Canada already is assisting in the construction of hospitals under another program administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council wish to make an announcement regarding the business of the House for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will resume the debate on the Budget.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Wednesday. April 28, 1965