1965-05-17

Mr.  A. B. Pailerson@Fraser Valley: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-105, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the explanatory note to the bill, its purpose is to provide for the appearance of the political affiliations or interests of the candidates on the ballot papers used in Federal elections.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the total amount of grants either approved to date, or earmarked for the Atlantic provinces, from the Atlantic Development Board?
2.	What is the breakdown for each of the four provinces?
3.	What is the total number of studies initiated by the Atlantic Development Board to date and how many of the investigations are still under way?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	As of April 23, the total amount of money approved by the Government for the Atlantic Provinces from the Atlantic Development Fund is $59,515,000.
2.	These funds were distributed as follows: Newfoundland, $27,250,000; Prince Edward Island, $1,890,000; Nova Scotia, $6,000,000; New Brunswick, $24,375,000.
The Board has earmarked $20,000,000 for the industrial development program in Nova Scotia.
3.	The Atlantic Development Board has initiated 18 studies, of which 9 are completed.


SPACE LEASED IN OTTAWA OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	Has the government, or any department of the government, made a lease agreement for space in the new office building which is now being erected at the comer of O'Connor and Slater streets?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the rental agreement and how much office space will be occupied?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


REVENUE FROM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE TAXES
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What amount has the federal government received from customs and excise tax since assuming possession of that field?
2.	What part of this amount was received from the Province of Quebec?
3.	What has the federal government received from income tax, corporation tax and estate tax since taking over these tax fields?
4.	What part of these amounts was received from the Province of Quebec during the same period?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The information requested is available, year by year, from the Public Accounts of Canada in the Department of National Revenue Section. Because of the answer to part 2 of this question, this data has not been compiled.
2.	This information is not available.
3.	The information requested is available, year by year, from the Public Accounts of Canada in the Department of National Revenue Section. Also, for data back to 1942 for the personal income tax, see historical tables in Part One of "1964 Taxation Statistics" of the Department of National Revenue and, for data back to the taxation year 1944 for the corporation income tax, see historical tables in Part Two of "1964 Taxation Statistics" of the Department of National Revenue. Because of the answer to part 4 of this question, this data has not been compiled.
4.	This information is not available.


STUDY OF ACCESS THROUGH ALASKA PANHANDLE
Mr. Howard: 1.	With respect to the study being conducted by authorities in Ottawa into the possibilities of access through the Alaska Panhandle as announced

May 17, 1965
Questions
by the Prime Minister on March 16, 1965, what is
(a)	the date upon which the study was commenced
(b)	the names of all positions held by the persons conducting the study, and (c) the estimate of the time required to complete the study?
2.	Will the results of the study be made public and, if so, in what fashion?
3.	By what method was the said study authorized and, if there are any documents relating to the authorization, what is the identification of each such document?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. The preliminary work in connection with the study announced by the Prime Minister in his statement of March 16, 1965, and as explained by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his statement of April 2, 1965, is now under way within the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The objective is the preparation of a review of the current and historic factors to serve as a basis for the work of an appropriately constituted inter-departmental committee.
(a)	Instructions to initiate this study were issued and the departmental study commenced March 4, 1965.
(b)	The Assistant Deputy Minister of National Resources; the Assistant Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs; the Economic Adviser; the Chief of the Engineering Division of the Northern Administration Branch; the Chief of the Resource Management Division of the Resource Development Branch, in consultation, as necessary, with other departments.
(c)	The preliminary study is scheduled for completion early this summer.
2.	The results of the preliminary study will be used exclusively as a basis for an interdepartmental review of the many factors involved in this question.
3.	By direction of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


DOMESTICATION OF MUSK-OX
Mr. Laprise: 1.	For how long, and In what locations, have experiments been going on into the domestication of the musk-ox?
2.	At each of the locations where such experiments are being conducted (a) how many head of stock are there (b) how many births have occurred each year since the experiments began?
3.	How much have these experiments cost so far (a) in Canada (b) elsewhere?
4.	How many pounds of wool, per fleece, can a musk-ox produce?
5.	What is the approximate number of musk-ox living in the wild state in Canada's northland?


Arthur Laing: 1. Experiments in North America on the domestication 
of musk-oxen are being carried out at three localities. An American citizen has a small herd near Huntington Center, Vermont, which he obtained in 1954 and 1955, and a Canadian citizen has had a herd near Ardrossan, Alberta, since 1960. A third domestication experiment was initiated in 1964 under the auspices of the University of Alaska, at College, Alaska.
2.	(a) There are four musk-oxen in the Vermont herd, 19 in the Alberta herd and 23 in the University of Alaska herd, (b) The available information indicates only one calf has survived in the Vermont herd from those born since the capture of the parental stock. The Alberta herd produced one calf in 1962, three in 1963 and four in 1964, all surviving. No calves have yet been reported from the University of Alaska herd.
3.	(a) and (b) Domestication experiments are being carried on by private organizations and no costs to them are available except general statements that such costs are high.
4.	About six pounds of wool are produced annually by an adult musk-ox.
5.	About 10,000 musk-ox exist in the wild state in Canada today.


ADVANCES BY INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH TO BOB JOHN PIERRE
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1964, did one Bob John Pierre of the Finlay River band of Indians receive any assistance from the Indian Affairs branch part or all of which was to be repaid and if so, what are the details surrounding this arrangement?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Certain Indians to be affected by flooding have received compensation for loss of trapping rights which is held in trust for them. They have been encouraged to use these funds to establish themselves in other occupations and to improve their living conditions.
On October 20, 1964, Mr. Bob John Pierre authorized the expenditure of money held in his trap line account to be used for the purchase and transportation of housing materials.


DEDUCTIONS FROM TRAP LINE ACCOUNT OF ALEX JAMES POOLE
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1964, did one Alex James Poole, of the Finlay River band of Indians have any money deducted from his trap line account and if so, how much, when, for what purpose, and under what authority?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes. See following table.
May 17. 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1337
Questions
Date	Purpose	Amount	Authority	January 13, 1964	Advance	$ 60.00	Withdrawal-person	February 19, 1964	Power saw	89.60	Mr.	PooleFebruary 21, 1964	Payment of food for No-	128.38	Mr.	PooleFebruary 24, 1964	vember and December, 1963 and for January, 1964 Part payment of outboard	247.50	Mr.	PooleMay 25, 1964	motor. Balance paid from B.C. special vote Food, clothing, gas, etc.	123.45	Mr.	PooleJune 4, 1964	for April and May 1964 Sewing machine	9.00	Mr.	PooleJuly 6, 1964	Purchase of food and gas	126.75	Mr.	PooleAugust 11, 1964	Advance	25.00	Mr.	PooleAugust 13, 1964	Gas and oil for July 1964	43.00	Mr.	PooleSeptember 10, 1964	Food for August 1964	100.00	Mr.	PooleSeptember 10, 1964	Gas for August 1964	18.00	Mr.	PooleOctober 28, 1964	Food for July 1964	33.63	Mr.	PooleNovember 23, 1964	Freight costs for building materials	27.82	Mr.	PooleNovember 23, 1964	Building materials	290.02	Mr.	PooleFebruary 24, 1965	Hudson's Bay Co.	85.07	Mr.	PooleApril 8, 1965	Repairs to power saw	16.00	Mr.	Poole


DEDUCTIONS FROM TRAP LINE ACCOUNT OF ISIDORE IZONY
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1964, did one Isidore Izony of the Finlay River band of Indians have any money deducted from his trap line account and, if so, how much, when, for what purpose, and under what authority?
2. Was any arrangement made to have Mr. Izony make any payments to the Indian Affairs branch, other than those referred to in part one and, if so, what were those arrangements in detail?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes; see following table.
Date	Purpose	Amount	Authority	February 19, 1964	Power saw	$ 89.60	Mr.	IzonyFebruary 21, 1964	Food from October 1963 to January 1964	347.60	Mr.	IzonyFebruary 28, 1964	Service radio	3.00	Mr.	IzonyApril 13, 1964	Taxi fare	10.00	Mr.	IzonyJuly 6, 1964	Food and gas for June 1964	147.05	Mr.	IzonyAugust 11, 1964	Advance	25.00	Mr.	IzonyNovember 23, 1964	Transportation of building materials	27.82	Mr.	IzonyNovember 23, 1964	Building materials	290.02	Mr.	IzonyDecember 21, 1964	Advance	100.00	Mr.	IzonyApril 28, 1965	Transportation for Izony children	17.40	Mr.	Izony2.	No.


HOUSING DEPOSITS, FINLAY RIVER INDIAN BAND
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1964, did (a) Pete Seymour of the Finlay River band of Indians (b) Francois Isaac of the Finlay River band of Indians make any deposit toward construction or acquisition of a house and, if so, what was the amount of the
deposit in each case and, were any arrangements made for repayment of any part of the cost of the said house and, if so, what are the details of any such arrangements?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes, Mr. Seymour and Mr. Isaac made a deposit of $10 each toward the cost of building materials. These deposits were made

May 17. 1965
Questions
on December 15, 1964, and are being held in the agency trust account. Housing arrangements have not yet been completed.


COST OF COLUMBIA RIVER STUDIES
Mr. Basford: 1.	What was the total engineering and other costs to the Government of Canada on the Columbia River studies leading to the signing of the Columbia River Treaty with the United States?
2.	What was the cost to the Province of British Columbia in the same area of studies?


Arthur Laing: 1. The total of the engineering and other costs incurred by the Government of Canada on the Columbia River studies leading to the signing of the
Columbia River Treaty with the United States is estimated to be $15,000,000 in terms of 1964 dollars.
2.	The Government of Canada does not have a corresponding estimate for costs incurred by the Province of British Columbia in these studies.


CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF B.C. PARKS
Mr. Basford: In each year since 1950, what has been (a) the capital investment (b) maintenance cost, in each of the National Parks located in the Province of British Columbia?


Arthur Laing: Mount Revelstoke and
Glacier National Parks	Operation and Maintenance	Capital1950-51	$ 68,251	$ 20,7611951-52	71,139	5,5671952-53	75,701	19,6921953-54	88,811	25,7071954-55	88,489	56,7461955-56	92,936	91,2761956-57	98,589	88,9081957-58	102,917	56,3321958-59	145,894	107,5461959-60	185,588	379,6431960-61	254,302	705,9251961-62	307,387	1,255,8751962-63	439,968	791,0331963-64	481,228	765,7601964-65 (estimated)	527,273	632,5481965-66 (estimated)	568,994	947,000Yoho National Park	Operation and Maintenance	Capital1950-51	$160,472	$ 71,1421951-52	164,504	86,9321952-53	188,983	78,4291953-54	213,498	154,6681954-55	231,347	164,7881955-56	253,700	95,2511956-57	251,505	197,8791957-58	244,591	163,6171958-59	303,019	371,1921959-60	323,514	665,3151960-61	373,628	636,4171961-62	393,697	498,8001962-63	385,489	464,3471963-64	435,973	256,5861964-65 (estimated)	433,916	246,0371965-66 (estimated)	469,181	324,400

		COMMONS DEBATES	Questions
Kootenay National		Operation and	Capital
	Park	Maintenance	
1950-51	$151,575	$1,438,3811951-52	151,467	495,2031952-53	183,745	399,0031953-54	208,410	134,6441954-55	247,857	256,9111955-56	277,096	337,0621956-57	298,284	2,147,5831957-58	315,148	3,379,1111958-59	379,081	3,697,1121959-60	429,975	3,077,8201960-61	453,098	1,173,4161961-62	457,669	2,089,4831962-63	423,399	1,093,4971963-64	496,715	843,0421964-65	(estimated)	514,690	898,9801965-66	(estimated)	560,504	750,000
Expenditure for the Banff Windermere Highway is included under the capital expenditure, commencing in 1955-56. Capital expenditures for the trans-Canada highway in national parks are not included since they are the responsibility of the Department of Public Works.


STUDIES OF INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PROPOSALS
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What studies have been made by Canada of the international exchange of (a) Jacques Rueffl of France (b) Karl Blessing of West Germany (c) Walter S. Salant of United States?
2.	Has Canada made any analysis of the economic benefit to her, or otherwise, of a modified restoration of the gold standard and, if so, what conclusions have been reached?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Canada has been actively participating in studies and discussions in the International Monetary Fund and in the Group of Ten of a variety of proposals affecting the operation of the international exchange system. Some of these proposals have closely resembled those of Messrs. Rueff, Blessing and Salant. A technical sub-group (the Ossola Group) of the Group of Ten has been making studies of the possibilities with regard to supplementary reserve assets and it is expected to make its report to the Deputies of the Group of Ten in the near future. Canadian representatives are actively participating in the work of this sub-group.
2.	Yes. In a Ministerial statement of the Group of Ten released on the 10th of August, 1964, to which the Government of Canada 22620-87
fully subscribed, it was stated that "in reviewing the functioning of the international monetary system, the Ministers and Governors reaffirmed their conviction that a structure based, as the present is, on fixed exchange rates and the established price of gold, has proved its value as a foundation on which to build for the future". The major contribution to the stability to the international monetary system of the established price of gold was unanimously agreed by the representatives of the Governments which participate in the preparation of the report. Any change from present arrangements toward a closer adherence to a pure gold standard would not be welcomed by Canada.


USE OF BROADCASTING CENTRE AT EXPO '67
Mr. Prittie: What use will be made after the conclusion of Expo '67 of the Broadcasting Centre to be erected in Montreal at the site of the 1967 World Exhibition?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it is intended to use the Centre to relieve the overloaded production facilities of the French and English networks in Montreal pending the completion of the proposed C.B.C. consolidation.


REQUIREMENT FOR SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Mr. Caouette: Is there any existing regulation which requires all Canadian workers to have a social insurance number and, if so, are sanctions or penalties pro-

May 17, 1965
Questions
vided for those who refuse to comply with such regulation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that under section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, persons coming under the Unemployment Insurance Act are required to obtain a social insurance number and penalties are provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act for persons failing to comply.


WINTER WORKS APPLICATIONS, KAMOURASKA COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many applications did the municipalities of Kamouraska County make under the winter works Program in 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	How many of these applications were accepted and what amount was granted to each municipality?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: See attached statement.
Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program Accepted Projects
County Kamouraska-Province of Quebec
Project
Number	Municipality
Que.	300	Andreville, Village	
Que. 381 Kamouraska, Village	
Que.	774	MonpCarmel, without designationQue.	1107	Ste. Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Parish..Que. 25 St. Denis, Parish	Que.	256	St. Gabriel Lallemant, Parish...Que. 2023 Ste. Helene, Parish	Que.	62	St. Joseph, Parish	Que.	1120	St. Louis-de-Kamouraska, Parish.Que.	2260	St. Louis-de-Kamouraska, Parish.Que.	44	St. Onesime d'lxworth, Parish...Que. 2265 St. Pacome, Village	Que. 2284 St. Philippe-de-Neri, Parish	Totals	
Que. 659 Que. 2272 Que. 617 Que. 13 Que. 1827 Que. 1828 Que. 768 Que. 2613 Que. 1514 Que. 2575 Que. 504 Que. 216 Que. 2279 Que. 1123 Que. 239 Que. 675 Que. 1458 Que. 2288 Que. 821 Que. 2674 Que. 2714 Que. 1171 Que. 1176
Andreville, Village	
Andreville, Village	
County Kamouraska	
County Kamouraska	
County Kamouraska	
County Kamouraska	
Kamouraska, Village	
Kamouraska, Village	
Mont Carmel, Without designation
Woodbridge, Township	
St. Alexandre, Parish	
St. Andre, Parish	
St. Andre, Parish	
Ste. Anne-de-la Pocatiere, Parish..
St. Athanase, Parish	
St. Gabriel-Lallemant, Parish.
St. Germain, Parish	
Ste. Helene, Parish	
St. Louis-de-Kamouraska, Parish..
St. Pacome, Parish	
St. Pacome, Village	
St. Pascal, Parish	
St. Pascal, Village	
Totals	
Applications Received and Approved	Claims Paid
	$
. i	989.68
. i	351.10
. i	2,478.45
. i	1,167.22
. i	1,851.79
. i	4,310.50
. i	2,643.04
. i	1,243.84
. i	1,470.35
. i	804.91
. i	490.00
. i	886.12
. i	230.80
. 13	18,917.80
. 1	1,100.18
. 1	2,256.95
. 1	2,681.92
. 1	5,601.45
. 1	14,971.01
. 1	-
. 1	2,351.39
. 1	1,565.54
1	903.53
. 1	8,801.53
. 1	4,412.44
. 1	1,158.33
. 1	897.10
. 1	2,466.53
. 1	9,069.26
. 1	2,499.02
. 1	3,720.87
. 1	3,475.75
. 1	6,666.46
. 1	-
. 1	1,093.02
. 1	3,304.57
. 1	923,57
. 23	79,920.42

May 17, 1965

Questions
Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program Accepted Projects
County Kamouraska-Province of Quebec-(cone.)
Project
Number
Que.	73
Que.	2406
Que.	72
Que.	2439
Que.	543
Que.	199
Que.	2460
Que.	55
Que.	106
Que.	174
Que.	1949
Que.	2523
Que.	1436
Que.	1337
Que.	2157
Que.	533
Que.	1377
Que.	253
Que.	1220
Que.	1911
Que.	2322
Que.	240
Que.	406
Que.	460
Que.	2100
Que.	126
Que.	749
Que.	191
Que.	1286
Municipality
Applications
Received and	Claims
Approved	Paid

Andreville, Village	
Andreville, Village	
Kamouraska, Village	
Kamouraska, Village	
Mont-Carmel, Without designation	
Woodbridge, Township	
Woodbridge, Township	
St. Alexandre, Parish	
St. Andre, Parish	
St. Andre, Parish	
St. Andre, Parish	
St. Andre, Parish	
Ste. Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Parish	
St. Athanase, Without designation	
St. Athanase, Without designation	
St. Denis, Parish	
St. Eleuthere, Without designation	
St. Gabriel-Lallemant, Without designation
Ste. Helene, Parish	
Ste. Helene, Parish	
Ste. Helene, Parish	
St. Joseph-de-Kamouraska, Parish	
St. Louis-de-Kamouraska, Parish	
St. Onesime d'lxworth, Parish	
St. Onesime d'lxworth. Parish	
St. Pacome, Parish	
St. Pacome, Village	
St. Pascal, Village	
St. Pascal, Without designation	
1	1,467.14
(Interim Claim)
1	-
1	3,483.66
(Interim Claim)
1	-
1	-
1	-
1	-
1	5,781.05
(Interim Claim) 1	1,344.00
(Interim Claim) 1	-
1	-
1	-
1	-
1	-
1	1,438.33
(Interim Claim) 1	16,663.91
(Interim Claim) 1	2,833.46
(Interim Claim) 1	6,637,39
1	-
1	-
1	1,484.48
(Interim Claim) 1	4,321.65
(Interim Claim) 1	3,739.14
(Interim Claim) 1	-
1	2,031.66
(Interim Claim) 1	2,780.81
(Interim Claim) 1	3,600.00
(Interim Claim) 1	-
Total
29	57,606.68


WAGES AND SALARIES OF INCOME TAX ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dionne: What was the total expenditure on wages and salaries of civil servants and employees in all categories, investigators and others, of the Income Tax Act administration for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Total for calendar year:	1958,
$28,112,650.73;	1959,	$28,283,210.51;	1960,
$29,794,748.33; 1961, $31,465,898.54; 1962, $31,964,108.86; 1963, $35,187,029.60; 1964, $36,098,786.24
22620-87 )


AIRCRAFT SUPPLIED TO KENNEDY MOUNTAIN CLIMBING PARTY
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Did the Canadian Government or any department of government supply aircraft and/or helicopters to transport Senator Robert Kennedy and his party on his recent visit to Mount Kennedy?
2.	If so, how many round trips were made from Whitehorse to the foot of the mountain and what is the estimated cost thereof to the Canadian Government?
3.	Was a government aircraft despatched from Ottawa to Whitehorse to convey Senator Kennedy's party from Whitehorse to Seattle, Washington and, if so, what is the estimated cost thereof to the Canadian Government including the return trip to Ottawa?

May 17. 1965
Questions


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2.	Two-$1,087.
3.	Yes-$5,545.


SUGAR PRICE CONTROL,
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is the government considering entering into any international arrangement which will in any way freeze, support or control the price of sugar in Canada?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to hold any public hearing or to ask for any submissions from the public in general, from sugar beet growers or from consuming industries?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	As has been mentioned in the House on previous occasions, the Canadian Government continues to support efforts to stabilize world sugar prices through international arrangements. In concert with principal producing and consuming countries, we are working toward a more effective international sugar agreement, one that will afford adequate protection to both consumers and producers.
2.	We have been in close consultation with representatives of Canadian sugar beet producers and refiners and have taken their views into account in any international discussions in which we have participated. We are always pleased to receive submissions from those concerned.


CHANGE IN LOCATION OF TRANSMITTING FACILITIES, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence making plans to move the transmitting facilities presently established at Albro Lake, Dartmouth, to Mill Cove, Lunenburg County and, if so, will the married personnel of this Department be moved to the new site?
2.	Will the Department expect the municipal school board of Chester, Nova Scotia to provide school facilities for the children of married personnel and, if so, approximately how many children will be involved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. It is the intention to move the transmitting facilities at Albro Lake to Bland-ford, N.S. Of those employed by the Department who will be involved in the transfer, it is anticipated that the majority will be married personnel.
2. No decision has been made as to the construction of married quarters for the Blandford installation and until this decision is made the question of school facilities cannot be determined.


MARINE COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, WEST COAST
Mr. Ryan: Does the government plan to provide long-range mobile marine communication facilities on the West Coast of Canada solely for commercial use in the near future?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Present plans provide for long range marine radiotelephone communication facilities being available to handle commercial traffic on the west coast of Canada within the next three months.


HOURLY RATES FOR LABOUR IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
At the present time, what is the hourly rate paid for general labour at the (a) Cape Breton Highlands National Park (b) Banff National Park (c) Elk Island National Park (d) Fundy National Park (e) Georgian Bay Islands National Park (f) Glacier National Park (g) Jasper National Park (h) Kootenay National Park (i) Mount Rev-elstoke National Park (j) Pointe Pelee National Park (k) Prince Albert National Park (1) Prince Edward Island National Park (m) Riding Mountain National Park (n) St. Lawrence Island National Park (o) Terra Nova National Park (p) Waterton Lakes National Park (q) Yoho National Park?


Arthur Laing: (a) Cape Breton Highlands National Park, $1.30; (b) Banff National Park, $1.74; (c) Elk Island National Park, $1.55; (d) Fundy National Park, $1.30; (e) Georgian Bay Islands National Park, $1.40; (f) Glacier National Park, $1.74; (g) Jasper National Park, $1.65; (h) Kootenay National Park, $1.74; (i) Mount Revelstoke National Park, $1.74; (j) Point Pelee National Park, $1.50; (k) Prince Albert National Park, $1.60; (1) Prince Edward Island National Park, $1.10; (m) Riding Mountain National Park, $1.55; (n) St. Lawrence Island National Park, $1.50; (o) Terra Nova National Park, $1.25; (p) Waterton Lakes National Park, $1.65; (g) Yoho National Park, $1.74.


APPEARANCES OF SPECIFIED PERSONS ON C.B.C.
Mr. Loiselle: On how many occasions over the past six months, or since October 1, 1964, have the following appeared on the C.B.C.: Messrs. Marcel Gingras, Clement Brown, Amedee Gaudreault, Marcel P4pin, Jean Charpentier, Benoit Houle, Jean-Pierre Fournier, and Pierre O'Neil on the programs "Com-mentaire", "Aujourd'hui", "Partage du Jour", "Sextant", "Conference de Presse", 'Tour des Ca-pitales" or other broadcasts such as "Viewpoint"?
May 17. 1965



Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of
State): I am informed by the Canadian Broad-
Questions
casting Corporation that between October 1, 1964 and March 31, 1965 the appearances have been as follows:
French	English
Networks	Networks
Name of Participant	Radio	Television	Radio	TelevisionMarcel Gingras	5	1	2	-Clement Brown	8	2	2	-Amedee Gaudreault	-	-	-	-Marcel Pepin	3	-	-	-Jean Charpentier	4	2	-	-Benoit Houle	-	-	-	-Jean-Pierre Fournier	5	3	5	_Pierre O'Neil	1	1	1	2


MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENCES FOR OLDER CITIZENS
Mr. Lalulippe: Can a municipality through the Winter Works Program construct a residence for older citizens and, if so, can the balance of the cost be obtained from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A municipal residence for older citizens can qualify for the federal incentive payment under the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program. Financing of such a municipal project by way of loans would not exclude it from the provisions of the program.
A corporation owned by a municipality can obtain from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a loan for up to 90 per cent of the cost of a residence for older citizens. If the amount of assistance under the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program represents as much as 10 per cent of the cost, the loan would represent the balance.


PARK STEAMSHIP CORPORATION
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	What were the functions of the Park Steamship Corporation on establishment and what are its functions at present?
2.	Where did the name of the Company originate?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows:
1.	In actual practice the functions of Park Steamship Company at the time of its incorporation were the supervision, direction and control of the cargo vessels which were built by the Government for use during World War II. In the years intervening between the end of World War II and the present time, Park
Steamship Company Limited did not engage in active operations and its functions were limited to the administration of matters arising out of its earlier operations.
Arrangements are now under way for winding up the Company and surrendering its charter.
2.	Cargo ships which were assigned to the Company's fleet bore the names of various national and provincial parks in Canada, e.g., Banff Park, Laurentide Park, etc., and from this it is inferred that the name 'Park' was selected as a preliminary to the intended use of the names of such parks as ships' names.


LIBRARIES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the government considered establishing libraries on Indian Reservations for the further education of the Indian population of this country?
2.	If not, has the government considered giving special grants to provincial or municipal authorities to construct or provide special library facilities (mobile or otherwise) for the exclusive use of Treaty Indians on reservations?
3.	If not, will the government consider either proposal?


Hubert Badanai: 1. No.
2.	Yes, a proposal of this nature is under discussion at the present time with the Ontario Provincial authorities.
3.	Answered by (2) above.


DEVELOPMENT OF CARTIER-BREBOEUF PARK, QUEBEC
Mr. Beaule: What are the government's intentions in relation to the development of the Cartier-Breboeuf Park at Quebec and, when will the work begin?

May 17, 1965
Questions


Arthur Laing: The government intends to develop Cartier-Breboeuf as a national historic park commemorating Jacques Cartier and in particular the fact that he and his men, with their vessel La Grande Hermine, over-wintered there in 1535-36.
Work will commence when land transfer arrangements to the federal government are completed.


INDIAN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the 50,549 Indian children attending elementary and secondary schools, how many are attending elementary schools and how many are attending secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending secondary schools?
3.	How many Indian students are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?


Hubert Badanai: 1. During the fiscal year 1964-65 there were a total of 57,265 Indian children attending elementary and secondary schools, and of these 47,014 attended elementary schools, 5,313 attended secondary schools and 4,938 were not graded.
2.	Percentage of Indian students who attended secondary schools, 10.1 per cent.
Percentage of school population in Canada who attended secondary schools, 21.7 per cent.
3.	Universities, 88; others, 44.


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OF INDIAN CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children attend schools, elementary and secondary, and how many of these attend (a) purely Indian schools (b) integrated schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending schools, elementary and secondary, compare with the percentage of the whole population attending elementary and secondary schools?


Hubert Badanai: 1. During the fiscal year 1964-65, 57,265 children attended elementary and secondary schools and of these (a) 32,058 attended Indian schools and (b) 25,207 attended provincial schools.
2.	Percentage of Indian students who attended elementary and secondary schools compared to Indian population, 27 per cent.

Percentage of students in Canada who attended elementary and secondary schools compared to population, 23 per cent.


TRANSFERS OF AIR CANADA EMPLOYEES FROM QUEBEC
Mr. McIntosh: How many employees formerly of Air Canada in the Province of Quebec, have been transferred in the past three months to (a) Toronto (b) elsewhere because they were not bilingual?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Management of Air Canada advise as follows:
No employees have been transferred out of the Province of Quebec by Air Canada on company initiative in the last three months to (a) Toronto or (b) elsewhere, because they were not bilingual.
Twelve flight attendants have been granted transfers out of the Province of Quebec at their own request for personal reasons not inquired into.


CLOSING OF AIR CANADA RESERVATIONS OFFICE, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has Air Canada's reservation office in the City of Quebec been closed and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many persons were employed in this office?
3.	Have these persons been able to go on working for Air Canada in the City of Quebec?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Management of Air Canada advise as follows:
1.	Air Canada continues to maintain a ticket office and a district sales office in Quebec city, but its telephone answering office was closed April 3, 1965, because the establishment of a consolidated office in Montreal was now possible due to improved communications facilities. The system known as "Tel-pak" permits instant connection with the Montreal reservations office through the normal Quebec City telephone system.
The consolidated office provides efficiencies of operation related to staff needs and reservations procedures not possible with two separate installations, and increases service to the public by providing 24-hour coverage. Similar consolidations have taken place in other reservations offices across the system.
2.	18.
3. All were offered employment in Montreal. Nine accepted; one accepted a transfer to Saint John, N.B. Eight single females took laid-off status awaiting recall to other Air
May 17. 1965


INSURANCE PLAN PAYMENTS TO OSTEOPATHS, B.C.
Mr. Groos: 1.	Does the Public Service of Canada Group Medical-Surgical Plan require members resident in British Columbia to consult a medical practitioner for reference to a qualified osteopath before paying insurance benefits under the plan to such osteopaths?
2.	If not, will the government take immediate steps to provide for the recognition by the Group Medical-Surgical Plan of osteopaths in British Columbia who are now recognized as being fully qualified medical practitioners by the provincial authorities of that Province?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Yes.
2.	This is one of a number of matters in connection with this plan which is presently under review by the advisory committee on that plan.
1.	During the 1964-65 fiscal year, how many applications for loans were received under the municipal loan fund from municipal governments in the Province of Manitoba?
2.	How many of these applications have been approved?
3.	What is the total amount of these loans?
4.	What municipal corporations have received loans, and in each case, what is the amount of the loan and for what project?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Forty nine applications were received from the Province of Manitoba in the fiscal year 1964-65 for loans under the Municipal Development and Loan Act.
2.	49.
3.	$10,854,451.
4.	As given in following table.
Loans approved during fiscal year
Amount of
Municipality	Loan
Altona, Town	$ 24,000
Benito, Village	83,267
Birtle, Town	19,333
Blanchard, R.M.	29,467
Boissevain, Town	21,000
Boissevain, Town	40,330
Boissevain, Town	19,000
Boissevain, Town	47,000
Brandon, City	136,640
Charleswood, R.M.	82,600
Flin Flon, Town	150,000
Fort Garry, R.M.	109,500
Fort Garry, R.M.	197,050
Gimli, Town	100,000
Gladstone, Town	36,000
Harrison, R.M.	35,000
Killarney, Town	30,000
Melita, Town	14,667
Miniota, R.M.	22,000
Montcalm, R.M.	48,200
Montcalm, R.M.	112,667
Neepawa, Town	88,000
The Pas, Town	5,600
Portage la Prairie, City	87,333
Portage la Prairie, City	153,000
St. Boniface, City	209,639
St. Boniface, City	58,793
St. Boniface, City	67,266
St. Boniface, City	94,403
1964-65 to Province of Manitoba
Project
Street paving
Water and sewer systems
Water and sewer main extensions
Water and sewer systems
Water tower
Swimming pool
Concrete sidewalks
Street curbing
Sewage pumping station
Administration building
Improvement to water supply system
Storm sewers
Trunk storm sewer
Skating rink extension
Water and sewer main extensions
Sewer system for Newdale
Storm drainage
Administration building and fire hall Sewer system
Water distribution system for Letellier Water and sewer system for St. Jean Baptiste Street paving Street curbing
Railway-highway grade separation Street paving and drainage work Marion street water main Sewer construction Sewer construction Sewer construction
Questions

May 17, 1965
Amount of
Municipality				Loan
St. James,	City	292,000St. Vital,	City	278,433St. Vital,	City	284,100St. Anne, Village	37,000Strathclair	59,332Winkler, Town	30,747Winkler, Town	20,800Winnipeg,	City	1,427,578Winnipeg,	City	403,960Winnipeg,	City	720,130Winnipeg,	City	2,593,217Winnipeg,	City	360,066Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	304,000Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	362,000Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	400,000Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	260,000Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	282,000Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	278,000Winnipeg,	Metropolitan	Corp'n	of	Gtr.	212,000Winnipegosis	127,333

R.M.-Rural Municipality.
Project
Civic centre building Storm sewers
Street paving and storm sewers
Sewer system
Water and sewer systems
Swimming and wading pools
Water and sewer main extensions
Parking garage
New central fire station
Storm sewers
Public safety building
Storm sewers
South Transcona feedermain
St. Boniface-South St. Vital feedermain
Charleswood-Assiniboia feedermain
Feedermain on Wilkes Edgeland
Feedermain on Wilkes and Haney Streets
Feedermain in Assiniboia Modifications to sewer and pumping station
Water and sewer systems


PLACEMENT OFFICERS. INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH
Mr. Orlikow: How many employment placement officers does the Indian Affairs Branch employ in each province?


Hubert Badanai: The establishment of employment placement officers in the Indian Affairs Branch as at May 4, 1965 (with unfilled positions shown in brackets) was as follows: Nova Scotia 2; New Brunswick 1 (1); Quebec 3 (2); Ontario 7 (3); Manitoba 2; Saskatchewan 3 (2); Alberta 3 (3); British Columbia 4 (2).


IMPROVEMENT OF HARBOUR FACILITIES, SELKIRK, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: What plans has the government for improving harbour facilities at Selkirk, Manitoba and when will these be carried out?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: It is planned to clear the silt from the tracks of the repair slip at Selkirk [Mr. Pennell.!
harbour and also to redredge the main part of the slough and the navigation channel at the mouth of the slough. The work will be done this summer.


DREDGING, LIVERPOOL HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to carry out extensive dredging in Liverpool Harbour. Queens County, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what is the amount of money set aside for this purpose?
3.	On what date is it anticipated dredging operations will commence?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Yes.
2.	An amount of $50,000 is provided in Main Estimates 1965-1966 toward harbour improvements, including dredging.
3.	Commencement of the work is dependent on the agreement covering sharing of the cost with the Province of Nova Scotia and a new fish plant company at Liverpool.
May 17. 1965


MICHELE DUCLOS
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has Michele Duclos ever been employed by the Canadian Army Research Council at Valcartier, Quebec and, if so, what were her actual duties and in what department was she working?
2.	How long was she employed and what was her salary?
3.	Has the Minister of National Defence at any time received confidential reports regarding her?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Michele Duclos has worked as typist in the purchasing and supplies section of the Canadian army weapons research and development centre, at Valcartier.
2.	For approximately 8 months; she resigned on February 28, 1958. During that period, her salary was $2,130 per year.
3.	No.


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY OF LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	When does the government plan on re-establishing the survey carried out on Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, from 1957 to 1962, by the Canadian Hydrographic Service?
2.	What portion of Lake Winnipeg has been completed and are the new charts for this area available?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 
STEPS TO COMBAT EROSION, PORT BURWELL, ONT.
Mr. McBain: Is the government installing additional breakwaters at Port Burwell, Elgin County, Ontario, to prevent further serious beach and shore erosion and, if not, what steps are being taken or will be taken to stop this serious erosion?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No. The Department has no responsibility in the prevention of erosion due to natural causes.
Questions


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF CHURCHILL FUNERAL
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the C.B.C. have an arrangement with C.B.S., N.B.C. and C.T.V. regarding the arrangements for the coverage of the Churchill funeral?
2.	Did this arrangement break down when being carried out through any unilateral action on the part of the C.B.C. and, if so, what were the circumstances?
3.	Have there been any discussions with the other parties in the original agreement over the C.B.C. action and, if so, what has been the result?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that:
1.	The C.B.C. has an arrangement with all North American networks regarding the broadcasting of the B.B.C. coverage of the Churchill funeral on two points. First, the C.B.C. offered free access to its transmission of the coverage; and second, the C.B.C. offered space in an R.A.F. aircraft, arranged by the C.B.C., for the fast transfer of tape recordings to North America.
2.	No. The C.B.C. added a second aircraft to its arrangements because of the action of two of the American networks in procuring special private jet aircraft flights to North America in an effort to provide first North American broadcasting of this Commonwealth event. The second R.A.F. aircraft was made necessary because of the long standing and traditional policy of the C.B.C. to provide Canadians and others with the first North American coverage of major Commonwealth events of this nature.
3.	Not so far as the C.B.C. is aware.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, MATHESON ISLAND, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: What plans has the government for Improving harbour facilities at Matheson Island, in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba; what are the estimated costs and when will these improvements be carried out?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is planned to call tenders for the rebuilding of the crib work of the wharf at Matheson Island. The estimated cost is $65,000 and the work is expected to be under way in July.


WHARFAGE IMPROVEMENTS, PORT PHILIP, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What action is contemplated by the Department of Public Works to improve the wharfage facilities at Port Philip, Cumberland County, N.S.?
2.	Are tenders to be called and, if so, when?

May 17, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. The Department intends to improve the existing wharf by placing transverse bracing on the existing pile bents, renew the sheathing on the south side and outer end, replace some bearing piles, level up the outer end of the structure, renew the deck and guard timbers and some ladders, and to instal some mooring rings.
2. Tenders for the above work were called, and closed on April 28,	1965. Contract
awarded to Colin R. MacDonald Ltd. on May 13, 1965.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	How many persons have been engaged, hired or appointed by the bilingualism and biculturalism commission to date?
2.	How many of said persons are engaged in (a) research (b) preparation of briefs, etc?
3.	What are the names of each said person under
(a)	research (b) preparation of briefs, etc., and what are the salaries, payments of honoraria paid or are still due to each of said persons?
Return tabled.


PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS AND STAFF OF B AND B COMMISSION
Mr. Coaies: What is the total amount that has been expended to date, or owing as yet unpaid for, in respect of (a) honoraria, salaries, and pay and allowances
(b)	expenses for (i) each of the commissioners of the bicultural and bilingual commission (ii) of other persons appointed or retained in any capacity since the order in council setting up the said commission was passed?
Return tabled.


DAIRY SUBSIDIES, SHEFFORD, ROUVILLE AND BAGOT COUNTIES, QUE.
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	During the last ten years, what were the various subsidies granted to the dairy industry in the counties of Shefford, Rouville and Bagot (a) for butter storage (b) for transport of butter <c) as subsidy for export (d) for destroyed butter (e) for any other subsidy or grant related to the manufacturing of any dairy product, its sale, storage, or consumption?
2.	To whom were these subsidies paid, and what are the amounts thereof?
Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to rise on a point of order concerning written ques-

tions which have been placed on the order paper by Members for various reasons. In many cases they were directed to do so because of the type of information which is being sought. Any Member placing such question on the order paper, either on instructions or on his own initiative should, because of the urgency attached to them, be answered within 48 hours at most. But if we look over this order paper we find there are some 48 questions which are now six weeks old. There are approximately 11 which are five weeks old and approximately 60 which are three weeks old.
Surely the Government should pay attention to such matters as this if it wishes the oral question period to be shortened, bearing in mind that in certain circumstances a Member has no alternative but to place his question on the order paper. The most flagrant example of delay is provided by the starred questions. A starred question should be answered immediately. But three of these starred questions-Nos. 31, 44 and 65-have been on the order paper for six weeks. Either this situation is due to incompetence, or the Government is deliberately ignoring Members of the House by not answering these questions promptly.
I appeal to the Acting Prime Minister to direct this situation to the attention of his colleagues and bring about an expedition of the business of Parliament by ensuring that these questions are answered far more promptly than they have been up to now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not expect me to agree with the two reasons he gives, but I will have the matter looked into and I am sure we will be able to provide responses.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not know to whom I should direct this question. The Minister of Justice would normally be the Minister concerned, but he is not here. I will therefore direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs acting as Prime Minister.
I would ask him this. Having regard to the espionage activities which involve at least two people and possibly others, would the Acting Prime Minister say whether it is the
May 17, 19G5

intention of the Government to have charges pressed against the wrongdoers? Will the Government remove the veil of mystery surrounding these people and reveal their names? I asked for that the other day, and I ask the Minister now why should they enjoy the immunity of anonymity having allegedly committed an offence and received thousands of dollars unlawfully? Has the Government as yet decided whether a royal commission will be appointed to look into the whole field of espionage, wrongdoing and the ramifications thereof, some of which were left over from 1946 when a second spy ring remained uninvestigated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of reading the exchanges on this matter that took place when I was away. All I can say by way of supplement is that in any matter relating to security, particularly where activities by foreign agents are involved, it is extremely difficult to make information public without incurring the risk of compromising the measures that are constantly being taken to protect the safety and interests of Canada.
So far as the present case is concerned, more information has been given, I believe, than in any security case since 1946. But some aspects of the case are still under investigation. Anything that is said as to procedures or methods of handling such matters reveals information that may be useful to persons who are working against the interests of this country. In this regard I wish to remind the House of the practice it has always accepted in the past, that is to leave it to the administration in each individual case to decide how much information can safely be given in the interests of the country. The Government has come to the conclusion that in this case it must ask for the understanding of the House in declining to give any further information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer must be accepted, irrespective of the fact that it looks like another case of covering up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question on the same matter to the Minister of Justice but, in his absence, I will ask his parliamentary secretary to take it as notice.
Could the minister inform the house if the R.C.M.P. enjoys the full co-operation of all
Inquiries of the Ministry departments and crown corporations with regard to national security?
Can he tell us also if a civil servant knows where to go, either to the R.C.M.P. or to his own department, if he has serious doubts about certain activities of Canadians with representatives from foreign countries?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker,
I will take this question as notice.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to see whether we could not have a full explanation from the Minister of the rather peculiar letter, and the peculiar circumstances that led to its being published, that was exchanged between the Superintendent of the R.C.M.P. and the C.B.C. respecting a "Viewpoint" program last week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring that to the Minister's attention as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of the reports from Santo Domingo by Mr. Knowlton Nash, the correspondent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who claims that the United States troops there have now abandoned all pretext of neutrality and are openly giving military assistance to the military junta by firing upon the constitutional forces, and that the United States Government has made a loan to the military junta. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, if these facts are proven to be accurate, does the Canadian Government intend to launch any protest with the Government of the United States over this unjustified and unwarranted intervention in the affairs of an independent, sovereign nation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, after I have had an opportunity of examining what Mr. Nash has said and what is reported to us, then I shall be in a position to reply to the first part of my hon. friend's question.

May 17, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any representations have been made to the United Nations, by his Department or by the Prime Minister, indicating that in view of their attempts to mediate the situation Canada would give its utmost support to any peace keeping enterprise which was undertaken by that body in an effort to bring about order in the Dominican Republic pending the holding of democratic elections?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary General of the United Nations decided to send observers to the Dominican Republic on behalf of the United Nations I instructed our Ambassador to associate himself at once with this step and to tell the Secretary General that we thought it was a desirable step to take. I may say that earlier in the week I had an opportunity of indicating this very point of view to spokesmen for the Government of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Minister go so far as to indicate that Canada would be willing to accept any responsibility in the event that the United Nations decided to put a force into the Dominican Republic in an attempt to bring about order and to have a democratically elected government put into office?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked me a question somewhat along these lines on Friday. I would reply by saying that Canada, as a member of the United Nations reserves, of course, the right in each case to examine any invitation to participate in United Nations operations, but it is well known that we do not shirk our responsibilities as members of the United Nations. However, one would have to know what was the particular proposal. I am not at this particular moment aware that there is any intention on the part of the United Nations to take the course suggested by my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I take it the answer is no.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.

Would he tell the house whether it is normal for some provincial redistribution committees to report to the press before reporting to the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether it is normal or not, but an answer will be given tomorrow by the Prime Minister himself.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have sent notice of this question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence perhaps I should direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. My question is, considering the good progress being made by the redistribution commissions, does the Government hope that redistribution may prove possible before the next Federal election?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question was passed on to me but I will have to take it as notice.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. However, in his absence, and in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Is it true that the present government intends to appoint shortly a successor to the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Alphonse Ouimet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.



MAINLAND CHINA-INVITATION TO OPEN TRADE OFFICES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the necessity for maintaining access to the large and growing market in mainland China, would the Government now consider inviting the Government of that country to set up a trade office in Canada similar to the ones which have been set up by France, Argentina, Mexico and Chile?
May 17, 1965


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle I am very anxious that Canada should develop its trade relations with communist China to the full. If it is possible for us to establish closer trade relations by means of setting up some trade offices, whether representing the Government or representing some agency of the Government of communist China, I can assure him that this will be done, and that the whole matter of our relations with communist China, both political and economic, are under careful consideration continuously.



REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPER ON INTERNATIONAL, ARRANGEMENTS AND REGIONAL CONFERENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which probably related to the last one, which I wish to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is prompted by an article which appeared in the Friday, May 14 issue of the Globe and Mail which declared that the Kennedy round should now be written off. That article in turn was based on a study by Professor Johnson called "World Economy at the Crossroads".
This whole subject is too wide to permit a general question, because such a question would offend against the rules of this House, but I should like to ask the Minister whether he will consider issuing a white paper on this whole question of international trade arrangements and regional conferences as to the general position and attitude of the Canadian Government, so this subject may be referred to an appropriate committee for consideration and report during this session.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. Member and, I am sure, other Members of this House, I read the article in the Globe and Mail to which he has referred. I also had the opportunity over the week end to look at the paper written by Professor Johnson. I hope I will not offend that very fine newspaper by saying that the heading on the article and the selection which was made from what Professor Johnson said are misleading. Professor Johnson did not say anywhere in his article that the Kennedy round should now be written off. He simply said, quite truthfully, that the original objectives of the Kennedy round have not been possible of realization for several reasons, including the
Inquiries of the Ministry fact that the British were not able to achieve entry into the common market.
As to the question put to me by the hon. Member, I do not know whether it would be desirable to issue a white paper, but I should like to give consideration to the possibility of presenting a report to the House which might be the basis of a subsequent debate.



EXPO '67 INVITATION TO RED CHINA TO PARTICIPATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge of an application being received from the mainland Chinese Government in respect of an exhibit at the World's Fair in Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered a similar question asked a day or two ago by the hon. Member, but perhaps it was posed by one of the other members of his party. No such application has been received. Indeed one would be surprised if it had in view of the fact that under international agreement we would be required to issue an invitation, which we have not done because at the present time we do not recognize the Government of that country.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Since a strike is still going on at the Can-adair plant in Montreal and since that company gets large contracts from the federal government, is the latter now taking steps to solve what promises to be a long drawn out strike in such a way that the employees will get fair treatment from that company which, as I just said, gets so many contracts from the federal government?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour is ready and willing at all times to offer the services of its con-

May 17, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry ciliation officers. When it is requested to do so in this regard I am sure it will be happy to provide those services.
The Minister will be back later this afternoon, and I will bring this specific question to his attention.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Have the government or the federal authorities received to date representations from the union members now on strike at the Canadair plant? Has the government been invited to take part in the discussions or has it suggested a compromise to help the two parties concerned reach an agreement?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the Federal Department of Labour has not been asked to intervene in this particular strike. The hon. Member well knows that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour of the Province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Defence Production?
Could the minister tell us whether, due to the strike now going on at Canadair, the carrying out of contracts of the Department of Defence Production is delayed in a way that might result in serious consequences for the country?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) stated the other day, this has not been the case up to now.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Is it true that certain contracts which Canadair was supposed to carry out have been awarded to sub-contractors merely to allow production to go on, in spite of the absence of its own workers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the daily business of the company normally involves the awarding of sub-contracts. This is what the company has done and will keep on doing.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: My question is for the Minister of National

Defence. Is it a common practice for Canadian soldiers to participate with United States troops in a joint exercise in guerrilla warfare on Canadian soil, as was reported last evening over the C.B.C. from British Columbia?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what exercise my hon. friend is referring since I have not seen this report. However, it is common practice to enter into joint exercises with our allies, including the United States, in many different parts of the continent from time to time.



PREVENTION OF DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I will be very glad to make immediate inquiries.']
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to Colonel the Hon. Acting Prime Minister. If extended an invitation, is the Canadian Government prepared to join a control and inspection scheme to prevent the development of biological weapons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question posed by the honourable and gallant gentleman contains a very worthy objective. I would have to know more about the proposal before I could give a satisfactory reply.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the forthcoming visit of His Excellency Adlai Stevenson, Ambassador and Member of the United States Cabinet. Can he advise whether this distinguished Ambassador and scholar is to be invited to Ottawa, and if so in particular is an opportunity to be given to hon. Members to hear this eloquent spokesman?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I heard that Mr. Stevenson was going to be honoured, and quite properly I thought, by the University of Toronto, with an honorary degree, I suggested to him that he might like to come to Ottawa, and he will be here the following day.
May 17, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1353


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Keeping in mind the Minister's declaration of last Friday concerning the constitutional factors which make possible the signing of agreements between the Provice of Quebec and a foreign power, do other Provinces enjoy similar rights and privileges?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: What I said the other day about a particular Province, would, of course, apply to all the Provinces. There is no doubt about the fact that only the Government of Canada can sign a treaty with a foreign power that is binding in international law.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with a memorandum, copies of which were circulated by the Minister and officials of his department to those who were demonstrating on Parliament Hill on Saturday afternoon, and which purports to be a detailed reply to a pamphlet put out by the Victoria branch of the World Federalists on Viet Nam. I want to ask the Minister, was this memo compiled by the officials of his department or was it supplied to his department either by the officials of the United States Embassy or the United States State Department?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I would have to see the document in question. If my hon. friend would let me have it after I have taken my seat I would be glad to give it immediate consideration.
The replies that I gave on behalf of the Government to the delegation on Saturday were not contained in a document. They were replies that I gave in response to questions that were put to me by members of the delegation-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I need not add that any position the Canadian Government would take would be a position that
Inquiries of the Ministry represented the Government's conclusions and not the conclusions of any other government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I understand this document was given to the head of the delegation, in the presence of the Minister, I thought the Minister would be aware of it. May I ask, will he make inquiries to see whether copies of this memo were circulated and, if so, would the Minister be prepared to table it in the House?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I will be very glad to make immediate inquiries.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Why has there been such a long delay in the P.F.A.A. payments this year? They are usually made around Christmas time, but this year they have been delayed for six months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that usually I would not be hesitant about answering questions having to do with agriculture. However, in this particular instance I think prudence had better be my guide, and I will see that an answer is given tomorrow. It will be one that will satisfy my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember the days when the hon. gentleman was one of the self appointed authorities on agriculture. I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, will he bring to the attention of the peregrinating Minister of Agriculture the serious situation in northern Saskatchewan, where there are areas which have not received their payments which are long overdue?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that no one could have this subject closer to his heart than the Minister of Agriculture. While it is not necessary to bring it to his attention, nevertheless I will do so this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Sometimes we wish his heart were in the House of Commons.

May 17, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



RECOMMENDATIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL CONFERENCE ON SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the very admirable recommendations made by the high school conference studying the problem of smoking over the week end, one of which included the reduction in cigarette advertising, will be acted upon by the Government in the near future.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I expect to receive officially this afternoon the recommendations of the smoking conference, which of course will have the due consideration of my advisory committee, myself and ultimately the Government.



GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES RESPECTING HOLIDAY CELEBRATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like her to put on her earphones so as to understand my question.
Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Does the Department of National Health and Welfare ever give grants to Canadian municipalities for the organization of a playground to celebrate any holiday? For instance, does the federal government or the Department of National Health and Welfare give grants to celebrate holidays such as the first of July, the St. Jean Baptiste or others?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. Member for Red Deer asked a question about income tax refunds for railway employees engaged in the running trades. There is no question of refunds being withheld. In the usual course it may take a little longer
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
to issue refunds where claims are made by transport employees under section 11(7) of the Income Tax Act to permit these claims for expenses to be verified.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, the 10th instant, the hon. Member for Lotbiniere inquired as to the basis of certain newspaper reports of a recent statement by Mr. Gilles Desmarais, President of La Societe St-Jean-Baptiste de Quebec. I understand that among things Mr. Desmarais referred to the programs the Society was undertaking this summer whereby students from all Provinces will be invited to attend summer youth camps sponsored by the Society. The camps were to be in the Province of Quebec.
The Society has requested a grant to help with some of the travelling expenses which the young people coming from other provinces will have to meet. It is my understanding that a large proportion of the expenses incurred by the summer camp will be met by contributions from each of the 125 local chapters of the Society. My department was impressed by the calibre of the program envisaged by the Societe St-Jean-Baptiste de Quebec and the educational experiences that would be provided to the young people involved. Hence the request for financial assistance was approved and a grant of $3,000 was made for this purpose.
I think most hon. Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, are aware that it is the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to assist, through its citizenship branch, a number of projects in the field of citizenship promotion, leadership and training in intergroup relations. That is the purpose for this grant. It is in line with grants made in previous years both by this and previous Governments.
A further question was asked by the hon. Member for Lotbiniere as to whether there was any consultation between the Federal Government and Quebec's new Directorate of Immigration before the grant was made. As can be seen from my explanation it was not necessary to consult with the immigration service of the Province of Quebec in such
May 17* 1965

matters, and there was in fact no such consultation before the grant was made.



ABSENCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I would ask him whether the absence of over half the Cabinet is so designed to cut down on the question period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was the intention, but obviously it would be one way.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of Bill No. C-104, to amend the National Housing Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Howard.
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as some hon. Members may recall, I rose to speak on the amendment just before five o'clock on Friday, and at that time I had no real opportunity to put forward my views in depth as to the merits of the amendment. But since hon. Members have had the week end to meditate upon the amendment which, as they will recall, provides that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be read this day six months hence, I think I need add little to my argument before suggesting we vote on it, and I feel sure most hon. Members will wish to support it.
I suggest that in our view, and in the view of those who in times past have expressed the desire that some reforms be made to the other place, the bill does so little that it is not really worth our support. That was one of the reasons I was urging hon. Members on
Division
Friday to support the amendment moved by my colleague from Skeena.
Before sitting down I would like to add a few words to indicate why, in my opinion, in western Canada there is less interest in and desire for the preservation of the Senate, and even for the attempt to improve and reform it, than apparently is the case in some other parts of the country. The main reason for this is quite apart from those advanced by the hon. Member for Skeena, when he suggested that the Liberal Party, and to a certain extent the Conservative Party, appear to have a built in interest in the perpetuation of the Senate.
In my view the reason there is so little interest in western Canada in the preservation or reform of the Senate is that it is not representative in any full measure of present day western Canada. Most of us are aware that the Senate, as it is presently constituted, has 24 members from Ontario, 24 from Quebec, 24 from three Maritime provinces, and only 24 from the four western provinces. So far as we who live in western Canada are concerned, over the years the Senate has become increasingly an unrepresentative institution, even taking into account the appointment from time to time of persons from western Canada and their ability as individuals to represent that part of the country.
The bill introduced by the Government does not even hint that anything should be done to rectify this imbalance in the membership of the Senate, and that is one of the reasons I wish to express my view on how futile the Government's proposal is by supporting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Skeena.
With those few additional remarks I will resume my seat, and if there are no others who wish to express their views I shall be happy to vote on the motion we have before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.

On clause 1-Tenure of place in Senate.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the President of the Privy Council, with his usual methodical and detailed way of doing things has undoubtedly counted noses in the Senate and can tell us right to the last man or woman how many members of the Senate are at the present time over the age of 75 years, so we can get some idea of the number of Senators there now who might be eligible for this free donation of $8,000 a year.
Second, can he give us any indication how many of that number have intimated to him that they will take advantage of this $8,000 gift and thus retire, or how many would he guess would take advantage of it?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the first question is 36. The answer to the second question must be nothing more than a guess, because I have not had any authority to approach the members of the other place to ask them this hypothetical question, nor did I do so. However, I have reason to believe-and this is only a guess-that a very substantial part of them will take advantage of this step.
The third thing I think I must say is that the $8,000 of which the hon. Member speaks is not a gift. As he knows, these men were appointed to the Senate with every expectation and belief that they were entitled to retain that office for life.


Frank Howard: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, it is a gift and that is all there is to it.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps you do not believe in severance pay.


Frank Howard: Someone says it maybe I do not believe in severance pay. The principles applicable to severance pay and those in connection with this sort of donation are two different things indeed.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Frank Howard: I would be happy to support any legislation the Government might introduce to provide such severance pay for employees in private industry any time they want to do so, if that is what hon. Members are muttering about.
This point, Mr. Chairman, is rather clear. If there are 36 members of the Senate over the age of 75 at the moment, and it is expected that a substantial number of them will take advantage of this severance pay, which some members of the Liberal Party
May 17. 1965	COMMONS
call a pension, then this is the position. For sake of a round figure let us suppose for the purposes of this discussion that 30 members of the Senate over the age of 75 take advantage of this legislation. This simply means that the Government is asking us to dig into the taxpayers' pockets to the extent of $240,000 per year from now on. That only applies to that substantial number we are talking about who might be expected to take advantage of the benefits of this bill. In addition, of course, there are all those there now who, it can be assumed, at some time in the future will reach age 75 and will also take advantage of these benefits.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
What I should like to point out at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that the President of the Privy Council by his answer has fortified our original reason why this bill should not receive passage, and particularly why we should not adopt the clause now before us. His answer also fortifies the reason why we should not adopt any bill which would in effect give an $8,000 per year gift to individuals who have not contributed and will not, nor will be able to, contribute toward a pension plan which will involve a $240,000 per year contribution by the taxpayers to the members of that other place. That is just too high a price to ask the taxpayers to pay as a result of the passage of this bill.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, just before this clause is carried I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could tell the House whether the points I raised on first reading have been considered by the Government. I believe I made quite a pitch to the House as to why the Yukon and Northwest Territories should have some representation in that section of Parliament which to date has not had any representation from either of those two areas.
I do not wish to repeat the entire case I made, but I should like to think, as a backbencher on the opposition side, that I will receive some kind of an answer from the Government in this regard. The Government is dedicated to getting on with the business of Parliament and, as a backbencher, I should like to believe that any suggestions I make are given consideration before being thrown out the door completely.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member's speech was not thrown out the door by any means. The subject raised by the hon. Member, involving an amendment to the constitution, is not covered by this bill. His
DEBATES	1357
Retirement Age for Senators suggestion was related to the total size of the Senate as provided by the constitution, with so many from each geographical area. The hon. Member referred to an omission or inconsistency in this regard so far as the Yukon and Northwest Territories are concerned, and I should like to assure him that consideration has been given to the points raised by the hon. Member.
In view of the fact that any change such as that suggested by the hon. Member would affect the whole balance of provincial representation comprising that body, it was thought that it would be better to proceed with this bill without attempting to deal with that problem by way of this bill. The point raised by the hon. gentleman is receiving consideration.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Before this clause carries, would the President of the Privy Council in all fairness give some indication of what the Government proposes to do in this regard? Surely at this time when radical surgery is being suggested by my friends to the left, or even a limitation as to the age of the members of the other place is being proposed, it would be logical for the Government to give some indication of its plans in relation to Senate representation. I am sure if the President of the Privy Council gave such an indication to this committee it would be very helpful.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council wants to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for the Northwest Territories, but I respectfully suggest to hon. Members that a discussion of the representation of the Yukon and Northwest Territories at this stage is beyond the terms of the present bill, and certainly beyond the terms of the clause now before the committee.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, there is one aspect of what we are doing with which I do not disagree but in respect of which I think we should at least take note, and I refer to the fact that we are, by passing clause 1, amending the constitution. We are doing this, of course, under the provisions of section 91(1) of the British North America Act, as adopted in 1949 through the process of sending a resolution to Westminster, and so on.
The Government is aware that our opposition to this bill has been primarily based on our belief that it is a delusion to call this a measure of reform, and because we do not like the pension provisions in respect of those now in the Senate as set out in the bill.
1358	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators I am conscious of the fact that there have been handed around to us in the last few minutes some draft amendments, which I understand will be before us when we reach consideration of part III, but I wonder whether note should not be made of the fact that we do not have to wait for the Fulton-Favreau formula or any other complicated device, because we have available a very simple method of amending the constitution.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can elicit a comment from the President of the Privy Council by posing this question. Have there been any other instances since 1949 when we amended our basic constitution simply by passing a section or two of another bill? Usually when we desire to amend the constitution we have a bill proposing an amendment to the British North America Act. In this case we have a bill which is entitled "An Act to Make Provision for the Retirement of Members of the Senate". But tucked into it we have one or two clauses which have a profound effect in the sense that they amend the British North America Act, the basic constitution of this country.
I am sure the President of the Privy Council is trying to obtain the answer to my question in the approved manner. My simple question is, has this been done before in this way?


George James McIlraith: Just as an example, let me refer to the fiscal arrangements legislation which was done in this way. That is one example of the constitution being amended in a way other than by a separate constitutional amendment bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether any steps are being taken apart from the consolidation of the statutes, which takes place ordinarily every 15 or 20 years, to put the British North America Act all in one piece? Incidentally, a consolidation is taking place at this time, but it does seem to me that we ought to have available, without having to wait for a decennial or 20 year consolidation, the British North America Act as it stands, all in one piece.
I know that Dr. Ollivier publishes a very useful book from time to time in which he does bring that act up to date, over his signature, but is there not some way by which a person wanting to know about the constitution can obtain it all in one piece?


George James McIlraith: I have always used a consolidation of the B.N.A. Act. I do not know whether one is available at the moment or how it is put out by the Bureau, but it is quite common in respect of any act to receive

DEBATES	May 17. 1965
requests for consolidated copies. I am sure there is a practice on the part of the printing office to provide office consolidations of any act that is amended from time to time, so that a member of the public asking for a copy of the act will receive in one pamphlet the act plus the amendments up to date. I know this has been done from time to time in respect of the B.N.A. Act, but I cannot say whether there is a consolidated copy in an up to date form available at this time. I know from personal experience in using a consolidated office copy of the B.N.A. Act that this practice has been followed in the past.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I think I know the hard, strict, legal and constitutional position, but since in effect the passage of this bill could change the character of representation from the various provinces in the Upper Chamber, I should like to know whether any consultation has been held with them in respect of this area of proliferation of Dominion-Provincial discussions. I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether the Provinces have, directly or otherwise, been consulted on this? One could conceive of a province waking up some day and finding itself with quite a slate of new Senators.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman, the position is very clear under section 91(1) of the British North America Act that this Parliament has the authority to do this. As a matter of interest, under the Fulton-Favreau formula, as approved by representatives from all the provinces, there is no change proposed in this respect in this matter.


Mr. Fairweather:: Does the Minister mean that if the formula, the amending formula, is accepted by the provinces and by Canada, that the change involved in the retirement of Senators at 75 would not have had to be approved by the provinces?


George James McIlraith: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask a question on clause 3, and perhaps I will still ask it, although I suppose I have the answer in the amending document, a copy of which has recently come to my desk. However, this document is not before all Members as yet. My question was to be put in these terms: Has the Government considered bringing under the provisions of the Mem-
May 17, 1965	COMMONS
bers of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, not only those Senators who are to be appointed after this bill becomes law, but also those Senators who are now in the other place?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and when we come to Part III of the bill I will propose an amendment that will deal with this point. It will give those Members of the Senate who have not yet attained the age of 75 years an opportunity to decide whether they will come under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, or whether they will continue as they are. All the Senators remaining in the Senate, whether appointed before or after the passage of this bill, will have to pay 6 per cent of their salary either toward the Retiring Allowances Act fund, if they choose to come under that Act, or are new Senators appointed after the passage of this bill; or in the other case, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, if they are Senators now in the Senate and they do not choose to come under this Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. I will have these precise amendments put forward under Part III.
If it would be of interest to some Members, I have some more copies of these amendments. I have sent some to the leaders of various groups, but if any Members want additional copies I have some here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, Mr. Chairman, we will deal with the question of Senators who are now in the other place when we get to Part III, in other words clause 13 to the end of the bill. At this point, so far as Part II is concerned, namely, clauses 3 to 12 inclusive, all we are doing is bringing Senators appointed in the future under the provisions of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I have one question and perhaps the Minister can clear it up. I am speaking from memory, but as I recall, when the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was amended last it gave Members of Parliament who were then Members certain additional privileges, but previous Members of Parliament who were not at that time still Members could not benefit from these amendments. If someone who was in that position were in the future appointed
DEBATES	1359
Retirement Age for Senators to the Senate, would he then be able to receive all the benefits that he would have received had he been a Member of Parliament at the last amending of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act?


George James McIlraith: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that the answer is yes but I think the President of the Privy Council should have gone one step farther. As I read the legislation, the provision gives the person to be appointed in the future to the Senate no advantage over a person who comes back to this House of Commons. As the Act now stands a former Member of the House who is not here now, if he comes back again by election, within one year after coming back can pick up his past service. So, all we are doing is giving to a Senator who may be appointed in the future the same right a Member of Parliament would have if he came back to this House?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is a correct way of explaining the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Election to contribute in
respect of previous sessions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I assume that in clauses 6 and 7 we are just putting into print the dates that became the operative dates because of certain royal assents, proclamations and so on?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Senator defined.
George James McIlraith: Now, Mr. Chairman, at this point I want to explain the changes proposed here. It will be necessary, after I have made my explanation, that we have the resolution stage preceding the amendment I am going to explain, because the amendment is wider than the terms used in the resolution preceding second reading of the bill. I think that will become apparent from my remarks, but I wanted to make it clear now so hon. Members would know the procedure I propose to follow.
Now in the amendments we propose, first of all, a change to clause 13 defining "Senator" for the purpose of this Part. Senators, for the purpose of this Part, will mean persons who were summoned to the Senate be-
May 17. 1965

Retirement Age for Senators fore the coming into force of this Act but will not include a person who has made an election pursuant to Section 14, hatt is, present Senators who have not reached the age of 75. It will include some of them and not include others, depending on the election that they may make and with which I am going to deal in a moment when we propose a change to another section.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In the new clause 14 which we are proposing it is intended to deal with those Senators who have not attained the age of 75 years when the bill comes into force. This group are given an opportunity, within one year from the coming into force of the bill, to have this part of it not apply to them. If this part does apply to them they will be treated exactly as is proposed in the bill as it presently stands, but if they elect not to have the new part we are proposing apply to them -if they make that choice-they will contribute 6 per cent of their salaries under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and will come under that Act in all respects as do members of this House, with all the rights, benefits and burdens involved, and they will retire on attaining the age of 75 years.
Those others, whom I said a moment ago may choose to come under the new part III, will have to pay 6 per cent of their salaries into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and they will have a right on attaining the age of 75, within a year, to retire and draw the annuity of $8,000 per year, or two thirds of their indemnity, regardless of how long they have contributed the 6 per cent to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In other words, that group would not come under the Retiring Allowances Act at any time but would have to contribute 6 per cent of their salaries, so that there would be no Senators in the other place who would not contribute 6 per cent of their salaries.
In one case one group will come under the Retiring Allowances Act and the other group, who do not choose to carry on in that way, will simply contribute that 6 per cent to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It will be a matter of balance and judgment for those Senators who have been appointed for life, and have not attained the age of 75 years, to choose which action they will take in each individual case.
Having given that bit of preliminary explanation I was going to suggest, if it is agreeable to the Committee-and I think it is the best procedure-that we rise and report progress for the purpose of going into com-

mittee of the whole House so that we may introduce the necessary resolution to permit the amendments to be put forward formally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we certainly would have no objection to this course being followed. In fact, in view of the amendments that are being proposed it seems obvious we will have to have another money resolution, since the one that preceded the bill did not go far enough to cover the proposed changes. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words while I am on my feet.
As the Government knows, one of the main criticisms we directed against Bill C-98, when it was first introduced, was the fact that it provided pretty generous pensions for quite a few people in the Senate, pensions for which they were not being required to pay one nickel. We complained in particular about the fact that the younger members of the other House, those now in their forties and fifties, would be able to stay there for the next 20 or 25 years, pay nothing into a pension fund, and yet draw a pension if they wished to do so at age 75.
Without changing by one iota the general position we take with respect to the Senate- that is pretty well known, we think it should be abolished-we welcome the fact that our protests about this appear to have been met in the amendments the Government is now proposing, and we would be quite willing to let the committee rise and have the House deal with the appropriate resolution. There are some detailed questions I would like to ask about some of the clauses in the amended version which we will get a little later, but these can wait.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to amend Bill C-98, now before the House, to provide, in the case of persons appointed to the Senate before the coming into force of the said bill, for the making of contributions by such persons under Part III of the said bill equal to six per cent of their sessions 1 indemnities; for the granting of annuities to any such persons who have attained seventy-five years of age if they resign their places in the Senate within one year of attaining that age or within one year of the coming into force of the said bill if they have already attained that age; and for the making of elections by any such persons who have not attained seventy-five years of age to be treated, for retirement and pension purposes, as though they had been appointed to the Senate immediately after the coming into force of the said bill.
May 17, 1965


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you should ask if there is unanimous consent to do this without notice. So far as we are concerned there is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Before the house goes into committee to consider this amendment I wonder whether it would be possible to obtain a copy of it in French. Since this amendment is rather complicated we would like to have it in our language.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had sent copies in the French language to the House leader of the hon. Member's party, and I sent a copy of the resolution in French to the hon. Member just a moment ago.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting example of the care we are going to have to take when another resolution comes before the House, namely the one dealing with the reform of parliamentary procedures, and I say that with every respect for that resolution and for this one. Here is a rather fundamental change being made, and if the House had accepted an allocation of time we might be in quite a serious position. I hope when the other resolution is considered some account will be taken-indeed it will have to be-of circumstances when amendments are proposed in this manner, as is done in the British House.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Yes. I do not want to debate the other resolution, now; it is not before the House. But if the hon. Member would check his Standing Orders he would find he was fully protected on this resolution. Full notice is required. That is the technical position. He is quite right in saying there is a requirement for notice.

Retirement Age for Senators


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to hon. Members that they are now getting involved in the discussion of a point which is not relevant to the resolution before us now. I understand the point raised by the hon. Member-that this is the kind of difficulty which might arise and which should be taken into account by the Committee or by the House in connection with a resolution amending our Standing Orders, to be discussed at a later date. But it is certainly not relevant to the particular resolution we are discussing now and I suggest that, having made his point, the hon. Member should not pursue the argument further.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not think my hon. friend was trying to debate this matter. He was seizing the opportunity to file a caveat which no doubt he will develop when the other resolution is before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one reservation about this resolution. I will merely state it now and argue it when we get to the new clause 14 subclause (2). My reservation relates to the last part of the resolution which says that for retirement pension purposes certain Senators are to be treated "as though they had been appointed to the Senate immediately after the coming into force of the said bill." If I understand the position correctly, its purpose is to prevent Senators over there now from paying for any past service. It will make it possible for them to pay from now on, -but it will not require them, indeed it will prevent them from paying for any past service even though at the age of 75 they will get an $8,000 pension. I find this inconsistent with the position the Minister took in connection with Part I where he said Senators would not be treated differently from Members of this House.
As I said a few moments ago, I will not argue the matter now; I shall do that when we get back into committee on the bill.


George James McIlraith: I will not quibble over the words the hon. Member has used. It is not intended to enable Senators to pick up past service in the Senate. However, it will enable them to pick up past service in the House of Commons, which is precisely the right which Members of this place have. I do not know whether my language was correct a few minutes ago or not. I respectfully submit that it was entirely correct. Whether this was, or was not, the case, those are the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the point is before us now, may I put it in the form of a question to the
May 17. 1965

Retirement Age for Senators President of the Privy Council? Let us consider the case of a Senator who never was in this House.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody says "shame". I hope that interruption is caught. I think some of those who were in this House and who are now over there would give their eye teeth to he back here.
Let us take the case of a Senator who was never a Member of this House. He is under the age of 75. Is he, by this wording, treated for retirement pension purposes as though he had not been in the Senate prior to the passage of this Act? In other words, does he not have the duty or the right to pick up his earlier service in the other place?


George James McIlraith: He has no right to elect to pay for his prior service in the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Par be it from me to plead for a right for the Senators but if we are to have things equal as between the two Houses, why not go all the way? My more serious question is this: What is his relation to the $8,000 he could get by retiring at the age of 75?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, but I did not hear the latter part of that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take the case of a Senator who has made the election set out in this resolution, who is 65 years of age; he pays from 65 to 75; he does not buy an $8,000 pension; in 10 years he would buy only a $3,000 pension. What is his relation to the $8,000 pension? Is he free to elect it and get the whole of it?


George James McIlraith: No. By making his election he can take either one or the other within a year of the coming into force of the Act. He can decide which one of the two schemes he wishes to join. In the example given by the hon. Member, while it is true that the Senator referred to would get a much smaller pension on retirement at 75 he would have certain other rights which the other people would not enjoy. For instance, if he happened to die in office, all his contributions would be returned. If he left a widow, the widow would have a pension based on the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. But if he did not come under the terms of the retiring allowances measure there would be no return of contributions and no provision would be made for the widow.
Thus it would be a matter of evaluation, in this particular case, as to whether the smaller amount of $3,000 a year mentioned in the example would be more valuable than the other amount of $8,000. It is a matter of balancing the probabilities and deciding which of the two schemes seems the more desirable to a particular Senator.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I can make clearer the point which concerns me if I give another example. I can understand that the Senator who is 65, particularly if he has a wife, may decide it is better for him to qualify for benefit under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act with the prospect of the pension amounting to only $3,000, which he would pay for, rather than make the other choice. If he did that he would still have to pay 6 per cent and at the age of 75 he would get $8,000 pension, but he would lose the other rights to which the Minister referred.
Take the case of a 65 year old Senator who is a bachelor or a widower. He is faced at this point with the prospect of having to pay 6 per cent of his indemnity one way or the other. In 10 years, if he joins our pension fund, he will have a pension of $3,000. If he does not join it, then in 10 years he will have a pension of $8,000. In either case, he pays the same amount. So far as survivor benefits are concerned, the chances are that he would choose the one that provides the best potential return for him. If that same Senator were in a position of having to pay for his past service, or being permitted to pay for his past service, it might produce quite a different situation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
My basic concern about this is the question as to why the Government does not go all the way and put the Senators in the same position in relation to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act that it put the Members of this House. There was no such provision as this in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, namely that Members could not pay for their earlier service. It was voluntary; it was up to them. But you are saying to the Senators, "So far as the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is concerned, you have no rights or no obligations prior to the date this Act was passed".


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think there are two points arising out of the hon. Member's remarks that require clarification. One is that when this pension legislation was

May 17, 1965	COMMONS
passed and made applicable to the Members of the House of Commons it was not made, in a compulsory way, retroactive to Members of the House of Commons, and I think it would be quite unfair to extend that provision, that retroactive charge, on the indemnities of Senators in a way that was never done to the Members of the House of Commons. Also, Mr. Chairman, I think that would be objectionable on other grounds. There is the other point-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the Minister leaves that, if I read the legislation correctly, it is not even being made voluntary for the Senators, as it was for us.


George James McIlraith: That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, and I was coming to another point when the interjection was made. In the example the hon. Member was trying to use for his particular case, it would become quite impossible mathematically, I think he will agree1 if he works it out, for the older Senator in those circumstances to pick up sufficient credit to provide himself with a retiring allowance that would be anything comparable to his rate of indemnity at the present time.
1 think if the hon. Member will carefully try to work out the examples he can think of with the balance of probabilities, he will find that the amendments now proposed more nearly come to meeting the situation where we have all Senators contributing the 6 per cent, and the closest approximation to which you can come in a practicable way to what is fair in comparison with what was done with the House of Commons, bearing in mind that of the Senators who will be there after the Act comes into force a large number were appointed on the basis of having an expectancy of holding office for life.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill No. C-98, to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate.
On clause 13-"Senator" defined.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I believe hon. Members have the working sheet before them. I would move that clause 13 be struck out and the following substituted therefor. Perhaps I should move them all together. Would it be more convenient to move all the amendments to clauses 13 to 16?


Lucien Lamoureux: By consent, is it agreed?
DEBATES	1363
Retirement Age for Senators


George James McIlraith: I will do whatever hon. Members wish, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, could not we have consent to substitute, for the purposes of the Bill, the new clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 for the ones that are now in the bill, and then take them one at a time?


George James McIlraith: That is quite an agreeable practice, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps also by consent, Mr. Chairman, the document could be inserted in Hansard at this point so that it will be clear what we are talking about.


Lucien Lamoureux: The suggestion of the hon. Member is that the proposed amendments to clauses 13 to 18 be now placed before the
Committee for consideration.


George James McIlraith: And printed in Hansard, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: And printed in Hansard; and each clause will be called separately. Is clause 13 as amended agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Editor's note: The clauses in substitution referred to above are as follows:]
Senator defined. ,	.,
13.	In this Part, "Senator" means a person who
was summoned to the Senate before the coming into force of this Act, but does not include a persori who .has made an .election pursuant to section 14,	.	.. - .:	. ,
Election.
14.	(1) A person who was summoned to the Senate before the coming into force .of this Act and who has hot attained the age of seventy-five years may, in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, elect, within one year from the coming into force of this Act, not to have this Part apply to him.
Effect of. election.
(2) Where a person has made an election pursuant to this section, he shall be deemed, for the purposes of section 29 of the British North America Act, 1867 and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act except section 15 thereof, to have been summoned to the Senate immediately after the coming into force of this Act.
Annuity where Senator resigns.
15.	The Governor in Council may grant to a Senator
(a)	Who has attained the age of seventy-five years, if he resigns his place in the Senate within one year from the day he attained that age, or within one year from the coming into force of this Act if at the time of the coming into force of this Act he had already attained that age, or
(b)	who has become afflicted with some permanent infirmity disabling him from the due performance of his duties in the Senate, if he resigns his place in the Senate, an annuity equal to two-
1364	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators thirds of his sessional indemnity, to commence at the time his resignation takes effect and to continue during his natural life.
Annuity to widow
16.	(1) Where a person who was granted an annuity under section 15 dies, the Governor in Council may grant to his widow an annuity equal to one-third of the annuity granted to him, to commence immediately after his death and to continue during her natural life.
Remarriage of widow.
(2)	An annuity granted to a widow under this section shall cease on her remarriage.
Marriage after resignation.
(3)	No annuity shall be granted under this section to the widow of a person who was granted an annuity under section 15 if the widow married such person after he resigned his place in the Senate.
Contributions.
17.	(1) Subject to subsection (2) a Senator shall, by reservation from his sessional indemnity, contribute to the Consolidated Revenue Fund six per cent of the amount payable to him by way of sessional indemnity.
Limitation.
(2) No Senator shall contribute to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as required by subsection (1) after he as contributed to the said Fund as required by that subsection in respect of a period of twenty-six and two-thirds years.
Payment out of C.R.F.
18.	All annuities payable under this Part shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
On clause 14-Election.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 14 gets at the point we were discussing when we were in Committee on the resolution. It is one of two clauses in this amended version wherein I think we are departing from the principle of treating Members of both Houses alike in respect of pension and retirement matters. The last defence the Minister gave for this proposal was that some Senators would not have enough past service to provide for themselves a large enough pension to make it worth their while retiring. Of course, this is the problem of some Members of Parliament, too, and it is the problem of many Canadians; namely, to be able to provide for themselves an adequate pension.
I am not going into all of that matter at this point, much as I would like to; I would like to compare these pensions with what we are doing in the old age pension field generally.
But it does seem to me that it is wrong in principle to make a distinct difference between Members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate in this respect. When we brought in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act we said to
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	May 17, 1965
the Members of this House of Commons that if they wished to do so, they could cover their past service. We are now saying to the members of the other place, "You cannot cover your past service, whether you want to or not". Of course, the effect of that with some Senators will be for them to stay away from the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; they are going to elect to take the free pension of $8,000 at age 75. I qualify the word "free" now because they are going to have to pay 6 per cent to the Consolidated Revenue Fund; but 6 per cent paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund buys a Senator now at age 65 a pension of $8,000 a year at age 75; whereas 6 per cent paid into the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act in the same case buys only a $3,000 pension-and many of them at 65 have many years of past service.
I think it is wrong in principle to create this difference between the Members of the two Houses. I also believe it will have the effect of inducing Senators not to elect under the Retiring Allowances Act but rather to elect the $8,000 pension.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I believe the simple answer is that the difference between Senators on appointment and Members of the House of Commons on election is not created by this bill. The difference of which the hon. Member speaks is really created by the fact that when an hon. Member is elected to this House he is elected with the certainty that his term of appoinment will not exceed five years. Then he may or may not submit himself to the electorate at the next general election. If he does, he may or may not be re-elected. On the other hand, when a Senator is summoned to the Senate he is summoned on an appointment for life with the fixed expectancy of holding his office in the other place. That is where the real difference lies. Therefore, because of that fundamental difference there is no way in which Members appointed in the past to the other place and Members elected to this place can be brought into identical relationship for the purpose of pensions benefits.
That being the case, it is then a matter of trying to work out what is the most equitable and fair way of dealing with the subject, so as to get a benefit which will try to keep as even a balance as can be kept between the Members of the House of Commons, newly appointed members of the Senate and members of the Senate appointed prior to
May 17. 1965

this date who have not yet attained the age 75 years. That is the nature of the problem and that is what we have sought to achieve in these amendments being offered to the Committee at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 15-Annuity where Senator resigns.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is it clear from clause 15 as amended that the wide choice that was given to the Senators in the earlier version of the bill is now removed? As the earlier version of the bill read, it seemed to be fairly clear that a Senator at age 75 could take a pension then or he could stay another five years in the Senate and then take his pension. He had all kinds of choices. I take it that now a Senator who is 75 years or over must make his decision within one year whether he is going to retire with the $8,000 pension; and that a Senator under 75 must make it within one year after he reaches the age of 75. Do I take it that the latitude has been narrowed and that now the choice is very restricted?


George James McIlraith: Those Senators who are now in the Senate, who are not yet 75 years of age and who do not come under the Retiring Allowances Act must make their choice within one year on becoming 75 years of age. Those Senators who are now 75 years must make their choice within one year of passage of this bill; otherwise they have no right to the annuity at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may apply my question to both clauses 15 and 14, this requirement to elect within one year works both ways.


George James McIlraith: Exactly what is meant; that it works both ways?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Senators who are there now must decide within one year, no matter what their age, under which provision they are going to come?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is substantially correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-Contributions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Walker:: You will have to take a Senate appointment then.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: That is what we should do; put him in there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can assure my hon. friends in both of the old parties that they cannot get rid of me that way.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Don't be so sure.


Michael Starr: If it was offered he would take it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you have any doubt try it, and I will soon tell you what the answer will be.


Michael Starr: We cannot take that chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act as it was prior to 1963 there was a provision that a Member was to stop paying into the fund after he had paid in the total amount necessary to buy the full pension. That was pursuant to section 9, (1) (a) of the act. When the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was amended in 1963, clause 9 of Bill No. C-91 of that session repealed that particular section. So as the law now stands it takes 30 years for a Member of Parliament to pay enough to reach full pension. That is, 30 years at today's rates; it takes about 40 years for some of us who were here 20 years ago. Nevertheless, if he does pay in the full amount he has to go on paying. This is, of course, hypothetical; not many are likely to stay around that long. But why is there this difference? Why should

May 17, 1965
Penitentiaries Committee the Member of Parliament go on paying even after he has paid enough for full pension, while to the Senator we say that after he has paid for his full pension he can stop making further payments?


George James McIlraith: The reason for the difference is that in the case of the Senator who comes under this provision, he has no rights in the meantime, whereas the Members of the House of Commons have rights under the Retiring Allowances Act. For instance, their widows have rights and there is a right of contribution starting from an early stage in the 30 year period or 40 year period, as the case may be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might have been better to make the cases identical in all respects.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, just by way of clarification, I think no rights accrue to the Senator or his dependants until he reaches the age of 75. Is that correct?


George James McIlraith: And resigns.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Or resigns?


George James McIlraith: And resigns.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18, agreed to.
Title agreed to.	.[DOT]
Bill reported.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten}: When shall the said bill be read a third time?
Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Shall it be read by leave now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the amendments perhaps it should be stood over until the next sitting.



PENITENTIARIES


George James McIlraith: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government of Canada and the plans of the Government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon: send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the House; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
[Mr. Knowles.)
That 15 Members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as Members of the said committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem
advisable, some of their Members to act on the proposed joint committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members will recognize, this resolution is substantially in the terms of a resolution which was on the Order Paper during the last session, subject only to the amendment which now proposes that the committee be a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons instead of a committee of this House only. This change has been made in order to accommodate the great interest of several distinguished Members of the other place who would like to be involved in the Parliamentary consideration of this question.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Are they under 75?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps we could learn
something in this respect from those who are over 75.
It would be appropriate at this point to make clear the difference in function between this parliamentary committee and the proposed committee of inquiry to be headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet of Montreal, who will be assisted by Mrs. McArton of Winnipeg, Mr. Arthur Martin of Toronto and Mr. Bill McGrath, Secretary of the Canadian Corrections Association of Ottawa; the latter are being asked to consider the correctional process in the broadest sense, and to make recommendations to the Government in respect thereof.
Perhaps it would be of assistance to hon. Members if I made reference in detail to the terms of reference of that particular committee which were set out before this House on April 9. The purpose of the committee, as set forth in those terms of reference, is:
"To study the broad field of corrections, in its widest" sense, from the initial investigation of an offence through to the final discharge of a prisoner from imprisonment or parole, including such steps and measures as arrest, summonsing, bail, representation in Court, conviction, probation, sentencing, training, medical and psychiatric attention, release, parole, pardon, post release supervision and guidance and rehabilitation; to recommend as conclusions are reached, what changes, if any, should be made in the law and practice relating to these matters-
As will be clear from that quotation, the correctional process as indicated in those terms of reference, covers that continuum in
May 17, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1367
time from the first apprehension of the offender right through to his final release into the community free of any penal restraint whatsoever. Inevitably that committee will have to consider in a fundamental way principles of penology, including those upon which our present penal institutions and the Government plan for reform of them are founded. In the process of that consideration I think it can be expected that there will be comprehensive recommendations on that type of penal question.
I think hon. Members would, however, agree that in light of the conditions existing in some of our present maximum security institutions, of which the best known is St. Vincent de Paul, we do not have the option of postponing action in respect of the existing institutions until the expert committee can make its recommendations. There are urgent pressures now on the penitentiary service for more accommodation, apart altogether from the conditions existing in some of these institutions, and particularly in the one to which I have made reference.
I will illustrate this by reference to just a few statistics relating to institutions now under the control of the Government of Canada. In 1963 it was estimated that the institutions were overcrowded by 1,330 inmates, and it has been estimated that by 1967 there will be need for new accommodation for 2,560 inmates. The dictates of humanity alone argue for prompt action in making up this deficiency of physical accommodation, apart altogether from the fact that there is a requirement that more modern quarters be provided if a more modern system of correction is to be instituted, and if more modern theories and techniques of the correctional process are to be carried out in our institutions.
The purpose of this parliamentary committee on the other hand is to give Members of Parliament and, under the present terms of this resolution, members of the Senate, an opportunity to consider in greater detail both existing institutions and arrangements for discharging the Federal Government's responsibility in respect of maintaining prisons and, what may be even more important, to consider the present building program and future plans, which will enable the Government to discharge its duty in a better fashion.
The motion will also provide those in the corrections field, such as Members of the Canadian Corrections Association, various branches of the John Howard Society, the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Elizabeth Fry Society and organizations such as the Junior League Organization, which in recent years has taken such an active interest and participation in matters of correction, and groups representative of the various churches, an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. It will give them an opportunity to make available to Members of the committee and to the Government their views which arise from their own experience in dealing with inmates both inside and outside of these institutions.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may now call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motion.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Guy Marcoux: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of requiring the C.B.C. to allot, on radio and television, free periods of equal duration to each of the official political parties of the country, irrespective of the number of their elected Members.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I chose to introduce this motion because, without attempting to criticize the C.B.C. as I propose to do a little later on, without advocating that the government should interfere with the Corporation in the field of programming, I think, in view of the fact that certain regulations laid down by the high officials of the C.B.C. provide for the free broadcasting of the policies of various parties, that parliament should give clear indications to the Corporation pointing out that its regulations should include certain details that the members of the house would like to have applied by the Corporation. If one refers to the Statutes of Canada, 1958-59, Elizabeth II, Chapter 22, one finds that the Broadcasting Act, Part II of which deals with everything relating to the C.B.C., does not seem to take into account that free time. There is reference to programs-if I understood the legislation correctly-to radio and television programs only as regards certain restrictions during election periods, so that there is nothing in that act to compel the
May 17. 1965

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Corporation to offer tree time to political parties.
As we all know, it is a practice recognized by the Corporation to invite various political parties to set up among themselves a series of political programs in order to inform the people so that they will know what to expect when such and such a party comes before the voters.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if one refers to the schedules established these last few years, one realizes that the party in office gets the lion's share, that the official opposition party follows immediately, while the smaller parties have, let us say, much shorter periods, so that it has become a ridiculous situation to see during a program two political parties get six and a half minutes each to explain their doctrine, their theory to the listeners.
It is known that the C.B.C. is a government-owned corporation, a crown corporation, which is supported by public moneys and derives a large part of its revenue from public taxes-and heaven knows that besides the usual budgets, the house has to grant supplementary estimates in order to pay for the deficits of that corporation-so I contend that the Canadian citizen has a right to benefit from this government service in order to be informed on public affairs which, I suggest, is one of the most important things in the exercise and practise of democracy.
Besides, I think that the Canadian people are entitled to that. Therefore, it is not a concession that the corporation must make, because the Canadian citizens have the right to receive information from political parties. They are entitled to such information no matter how many members there are in the house, because the electors must express their opinion on political theories, on political ideologies and they must do so with full knowledge of the facts.
It is well known that all legislation passed by parliament is a sort of official propaganda, through the newspapers, in favour of the party in office. This in itself is a reward because the party is enjoying free propaganda not provided for in the act; when a bill is passed, it is voted on by parliament represented by all the members so that, propaganda-wise, the government and the members of the government are well served.
The official opposition which in the past few years had just about the same number of members as the party in office is equally well served, and heaven knows that it uses the official debates, where discussion is too


often stretched, and the press, for propaganda purposes only.
The role of the C.B.C. is or should be limited to cultural and informative broadcasts. This is quite different from propaganda broadcasts. If one says: here are the facts, here is what we have done, show your confidence in us at the next election, give the country a stable government so that more can be accomplished, such talk will surely please political parties and especially the party in office, but it can hardly be considered informative. This is not explaining to the people the aims pursued by the party in question.
That is why I think that, no matter how many members of parliament the party in office has, the Canadian voters, that is the taxpayers, those who are paying for the operation of the C.B.C., have the unquestionable right to receive such information from the various political parties.
I do not wish to labour the point any longer, but I should like to point out that by political party I do not mean the members who get together and come to an understanding after an election, after having been elected as members of a particular party, and decide in the course of a session of parliament to regroup in order to benefit from certain advantages, such as the allowances to the party leader, etc.


An hon. Member:: What about the independents?


Guy Marcoux: The same thing applies to the independents.
It is a question for me of defining a political party according to the act. This has never been done and it has already given rise to many difficulties that were settled only in the light of precedents set in the past.
When I moved Bill No. C-35, I tried to give the definition of a party as it could be recognized in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
From the definition I gave, I could draw a new definition which would apply to the motion under consideration. The word "party" means a federal party existing as such at the general election preceding the current parliament. In addition, the party in question must, in the course of that election, that is the previous election, have presented official candidates, chosen among its members, in at least half the electoral ridings and at least five of the ten Canadian provinces.
Obviously, that limits the definition of a political party. Some may feel that it is not sufficiently restrictive, but I feel that such a provision none the less indicates that not
May 17, 1965

everyone could take advantage of the C.B.C.'s new regulation which should really apply only to a true political party.
Mr. Speaker, I will not add anything more, because I know some hon. members surely have views to put forward. Nevertheless, I want to repeat that if I moved this motion it is only because I feel this is a matter of natural right. Every citizen is strictly entitled to get general information on political matters in his country for the best possible application of democratic principles.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) and I would like also to make a few comments on the motion now under consideration.
If I understand it well, the purpose of this proposal would be to require the C.B.C. to allot free periods of equal duration on radio and television to each official political party of the country, irrespective of the number of their elected members in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is my duty in the first place to set forth the present policy of the C.B.C. in this connection and then I will attempt to draw a few conclusions in regard to the C.B.C.'s policy as well as to motion now under consideration.
At present the C.B.C. gives generously on radio and television free time to recognized political parties, whenever it is required, both during election campaigns and between elections. Since there is no question at all of an election campaign for the time being, I feel sure that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency does not deal with free time allotted at election time but with free time given the year around to political parties.
The motion now before us refers to official political parties. Neither our constitution, that is the British North America Act, nor its amendments recognize official political parties. Nevertheless, there are political parties which are recognized as such in this house as well as, in some way, by the C.B.C. But from the constitutional point of view, they do not exist, and in order to know exactly which political parties will have free time on radio and television, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has set certain requirements which must be met by the various political parties concerned or by those who ask for free time.
The first requirement for a political party to be so recognized, is that the party must
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have policies on a wide range of national issues.
The second requirement is that the political party concerned must have a recognized national leader.
The third requirement is that the party must have a nation-wide organization established as the result of a national conference or convention.
The fourth requirement is that the political party in question must have representation in the House of Commons.
Finally, the fifth requirement, which only applies during an election campaign, provides that, to be recognized or entitled to free broadcasting time, a political party must seek the election of candidates in at least three of the provinces and put into the field at least one candidate for every four constituencies.
Generally those periods of free time are determined following a meeting attended by the leaders and representatives of the political parties, who try to come to an agreement. When these political parties cannot agree, the C.B.C. or, to be exact, the board of broadcast governors takes a decision, and that is exactly what happened on August 26, 1964, when the board of governors proposed the following allocation, which was accepted by four of the five political parties.
The question was to divide 20 programs among the five political parties. The C.B.C. proposed the following division of time: Liberals, 7J programs; Progressive Conservatives, 61; New Democratic party, 3; Social Credit, 1J; Le Ralliement Creditiste, 1J.
This division of time explains the 12J minutes mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. This question has already been answered in the house, and I am taking the liberty of quoting the reply given by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, as reported on page 8167 of Hansard for September 18, 1964:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat on September 10, as recorded at page 7828 of Hansard, asked the Secretary of State about the allocation of free political broadcasting time on the two C.B.C.series of programs "The Nation's Business" and "Les Affaires de l'Etat."
I have inquired of the C.B.C. on behalf of the Secretary of State, and I have been informed that a new series of 20 programs under each of these two titles, on both radio and television, will begin in October 1964 and conclude in August 1965.
The number of periods allocated to each party was determined at a meeting among the representatives of the five political parties and the C3.C. on August 26, 1964. When the parties failed to reach unanimous agreement among themselves on the division that was acceptable to four of the five
1370	COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
parties I'epresented, as follows: Liberals, 71; Progressive Conservatives, 61; New Democratic party, 3; Social Credit, 11; and Le Ralliement Creditiste, 11. It is on this basis that the current series for the 1964-65 season will proceed.
As I believe the hon. member knows, this is the same division of time which applied to the last series of free time broadcasts on the C.B.C. radio and television networks, and which was confirmed by the board of broadcast governors following a hearing on January 13, 1964, which was called to hear an appeal by the Social Credit party.
The formula used by the C.B.C. is that set out in section III, parts I (b) and (c) of the C.B.C. manual of policies and regulations on ''Political and Controversial Broadcasting." Mr. Speaker, I can table a copy of this manual on political and controversial broadcasting if the house wishes that this be done.
As I said a while ago, four of the five political parties agreed to that allocation, but the fifth one has been sulking this year, which is greatly detrimental to the televiewers who delight in orthodox Social Credit theories.
The C.B.C. usually grants 40 per cent of the time to the party in office and I cannot accept the view of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, who says that 40 per cent is the lion's share, because the party in office reflects at least 40 per cent of the nation's business as discussed in the House of Commons. Moreover, I am convinced that, in this case, the party now in office reflects more than 40 per cent of public opinion, but it must bow to the board of broadcast governors' ruling.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Olson:: May ask the hon. Member a question? Will he tell us whether or not the formula, laid out in the handbook which was supposed to be attached to the answer to that question, was followed in connection with the distribution of time to all Members of opposition parties and if not, why not?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I do not know. I have not seen the handbook.

The motion before us, Mr. Speaker, proposes periods of equal duration.
At first when I read this motion I wondered whether it was the duration of the programs themselves which should be equal or the number of programs. If I have understood correctly what was said by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, it is not necessarily a matter of getting periods of equal duration, but an equal number of programs irrespective of the number of elected members in the House of Commons.
In the event of acceptance of this proposal,

DEBATES	May 17, 1965
as it is set out in the motion to the effect that all political parties should be allotted an equal number of programs irrespective of the number of their elected members in the House of Commons, it would not only be unjust but this could become intolerable to some extent, because it would encourage even further the proliferation of political parties in this country.
For instance, should the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) decide to form another group-and I am sure he would find faithful sympathizers, at least on his side of the house-it would mean that the C.B.C. would have to foist upon our good people another round of purely orthodox official Social Credit broadcasts, which would be a real disaster, without speaking of the doubts it would raise in the minds of our people who are already bewildered by two forms of Social Credit philosophy, the official one and the heretical or almost heretical one.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we must come to the conclusion that it would be in the greatest interest of television viewers to nip this in the bud and to maintain the broadcasts in a ratio which would reflect the well-known trends of opinion in the House of Commons and in this country.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I put two questions to the hon. member?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: One at a time.


Guy Marcoux: Could the hon. member tell me where we can find the requirements he mentioned a moment ago and which are used by the C.B.C. to allocate a political party free broadcasting time?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I believe these requirements are published in the document mentioned by the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) in his answer, page 8168 of the House of Commons official report of September 18, 1964.
The formula used by the C.B.C. is that set out in section III, parts I (b) and (c) of the C.B.C. manual of policies and regulations on "political and controversial broadcastings."
I am convinced that the hon. member can find an answer to his question in this manual.


Guy Marcoux: I wanted to ask this question because, precisely, none of the requirements mentioned by the hon. member has been followed by the C.B.C. in its last-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question? I have to remind him that he has already taken part in the debate.
May 17. 1965


Guy Marcoux: I would like to put a question.
The hon. member speaks of the board of governors. I wonder of whom he speaks because the only board of governors that I know of is not the C.B.C.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: It may be that our hon. friend gives a Creditiste interpretation to the document he read.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to say a few words on this interesting motion. There has been a great deal of argument about who should be on radio and television, when, and for how long. I think it is an excellent thing that the C.B.C. should provide free time for political discussion. How much the public enjoys this or values it, or watches or listens to it, I do not know; I have seen no viewer rating on the performance by politicians. But surely this is a valuable service when they make time available to political leaders and others.
The hon. Member who preceded me dealt with a subject which is very important and which must be considered when dealing with this resolution: What, in fact, is a political party? Who is to say? An "official" political party is even more difficult to define. We sometimes act constitutionally as though there was no such thing as party. The House of Commons is in many ways structured as though there were only two parties. Yet we know that in some parts of Canada at least we have something more than a two-party system. Down in the province from which the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) and I come there are third, fourth and fifth parties, but these are not really germane to the discussion of any political campaign. They are interesting additions, and the people who participate in them are interesting people but, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, they have nothing to do with the case when it comes to election results. In the Atlantic area generally I feel this will continue to be the situation.


An hon. Member:: The way the Conservatives are in Alberta.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We had well developed institutions there long before the rest of Canada did, and perhaps this is an illustration of our political maturity. Somebody mentioned political parties in Alberta. This is something I do not want to contemplate at the moment. At least the Conservatives are doing quite well federally.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The difficulties which I have indicated would scarcely be well resolved in the terms of this motion. I presume the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) refers to the free time broadcasts between election campaigns. I agree that legislative measures, although treated as political propaganda by the political party in power, are the emanation of action on the part of the House of Commons and should be regarded as children of the joint legislative deliberation by us all. Therefore it would seem not inconsistent to regard radio and television reporting as an accounting of what is going on in the nation's business, with stock to be taken of distribution of seats in the House of Commons. That seems to be a reasonable situation.
One cannot argue so easily about election campaigns because it is quite possible that a party without a single Member in the House of Commons might be an important factor in an election, and might adopt measures of importance to electors of the whole country. The Reconstruction Party of 1935 did a lot of destructive work on a certain well known, well established party and had a profound effect upon the election of 1935. Yet it would not have had a voice at all had they then regarded membership of the House alone.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think the hon. Member is quite right in his reference to legislative measures being regarded as a species of political propaganda. It strikes me that in recent years political campaigns have been composed of great promises of goodies that are going to be pushed through the legislative mill here in Ottawa. Many of these are found to be in realms of provincial jurisdiction; so we find federal parties promising things which only the provinces can deliver. Hence a lot of our difficulties in recent months. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, once these people are here, the M.P.'s, they are being heard from; and a vehicle is provided by the C.B.C. Surely, then, some rational formula would regard membership in the House of Commons. There is a great distinction between parties that have a hope, a well founded hope, of taking over responsibility for the nation's business and those who for many, many years have sought in only limited areas to do so and who have been rebuffed time and time again; in other words, who under practical and pragmatic consideration are not serious contenders.
1372	COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
It would seem strange to me if the C.B.C. should start allocating equal time to either half of the former Social Credit Party, equal time to the party which forms the Government, and will in due course form the Government again. Then one wonders how the C.B.C. could possibly keep pace with the formation of new parties. I would be very leery about this word "official". I wonder if we are prepared to have some kind of certifying agent of the Government saying, "Ah, this is a party, but this is only a movement" or, to use another expression that is well known, "this is only a group".


John B. Stewart: Or "rally".


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to part company with the hon. Member, who has always struck me as one of the most perceptive and able Members in his corner of the House, on this matter. I think it would be a dreadful conglomeration of mixed appeals, multiplied appeals. With all their faults-and the C.B.C. have many, and we hear a lot about them in the House of Commons

I think the criteria they use, while certainly not perfect, are rational and sensible. I would hate to embark upon a situation where the Government should require the C.B.C. to allow such and so. The C.B.C. may have its faults, but I would far rather have the C.B.C. in control of things than the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne)-or any Secretary of State, I may say. So we have to move along with these arrangements and make the best of them.
I have seen no real smothering of the ideas of third, fourth and fifth parties in the time which my memory serves. Indeed, there are many times when the parties of protest seem in many publicity media to be much overheard, rather than otherwise. But the thing that troubles me most about this resolution is the definition of a "party"; the suggestion that the Government would lay its heavy hands upon the C.B.C. and say, "You must do this".
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a good conservative-conservative with a small "c"; that is the type of conservative I am, "Progressive with a large "P" and conservative with a small "c", which I believe-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Explain.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -is very suitable for a country like this-I think there should be a recognition that the thing has worked pretty well, and I do not believe it need be so

DEBATES	May 17,.1965
drastically altered as suggested by my hon. friend.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate until the hon. Member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube) spoke in it, and he was so obviously misinformed about what has actually taken place in the distribution-


Douglas Mason Fisher: A typical Liberal.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -of time that I feel compelled to set him straight at least on one or two of the things that have actually taken place with respect to the allocation of free time on political broadcasts, particularly in so far as the Social Credit Party is concerned. It seems to me that if you set down a formula of any kind that is to be a guide in the allocation of time on such programs as The Nation's Business and Provincial Affairs, the two that are under discussion today, then the least you can expect is for the Corporation, whether it is at the direction of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) or of their own Board of Directors or their Board of Management, to follow that formula.
The so-called Manual of Policies and Regulations, respecting political and controversial broadcasting, that was attached to the answer to a question and was brought into this House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stewart), says this under Part II:
The Corporation grants the privilege of free network time for political broadcasting to bona fide parties, which are national in extent and which reflect a substantial body of opinion throughout the country. While it is impossible to lay down an exact definition, it is suggested that such parties would meet all-
I wish to underline "all", Mr. Speaker:
-of the following requirements:
i.	Have policies on a wide range of national issues.
ii.	Have a recognized national leader.
iii.	Have a nation-wide organization established as the result of a national conference or convention.
iv.	Have representation in the House of Commons.
v.	Seek the election of candidates in at least three of the Provinces and put into the field at least one candidate for every four constituencies.
When the Social Credit Party raised this problem of the allocation of free time for political broadcasting it was simply because the C.B.C., and I suggest through some pressure from the existing Government, did in fact take away 50 per cent of the time that would have been allocated to the national Social Credit Party and gave it to the
May 17, 1965

party known as the Ralliement Creditiste. They have not had a conference electing and setting up a recognized national leader, so they fail in meeting condition No. 2. What is more, they have not had and do not have a nation-wide organization established as the result of a national conference or convention; so they fail under the third requirement. They fail under item No. 5, too, because they did not run candidates in at least three of the Provinces or run at least one candidate for every four constituencies. What justification, then, is there to take away 50 per cent of the time allocated to the national Social Credit Party of Canada and give it to a group that decided to sever themselves from us?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In addition to that, this kind of formula is supposed to apply also to the provinces. The Provincial Affairs broadcasts in the province of Alberta are apportioned in such a way that the four political parties get equal time. The N.D.P. have no members in the Legislature at all, yet they get equal time with the Social Credit Party which has 59 seats.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Conservatives have no seats at all in the Legislature yet they get just as much time as the Social Credit Party, which have 59 seats of of the 63 seats in the legislature.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Conservatives have no seats at all in the B.C. Legislature, yet they get their equal share of the free time allocated by the C.B.C. in that province for the "Provincial Affairs" broadcasts.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
David James Walker: Because they take longer to say it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It may take them longer to say it, but we would like the chance of saying what we want to say with equal time given us. This practice has been followed for a number of years.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Don't blame us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You might have had some influence on it. There might be some people in the C.B.C. with tendencies to do this. At least, that is what one would suspect, in view of this kind of discrimination.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that all we ask is that there be a formula set down which is acceptable. If it is to be that which is now in this manual of policies and regulations respecting political broadcasting, then that is fine; we would ask the C.B.C. to stick to that. But if they want to change the rules and the conditions, then let us know what the new rules and conditions are going to be. But once they have been determined then we expect the C.B.C. to apply the rules equally to us as well as to the rest of the parties. And what is more, Mr. Speaker, we think this should be the case for the two broadcasts known as Provincial Affairs and also as The Nation's Business.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I get to my feet partly to save the very tired Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), who has been called upon so often to fill in gallantly during the last minutes of so many debates. It seems to me that the hon. Member for the Social Credit Party who has just spoken has proven very clearly the inconsistency in the approach of the C.B.C.

DEBATES	May 17. 1965
vis-a-vis provincial and federal affairs. But this should not surprise anyone. The C.B.C. is a marvel of inconsistency. I think the hon. Member could have gone further in terms of expressing a doubt about the fairness of the C.B.C. I have always had the impression- and I am not a Social Crediter-that the majority of the people in the C.B.C. have a bit of a scutter against Social Credit.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think they go out of their way, in the provinces where Social Credit is powerful, to give the opposing voices as good an opportunity as possible, and I think the same applies on the national scene. Wherever possible I think they go out of their way to keep them down to the smallest proportion that is defensible. I think I can go further and say that the negotiations which take place so far as federal free time broadcasting is concerned are in the main conducted at a free discussion, but with the weight of influence tending to fall on the representative of the Government party.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I do not think there is any doubt that when this discussion took place, when Allister Grosart was there representing the Conservative Party, with 207 seats in the House, the determination to quite an extent, particularly so far as our Party is concerned with eight seats in the House, depended on the graciousness which he felt toward the situation, and on what he thought was proper.
Similarly, I understand that during a more recent discussion with Keith Davey, he in a sense became the lion of the occasion and the person who determined to quite an extent how the split should take place, and in what form the discussion about the split should take.
How do I know this, Mr. Speaker? I have received this information from our party's representative who attended these meetings. Of course he may be considered a prejudiced observer, but he did not express this situation to me with any great bitterness. He recognized that this was a reality of life. As he suggested, the C.B.C. wants to be very careful and knows what will generally be acceptable; and once it has in mind just how much the majority party organizer will demand, it will make other adjustments. Certainly from everything I have heard there is nothing either scientific or according to any basic rule involved in this particular situation.
May 17, 1965
Another part of the question, it seems to me, is really one of value. Is any great disservice being done to any of the political parties as a result of their inability to get on C.B.C. free time broadcasts? When you look at it from this point of view, when one sees the comparatively low ratings of the shows, despite the fact that they have comparatively prime times, and when one realizes in the main how little impact has been made over the years by these free time broadcasts in terms of generating news and great controversy, it would seem to me that their value to a political party in some ways is more negative than positive. In a sense at least you get on the program and you are being demonstrated in some way. I can never see either the quality of them, a consideration of the listening audience, or the kind of production skill the political parties have brought to these programs, making them of such importance in television or radio calendars that they really have a great deal of interest.
I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is looking at me, perhaps quizzically. My memory goes back to a program on which he appeared a number of years ago. He had two young Liberal M.P.'s, who disappeared at the next election, throwing him questions. It was one of the greatest comic jobs, in some ways, that I have seen. This program took place just when I was getting into politics, and when I saw that program I thought it was almost a perfect example of the Pat-Mike interplay that we used to get from the end men on those old minstrel shows, with Pat-or Paul -in on the heavy end.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why do you not
say something complimentary?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Was that not complimentary? Mr. Speaker, I thought that the timing of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on that occasion was perfect. It was my thought that that kind of program, on which an eager young person asked certain questions to which an old stager gave long compiled answers was hardly exciting television.
Perhaps I introduced an extraneous element which should not have got into this discussion with reference to the hon. Member's motion, but I do not think most people in politics can get tremendously excited about the grievance that is implicit in the hon. Member's motion, not because there is not merit to it, but because it no longer seems to be that important.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
It would seem to me that in terms of sheer time on radio and television on the C.B.C. during election time, it may still be important, and this is usually tied in a little more closely to the question of persons nominated and the representation in the previous House. It would seem that the tremendous audience build-up by private stations, as well as United States stations that can be seen either directly or through community antenna systems in Canada, has been largely instrumental in stripping the value from free time political broadcasts.
I think one other point that might be mentioned, is that the Government party has come up with the idea, which I understand is part of their program, that in future election expenses shall be subsidized to a certain extent by Parliament. That is one of the reasons this committee on election expenses is meeting in respect of the media of radio, and particularly television. That seems to me to be the main reason that politicians, particularly Members of the majority party, are prepared to look at this tremendously high cost of an election campaign, particularly in respect of spot messages in this country with so many stations, and as varied a number of media, through which one must advertise to get some kind of saturation. It seems to me that if we arrive in the next couple of years at successful legislation in line with this particular policy, as has happened in Quebec, even more of the value will be removed from this sharing of free time television.
The hon. Member's motion would be appreciated more if it included some requirement regarding private stations, because the private stations are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Broadcast Governors, and the Lord knows that each one of them when making an application for a licence has given lip service to the idea of public service, and has always been prepared to argue this very fully. The hon. Member's motion would have had a bit more point had it expressed more directly his own party's grievance.
With that comment, Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private Members' business has expired. At eight o'clock the House will return to a consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.



May 17, 1965
Penitentiaries Committee AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Favreau):
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government of Canada and the plans of the government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; send for persons, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the House; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to he designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as Members of the said committee; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, some of their Members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I had made reference to the fact that in conjunction with the committee which it is proposed to set up under this resolution, the Government has already taken steps to establish a Committee of Inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet of Montreal, along with a number of other distinguished citizens interested in the field of study of a proper system of corrections in Canada. I had made reference also to the fact that it is the Government's wish that this parliamentary committee should take full advantage of the opportunity to examine the existing penal institutions in Canada and also examine in full the construction program which is now under way, as well as the Government's plans for development of penal institutions.
Perhaps by way of establishing principles I might make reference first to the following quotation to indicate some of the criteria upon which penal institutions are based. I quote:
There are three classes of prison inmates: the accidental or occasional criminal, the reformable criminal, and the habitual or persistent offender. Those included in the first two categories always return to freedom, those of the last category, with few exceptions, should never be set at liberty. The great majority of prisoners will be called upon at some time to live again the ordinary life of a free man. Therefore, entirely apart from humanitarian grounds, and from a purely economic point

of view and for the eventual benefit of society, the task of the prison should be not merely the temporary protection of society through the incarceration of captured offenders, but the transformation of reformable criminals into law abiding citizens, and the prevention of those who are accidental or occasional criminals from becoming habitual offenders.
The source of the quotation goes on to refer to the fact that, generally speaking, the accidental or occasional criminal is generally rehabilitated back into society, and then remarks:
The reformable criminal, the youthful offender, the first offender or even the second or third offender will not be reformed if, during his term in prison his spirit has been broken, his habit of industry (if it ever existed) suppressed, and his morals corrupted by prison associations. He has been guilty of a crime, and it is inevitable that he should suffer, but society should not weaken its structure, nor incur large and excessive expenditure, by turning him out no better, or even worse, than when he entered a penal institution.
The process of penal treatment for the two first named categories of criminals, and to a certain but less extent for the last, must be directed unceasingly to the advancement of the individual's personal and emotional rehabilitation.
I would think no one could take exception to the particular quotation on this subject matter, particularly in view of the fact it is a quotation from the Archambault Commission report on penal institutions in Canada made nearly 30 years ago, in 1938. It is the hope of the Government that the penal system of Canada can be brought into close conformity to the principles set out in the passage which I have quoted. The committee study will enable Members to have access, at first hand, to the Government's advisers on this matter in order to determine the manner in which those principles have been worked out, and as well to examine the institutions themselves and see at first hand the procedures being followed within the institutions leading to that objective.
In carrying out these objectives, the committee will be able to make an appraisal of the capital stock of the institutions which we have on hand and which are now available to carry out this process of rehabilitation. I should like to repeat a remark I made this afternoon, that it would be preferable to start off, a priori, with a system of correction which could be planned from the start, unhampered by any restrictions from the past such as existing buildings. However, the realities of the situation require that existing physical assets be utilized so far as possible, with changes in existing plant being made to make them suitable to the objectives.
May 17. 1965

Starting therefore with an assessment of the existing tools which are available, this Government's conclusion has been that the present facilities are not adequate to carry out a comprehensive program of rehabilitation. It is because of this inadequacy that the Government has proposed, as an initial step, an extensive program of institutional construction. It has already been pointed out earlier, but I would repeat today within this context, that within the next ten years it is proposed to furnish each regional penitentiary district with the following basic facilities: A reception centre; a special detention unit; a maximum security unit; medium and minimum security facilities; a psychiatric unit as well as hospital facilities; pre-release facilities; a staff training college. Perhaps I might pause for a moment and refer to a number of these categories, these types of institution, just to emphasize the importance they have in our correctional system.
I might start first in time, and I would suggest first in logic, with the reception centre itself, for it is into this institution that the offender is first received from the courts, and it is in this institution that the process of classification, the process of determining the type of rehabilitation and reform treatment that should be given to him, is to be carried out by the qualified professional staff. This institution is the very keystone of the correctional system. In one of our penitentiary districts at least, that is in the Ontario district of Kingston, the experience has been that the offenders who come in from the courts and are mixed in with maximum security prisoners, with no possibility of segregation and no possibility of consideration of the new inmates from the standpoint of classification alone.
The institutions for young offenders have drawn much attention from many Members of the House and members of the public in recent years. The institutions which the Government proposes are for young offenders between the ages of 16 and 25. These will be institutions in which they can be detained apart from, shall we say, the hard core criminals, and institutions which will be primarily engaged in retraining these young offenders so that they might find a useful place again in society. The hospitals which will be built will naturally include medical facilities for, after all, special medical problems are created where you have a large community of people who are under detention. I should like to emphasize particularly the Government's intention to develop better psychiatric facili-
Penitentiaries Committee ties to deal with those problems which are at times more medical than problems of criminal law.
Finally, a novelty at the federal level in Canada although not a novelty in the civilized world, is the Government's intention to establish pre-discharge centres, centres which will enable prisoners who are shortly to be released into society to overcome the disadvantages they have had from the process of incarceration and living in an unnatural regime away from society.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Ultimately the prisoner must go on his own when he goes back into society, but it is felt at the present time that the process of adjustment from within the prison walls, out into the community, is too drastic, and these pre-discharge centres will enable the individual to adjust himself better to the first few months in society, which are the most critical for him, in order to avoid his again becoming an inmate of the prison.
I should now like to make reference to some of the physical construction going on at the present time. A special detention unit is now being constructed in connection with the B.C. penitentiary. Three more will be constructed in future years at Dorchester in New Brunswick, St. Vincent de Paul and-


David Orlikow: Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit a question? I would like to ask him, and I think this is the appropriate time to do so, if it is true that the Canadian Corrections Association has lodged a very strong protest with the Minister and the department with regard to the type of special detention unit which the department is planning, and for which it has already let one or more contracts?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. Member for his question, and this very valuably illustrates the type of question which can most effectively be brought before the committee, the type of question on which a group like the Canadian Corrections Association can not only make its views known to the Government but, for the benefit of the committee members, can set out reasons why they agree or disagree with any part of the Government's program.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could answer the question. It is a very simple one. Did the department get a protest and, if so, what are they doing with the protest?

May 17. 1965
Penitentiaries Committee


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member will let me and others complete our addresses on this particular question he can find out first hand from representations to the committee made by the Canadian Corrections Association.


David Orlikow: I have.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What are you asking the question for, then? I was referring to the fact that special detention units are to be built at Dorchester, New Brunswick, at St. Vincent de Paul and as part of the Mill-haven complex to be constructed at Kingston. A maximum security institution is to be built at Ste. Anne des Plaines, Quebec, and another as part of the Millhaven complex. At the present time there are four medium security institutions under construction at Cowansville, Quebec, Springhill, in Nova Scotia, Warkworth in Ontario, and Drumheller, Alberta. In addition there is approaching completion a special drug addiction centre at Matsqui, B.C.
While buildings are important, and so is having the right environment in which to carry out the correctional processes, they are no more important in successful rehabilitation than having competent staff available to carry out the classification and training of inmates. The Canadian penitentiary service has already instituted a program of induction training for penitentiary staff when they first come into the service, and supplementary staff courses for more senior personnel as they go on to take greater responsibilities within the service.
In this connection the Alderwood staff college was opened at Kingston last fall, and existing facilities have been converted to the same use at St. Vincent de Paul and New Westminster. An entirely new staff training college will be commenced in connection with St. Vincent de Paul.
By 1973 this plan proposes, as I have said, to have available in each penitentiary district specialized institutions which will enable a complete process of classification of offenders to take place, and will provide more versatile means of giving treatment according to classification. Since the committee will hear in some detail the Government's proposals in this regard, particularly with respect to new construction, I do not propose to elaborate further on those this evening.
I would in passing, however, like to make reference to one important facet in penology which at the moment is not entirely under the control of the Federal Government, and

that is the establishment of effective probation systems. Probation has a great potential in respect of the Canadian penal system. Probation, might I say for the benefit of hon. Members not familiar with it, is the process whereby in sentencing an offender the magistrate in effect suspends sentence, and instead of putting the prisoner in an institution lets him out in society under the supervision of a probation officer.
The probation officer serves a valuable function for the magistrates and the courts deciding on criminal cases, by providing what is really an initial step in classification, giving the magistrate a pre-sentence report on a particular offender so that the magistrate in turn may be better informed in the course of passing sentence.
A problem has existed in this respect arising out of the nature of our constitution. We in this federal legislature have in our control over the Criminal Code the power of determining under what conditions and at what times the presiding judge or magistrate may suspend sentence. The provincial authorities on the other hand have the responsibility for maintaining probation officers. I would suggest, and I offer this as a personal opinion, that there is great scope for development at both levels. In this connection perhaps I might again refer to the Archambault Report which states at page 8:
The system must start at the source, and fight the cause before the effect. It is admitted that, once a child or youth has had experience of prison, his subsequent reformation is extremely doubtful.
This is the technique which has been very usefully applied in the U.K., and it is something which has application to Canada, because it is a fact that the prison population in the United Kingdom is much less per capita than in Canada, particularly because of their very enlightened and extensive use of probation and parole. The committee under Mr. Justice Ouimet is going to study and report on this particular question, and I would submit it is one of the most important questions on which it can decide and make recommendations to the Government.
I pointed out earlier that it might well be objected that the Government should not be pressing on with a construction program at this time while the principles are being studied and recommended upon by the Ouimet committee.


David Orlikow: How right you are.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: But I would point out to my hon. friend that we cannot in all con-
May 17. 1965

science detain men in the bucket cells in Dorchester and St. Vincent de Paul one second longer than is necessary to provide new quarters. And to delay the construction of better facilities in which to segregate and offer training to juvenile offenders is to risk continual additions to the population of hard core criminal offenders.
It is the Government's intention that penitentiary policy shall be flexible and eclectic. Changes in the policy will be made whenever necessary, founded upon both our own experience and the counsel and experience of people active in the corrections field. I would like to emphasize the flexible nature of the approach by the Government in this regard, and in fact it is hoped the committee will find it possible to make early interim reports on the various matters which will be the subject of its studies, and these will be taken fully into account in penitentiary planning.
I would suggest that by embarking at once upon a program to eliminate the results of long years of neglect of our penal institutions, and to put them in a position to carry out modem concepts of rehabilitation, we can make of them instruments for reducing the criminal population of this country, and to restore public confidence in the humanity and justice of our corrections system.
One of the great measurements of a country's degree of civilization is surely the compassion and wisdom with which it treats not only the normal law-abiding citizen but the abnormal citizen, the lawbreaker. One of the most important studies this Parliament can make is the subject matter of this resolution which I hope will be accepted very early by the House.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: course, Mr. Speaker, any program which will move another step along the path blazed in penal reform by the former Minister of Justice, Hon. E. Davie Fulton, will be welcomed not only by my colleagues in this party but I am sure by all people in Parliament and throughout the country. I think it is well at this stage, when we are setting up a committee to look into plans which apparently are already made, that we should remind ourselves that unless penal reform has widespread support in Parliament, and also the support of editorial writers and the general public, it is bound to get bogged down in threats and complaints about mollycoddling and other such easy answers which uniformed people like to give in this particular field of human reform and endeavour.
Penitentiaries Committee [DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think it is a pity that it is May, 1965, when we are considering this resolution. It was May 22, 1964, when the Minister of Justice speaking in Vancouver outlined several plans he had, and it is a shame a committee has not had a year to look over the plans of the various institutions, the construction of which has been outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. I do not know who is to be on the committee when it is set up, but I am sure its members would like to hear the complaints of the Canadian Corrections Association about the alleged fortress which is to be built in St. Vincent de Paul. Having said that, obviously some reform of the outmoded facilities has to be made in this area. But I think the committee should have an opportunity to investigate very carefully a concept which seems to a good many knowledgeable people in this field a concept which is very much outmoded in these days. The Canadian Corrections Association has a set of standards for present consideration. I will not repeat them; they will be found in Hansard.
Some time back this House debated the proposed move of the women's prison at Kingston to the City of Cornwall. I assume that this proposal has been pigeonholed. If this is not the case, the committee or a good many of its Members will have some interesting questions to ask. I have had for a year in my files the Government return of complaints about the move of the women's prison. I do not expect to have to use them, but reading them over it is evident that a much closer liaison will have to be established between the Commissioner and his staff, the other advisers of the Department of Justice and the various volunteer agencies in the prison, parole and probation field. For instance, according to a statement from the Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston the Commissioner had indicated that before any major change of policy was made a representative group of the directors and others interested in this work would have an opportunity to make a presentation to the Commissioner and the committee. Instead, an announcement was made without any reference to any of these societies, which do such wonderful work.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) is present. I hope the committee will have an opportunity to review the implications of a speech he made about moving prisoners to strategic locations in the Canadian North. If I did not know

May 17. 1965
Penitentiaries Committee the hon. Member and have great respect for him I would think this speech had been made not 100 years ago, but 150 years ago. This is the type of policy which led years ago to the establishment of Australia. I hope the Government's imagination with regard to a forward-looking policy for the North does not stop with this narrow and outmoded thinking.
The Fredericton Gleaner in an editorial on May 15, 1965 commented as follows under the headline "Shades of Siberia".
The similarity of climate between Canada and Russia is a geophysical fact which neither country can escape. But so far there has been an understandable reluctance on Canada's part to go in for any corresponding duplication in institutions.
At least until now. Mr. John R. Matheson (L-Leeds) has a bill on the Commons order paper which would emulate one of the most ancient of Russian customs, far antedating communism, the sending of people to Siberia.
Mr. Matheson suggests that criminals, particularly those who seem to have the best chance for rehabilitation, should be sent not to the penitentiary but to "minimum security work camps at strategic locations in the Canadian Arctic."
There they would work at the construction of air strips, harbours, and other installations calculated to serve economic, scientific and other national interests.
The article ends:
Well, it's an idea, even if the Russians did think of it first.
I am sure there will be an opportunity for us to hear the hon. Member for Leeds discussing this policy. Perhaps he can appear before the committee on penitentiaries and give the committee the benefit of his modern opinions of penal reform.
There is one point I should like to make. The whole point of minimum security institutions is, of course, their accessibility to members of the public so that they can come to visit the inmates of these institutions and in order that the inmates can play some role, a minor one I admit, in the society where they happen to be located. I have learned a little about the great Canadian North. It is axiomatic that anyone who is a supporter of this party should know something about the North: It is part of us. I do not think many inmates of these prisons would have much interchange from a family point of view with residents in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. That is admittedly a minor consideration, it is true, but we are humanitarians here and we must keep all these factors in mind.
Members in all parties support sane and sensible measures of reform. I should like to read into the record a paragraph or two from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto

Globe and Mail on Friday, May 22, 1964. It shows we have been waiting in the wings as far as these penitentiaries are concerned- waiting for the Government to reach a dramatic conclusion that a committee of this House and the other place should be set up to consider the state of the penitentiaries. Well, we have had our gestation period, now. We have reached the point of setting up our 22-man committee. The article is headed The Purpose of Prisons and it reads:
Canada has for a long time needed to know the purpose for which her prisons exist. Three purposes have generally been given lip service: they exist to take society's revenge upon criminals for their antisocial acts; they exist to deter would-be criminals; they exist to convert criminals into useful citizens.
The trouble with this multi-purpose approach is that revenge and deterrence are not compatible, in the same institution, with rehabilitation.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with this premise:
It is psychologically almost impossible to reform a man while treating him vengefully and holding him up as a bad example. Yet reformation should be the end we seek to achieve, not only for humanitarian reasons but because in the long run it is cheaper for a society to reform its criminals than to perpetuate them in crime.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I will interpolate here for a moment. When I used to have other responsibilities in this field, people would say to me: "You are being too easy on prisoners." And they would discuss the probation system, and so on. It is amazing how criticism will dissolve when you point out to people who are not moved by other considerations, considerations of humanity and other things, that it is much cheaper to have a good rehabilitation program. Then suddenly people get the message and become ardent reformers. This field has been whipped and given lip service for more years than I know most people in this House would like to think about.
Speaking for my party, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the setting up of the committee. We hope that the committee will have an opportunity-and I think I heard the Parliamentary Secretary aright when he said they would-to view the plans, even though they are well advanced now, for the various institutions that are to be built. I end where I started, by saying that any program involving reform in this very important area of human progress needs the enthusiastic and informed support of Members of Parliament and also the news media of our country. With that combination I think the committee can do a very useful job for the country.
May 17, 1965

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the constitutional problem. I agree that there is a constitutional problem, but I do not think it is insurmountable. I believe this is an area where there can be, and the public would expect, very close co-operation between the jurisdictions. I suspect that the committee- and it says here, "to consider the state of penitentiaries . . . and the plans of the Government in relation thereto"-would be very interested in the close connection that exists in regard to prisoners awaiting trial or other judicial processes. Of course, who could forget the case of the missing Lucien Rivard, who apparently has been able to go to some other part of the world.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He is rehabilitated.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think this is an area- and I am being very serious, Mr. Speaker- where a very much closer liaison between the two jurisdictions could very profitably be set up. If such a liaison had existed before Mr. Rivard needed to flood that skating rink on the memorable day when the temperature was 42 degrees, perhaps he would not have escaped. In fact, the Dominion Meteorologist might send bulletins as to the temperature to the provincial institutions so that the guards would know when it is appropriate to have prisoners flood rinks. There is an area here for co-operation, Mr. Speaker. I think the Government of Canada is entitled to know what special protective measures are being taken. I know there has been a good deal of banter with regard to this poor gentleman, but I am quite serious when I say that the guide lines should be very carefully set up in this sort of nebulous area of jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution is a very direct one and it should not take a very long time to organize the committee. Speaking for this party, I say that we welcome the establishment of the committee. We are sorry it was not established a year ago, but it is better late than never; and we are prepared to give the committee our very active support and participation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson).


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who was gracious enough to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
Penitentiaries Committee


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) in introducing the resolution which is now before us for discussion. I know we all welcome the interest of the Government in giving consideration and thought to the question of penology as it now exists in Canada. Anyone who has made any study of penology, who has visited the penitentiaries and the prison systems of our country, I am certain will have to admit that Canada is one of the most backward countries in the world in the introduction and establishment of modern penology. I think there are two reasons for this. One is the method of escapism in the past; in appointing royal commissions and committees of inquiry, receiving the reports and then not doing anything about the recommendations contained in those reports.
I was most interested when the Parliamentary Secretary on two occasions at least quoted, and quoted with commendation, certain remarks in the Archambault Report. I most certainly agree with those quotations. But I am referring to the Archambault Report-1938. And recommendation after recommendation in the Archambault Report I am convinced will be to some extent the same recommendations that will come down from the two committees which are to work in the next year or two. There has been an absolute neglect by successive governments in taking under consideration the advice of the royal commissions they have appointed to undertake certain responsibilities.
That, of course, must be added to by the attitude of past Ministers of Finance in just not giving a hoot about the penitentiaries or the penitentiary system and not recognizing that they were being penny wise and pound foolish, because although there will be and has been a requirement for millions of dollars of expenditures on new types of jail construction, the fact is that right today it costs $2,750 a year to keep an inmate in a penitentiary. Yet past governments have been satisfied just to continue on the basis of a system of penology based on retribution, instead of the dual principles of the protection of society and the rehabilitation of the antisocial individual who had to be incarcerated, under the laws of our country, in our jails and penitentiaries.
1382	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Committee [DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that even after the lengthy and interesting introduction of this resolution by the Parliamentary Secretary, I am still puzzled as to what is the policy-thinking of the Government on the studies into the system of Canadian penology, with a view to bringing forward their recommendations. I still have not got clear the basis of the thinking of the Government regarding the need, the requirement and the efficiency of the appointment of two commissions. Some days ago we had the announcement of the appointment of a Royal Commission consisting of four members. These four are to be given all the technical assistance they require and will have advisory committees from associations in Canada who have a great interest in the knowledge of penology and our penitentiaries system. But, Mr. Speaker, just look at the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, to be found at page 208 of Hansard, which have now been approved by the Cabinet. The terms of reference of this special committee on correctional reform are as follows:
To study the broad field of corrections, In its widest sense, from the initial investigation of an offence through to the final discharge of a prisoner from imprisonment or parole, including such steps and measures as arrest, summonsing, bail, representation in Court, conviction, probation, sentencing, training, medical and psychiatric attention, release, parole, pardon, post release supervision and guidance and rehabilitation;-
Then in case not everything was included they also have the authority in their terms of reference to consider and recommend upon any matters necessarily ancillary to the foregoing. So this Royal Commission has been appointed and those are its terms of reference.
I take that under its ancillary powers will be the question of construction.
I have had, Mr. Speaker, an interest in penology for some 30 years now, from the outside looking in, being able to get in but always able to get out. I do not understand how you can separate the principles of modern penology from the type of construction of our jails. I do not understand how you can discuss rehabilitation of an inmate inside the four walls so that he is transformed into a better citizen outside unless you take into consideration the construction of those walls and what is inside them. Therefore I take it that this Royal Commission which was appointed a few weeks ago has to tie in its lengthy terms of reference with this question of construction, and make recommendations upon any matters affecting our penitentiaries,

DEBATES	May 17, 1965
right from the time of arrest of prisoners to post-parole and post-release care.
If that thinking is correct, then on what basis does the Government now introduce a resolution recommending the appointment of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, composed of 15 members of this House, without the powers or terms of references of the Royal Commission that has been appointed, but dealing with construction the existing state of affairs, and to study the Government's plans, which on a construction basis the Parliamentary Secretary has stated is a 10 year plan? How can you logically and releasably speak of modern penology, of modern thinking from the time of arrest to postrelease, and then as a fait accompli announce a 10 year plan of construction? I know it is in existence because I have seen a model in a building about two blocks from here. It just does not make sense to me, and I hope that before this motion comes to a decision we will have further explanation from somebody on the Government side of the House.
I also hope there will be a clarification of the terms of reference of Government Order No. 10. All that is proposed is that a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government of Canada, etc., etc. But what is meant by the "state of penitentiaries"? If it means the state of them as related to the provision of temporary needs, then there may be some purpose in the appointment of this committee. But if that is all it means, then it is not good enough. I should like to know whether the "state of penitentiaries" applies to the training now going on in penitentiaries, and to the wages and responsibilities of employees in the penitentiaries service. If that is what is meant, then perhaps there may be an argument for this type of parliamentary committee, which could deal with matters of immediate concern, if the recommendations of such committee received immediate action and if they dealt with more than building but also, as I say, with personnel, with training, and with certain dangerous situations which presently exist.
As an illustration, may I express the hope that this committee will deal with the matter of personnel. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that whomsoever it was, either individual or committee, who arranged the last increase for the personnel of the penitentiaries system in Canada, he or it did not have the foggiest notion of the penitentiaries service or
May 17, 1965

Penitentiaries Committee
the responsibilities of those in the various categories in the penitentiaries system. Because of this the decisions taken were not only just out of this world, but in many cases unjust, and they have led to a breakdown in the morale of those in the penitentiaries service.
Just to illustrate what I mean, Mr. Speaker, the clerks did not get an increase. The reason was because they were receiving the same pay, or a bit more, than clerks in other services; and the attitude of Treasury Board is that a clerk is a clerk no matter where he works. May I point out that a clerk in a penitentiary is entirely different from a clerk outside a penitentiary, because he is in contact with convicts, with antisocial persons. In addition to that, under the regulations of the penitentiaries service a clerk has major responsibility in the event of a riot. But no, they say a clerk is a clerk so no increase in wages was granted.
There was also no increase for messengers. This, Mr. Speaker, was a honey. Messengers in the penitentiaries service received no increase because Treasury Board said they were messengers and should get the same as messengers in the Government service. They do not come in contact with the inmates. Let me point out that a man driving a truck into a jail is in contact with inmates, so he gets a raise. A messenger is responsible for every inmate and has to sign for each one when he takes them out of a penitentiary to a hospital or a court. He carries a side-arm and is solely responsible, but he is classified as a messenger so he gets no increase. If matters of this nature can be studied under the terms of reference of this committee, then I think there may be some advantage.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I should like to know whether one other matter will fall within the interpretation of the phrase "state of penitentiaries". Will the special committee have authority to interview inmates to obtain their opinions as to the state of the penitentiaries? These people live in these places, or at least exist in them, and some of them have definite ideas as to conditions. If the committee will have the authority to interview these inmates, I suggest it will be a busy committee, because on the second last occasion I visited the British Columbia Penitentiary there were 70 applications from inmates for interviews, and it took me three and a half days to complete those interviews in that one penitentiary. I might add that it took me about five weeks
to look into their problems. Will this authority exist within an interpretation of "state of penitentiaries"? We have not been told about these things.
Will the committee under its terms of reference have the authority to look into what I termed a few minutes ago as "dangerous situations" and make recommendations in that regard? As of April 27 of this year there was overcrowding in the British Columbia Penitentiary and its satellites, including the minimum security prison at Williams Head and the farm at Agassiz. There are 1,006 inmates in the British Columbia penitentiary system. There are 83 inmates who are in there for sex offences of a nominal nature. There are 13 classified as dangerous sexual offenders. There are also 13 inmates serving life sentences, and 46 who were committed as habitual criminals. All told, there are 90 inmates in the one penitentiary who have nothing to lose: They are there for life. The conditions under which they live are overcrowded and they have nothing to do. I spoke recently with the regional warden, Mr. Hall, and another warden, Mr. Moloney. They both tell me they are extremely nervous about the situation. They had a serious riot there not too long ago. In view of the number of habitual criminals serving indeterminate sentences and the number serving life sentences who have nothing to lose, considering the terrible conditions, it is more than likely that serious trouble will break out again, in time.
Will this committee under its terms of reference, and within the meaning of "the state of penitentiaries", have the authority to look into these matters which cannot be dealt with except on a long term basis by the Royal Commission? If that is what the Government has in mind, then perhaps there is some basis for the argument to set up a Parliamentary committee as well as the Royal Commission, with broad terms of reference covering every possible field of penology.
I do not think I need say more, but I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will clarify the basic policy thinking of the Government in respect of the appointment of these two bodies, and at the same time explain in depth the meaning of the terms of reference, particularly that three word phrase "state of penitentiaries" as it appears in resolution No. 10.
In conclusion I should like to express my heartfelt wish that the Royal Commission and the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and

May 17. 1965
Penitentiaries Committee the House of Commons will do a complete and thorough job, will present worth-while recommendations which, keeping our fingers crossed, the Government will not treat in the same manner as another Government treated the Archambault Report of 1938, the recommendations of which have not yet been acted upon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in respect of resolution No. 10 now before the House, we note the Government's intention, in proposing the setting up of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government. I do not believe there is any disagreement in any part of this House as to the need for something to be done, and perhaps this joint committee, in conjunction with the Royal Commission which has been set up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), can get on with the job, make studies and bring in recommendations as quickly as possible so that the Government can act on those resolutions as quickly as possible.
I should like to state on behalf of the party to which I belong that we join with those who are concerned about the lack of action on the part of previous governments in respect of recommendations made by various commissions set up in respect of penal reform. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the objectives of this study should be the reduction of the criminal population in Canadian penitentiaries. We also agree that we should adopt a far more modem outlook in considering the matter of rehabilitation.
On behalf of this party let me say that we do not adopt the view that all of the plans for construction should be held in abeyance until the reports of these two inquiring bodies have been received. We can no longer tolerate the overcrowding in our penitentiaries across Canada. What is more, we can no longer tolerate the substandard or subacceptable accommodation which exists at this time in many parts of Canada. The hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has just referred to an overcrowded situation in the penitentiary in British Columbia, and we have heard a great deal about the overcrowding and the low standard of accommodation in St. Vincent de Paul. In view of these circumstances, it is not our belief that we should advocate a policy of holding in abeyance the construction of new accommodation, particularly when we realize that some of the very old and outdated below standard situations, which are

not acceptable in this day and age, have been the subject of reports by several royal commissions in the past, including the one that reported in 1938 and the one that reported in 1956, on penal and rehabilitation reform.
We hope that all construction now planned over the ten year period, amounting to something in the neighbourhood of $100 million, will not be held up. We hope also that the people who made these plans were guided by some of the recommendations presented to the Government by other royal commissions. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that perhaps the plans should be modified during the course of the ten year construction period in accordance with new recommendations which may be made by the Royal Commission announced on April 9, and the Joint Committee of the House and the Senate.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps we should be prepared to go a little bit further than making a study at this time as to what the problems are with respect to the rehabilitation and treatment of convicts. We could probably take a lesson from the British Government which, I understand, has set up a continuing committee of experts, people who are well trained, to keep their penal reform institutions modernized, not only in the administration and application of the law but also in connection with post-release treatment that offenders require if they are going to take their place in society.
The terms of reference of the Royal Commission which was set up can be found on page 208 of Hansard, and includes such things as the representation in court, conviction, probation, sentencing and so on. A few days ago we had a very interesting, and I hope useful debate during the private Members' hour with regard to legal aid. I am very happy to inform those Members who have not been informed already that in the Province of Alberta, a committee for legal aid has been established in each one of our major cities. I know that the branch of the Law Society in my own city met and set up the conditions and regulations as well as responsibilities of each member of the Law Society in that city with regard to this matter of legal aid. Even though the Federal Government has failed to move rapidly in this very important field, some of the provinces as well as the Province of Alberta about which I am particularly informed, have moved ahead, so that people who have been charged are given the necessary assistance of the legal profession for
May 17, 1965

which they are not able to pay. It can be argued that this is a provincial responsibility in the first instance. I would hope that the Federal Government also would assume some of this responsibility to make certain that people are not going to be wrongly accused or And it difficult to defend themselves as a result of lack of funds.
I am not going to talk longer on this matter. We in this party generally support the resolution. We hope that the joint committee will be successful in bringing in plans and recommendations that can be accepted and implemented by the Government very quickly. We share in the wish that has been expressed by the hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), that there will be no undue delay in giving effect to the recommendations after they are introduced.


John Ross Matheson: In rising to make a contribution with regard to this Government motion, I should like to suggest that one of the most effective ways of stirring the public conscience on a matter of such great importance is to conduct a public inquiry or, as has been proposed here, set up a Committee of this House which can actually study the state of our penitentiaries. I recall that the Archambault Commission was appointed in 1936 specifically to study the prison system. Later, in 1953, a still more influential committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Hon. Mr. Justice Gerald Fauteux, to study the remission services of the Department of Justice.
Now, in actual fact both committees wandered oyer a broader field than that which was assigned to them. I do not believe we have any need to be concerned that there will be any tendency on the part of any people in authority to limit or curtail the useful examination by the parliamentary committee on the state of our penitentiaries. I am assured of this, Sir, having read eight statements, provocative and scholarly, which have been delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). I am mindful of the fact that during his tenure of office Hon. Davie Fulton made quite a number of speeches on this subject. I believe I have read every speech that he made on penology just as I have read every speech which has been made by the present Minister of Justice.
Perhaps hon. Members would be interested in reviewing what the Minister of Justice has said specifically on this subject. I have studied these speeches with great
Penitentiaries Committee care. I have been unable to find one sentence, not to say one paragraph, in any speech which I think is political in tone. The first was an address to the John Howard Society in Vancouver, May 20, 1964. This was followed by an address to the Association of Police Chiefs of the Province of Quebec, in Quebec City on June 9, 1964. The Minister then spoke to the New York State Probation Officers Association and the Ontario Probation Officers Association in Niagara Falls on October 8, 1964. There was then an address to La Societe Canadienne de Criminologie in Montreal, November 5, 1964. Hon. Members will recall, too, his contribution on the departmental estimates under the subject of penitentiaries in the House of Commons under date of November 23, 1964. The Minister then addressed the John Howard Society of Nova Scotia at Halifax on February 4, 1965. The Minister made the important announcement in the House of Commons of a Special Committee on Corrections on April 9, 1965. His last contribution of which I am aware has been to the John Howard Society of Ontario at Osgoode Hall, Toronto, on April 27, 1965.
These addresses cover a wide range. I think every one of them is worthy of examination by all people seriously interested in the Minister's attitude with respect to the purpose of prisons and toward penological reform. Perhaps the most important question before us is this old question of the purpose of prisons. I refer hon. Members to an editorial appearing in the Globe and Mail for Friday, May 22, 1964 in which the editor under the title of The Purpose of Prisons, says:
Canada has for a long time needed to know the purpose for which her prisons exist. Three purposes have generally been given lip service: they exist to take society's revenge upon criminals for their antisocial acts; they exist to deter would-be criminals; they exist to convert criminals into useful citizens.
The trouble with this multi-purpose approach is that revenge and deterrence are not compatible in the same institution, with rehabilitation. It is psychologically almost impossible to reform a man while treating him vengefully and holding him up as a bad example. Yet reformation should be the end we seek to achieve, not only for humanitarian reasons but because in the long run it is cheaper for a society to reform its criminals than to perpetuate them in crime.
The hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) referred to the fact it costs us something in the order of $2,750 to keep a prisoner in a penitentiary for one year. This, of course, does not take into account the added
1386	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Committee burden on society generally of maintaining this man's family, his wife, his children and perhaps in later years successive generations of criminals.
The Minister of Justice indicated in some of his speeches that the purely negative, vindictive technique of our penal system seems less likely in the long run to protect society than to expose it to assaults ever more vicious.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This is borne out by the fact that 85 per cent of our people in federal institutions are recidivists. In the long run punishment promises society no real security. The only lasting way to prevent trouble is surely reformation, if such is possible. The ideas of punishment and rehabilitation meet in a single aim, to protect the community. Therefore all Canadians are interested in a fresh approach of how to deal with these socially disturbed people who are contributing great hurt to themselves, their families and to society generally. We cannot regard this question in any soft or sentimental way because it is manifest that crime is on the increase.
I have been disturbed that the Government does not appear to have very ready access to some of the statistics on this subject or, if it has, they have not been made available. I refer, for example, to question No. 35 on the Order Paper which asks the number of crimes remaining unsolved per one hundred thousand of the population during the last five years, the percentage increase in Canada's population, and in the population of federal penitentiaries. I know penologists in Canada have been quite exercised with respect to the lack of adequate statistics, and I would refer in this connection to the report of the third criminal law conference held at Osgoode Hall, on April 3 and 4, 1964, and to a contribution by M. L. Friedland and J. W. Mohr appearing in The Criminal Law Quarterly.
It would appear clear to those who have full access to the facts that crime in the United States is out of hand. My own judgment, from what I have been able to read, is that crime in Canada is sharply on the increase. Indictable offences have increased way out of proportion to the increase in population.
It is clear juvenile delinquency is also on the increase, and as well it is clear that only a fragment of reported crime ever results in conviction, something of the order of 40 per cent. The fact is that although Canada has one of the highest prison popula-
[Mr. Matheson.l
DEBATES	May 17, 1965
tions of any civilized country, crime is tending to increase here. Therefore I am not urging anything that may be regarded as soft.
To me it is a shocking fact that in Canada a first offender statistically receives a longer sentence than a man who has been in prison on several occasions. At the present time the average first offender in a federal institution has a sentence of something in excess of 3.5 years. Surely many of these people should never have been sent to prison in the first instance but should have been treated in some other way.
The other day, on May 12, 1965, when we had a discussion with respect to the very interesting bill proposed by the Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), a member of the Ontario Bar who has earned the esteem of all trial lawyers in Ontario, I referred to part of an address by the Rev. S. G. West, Director of the Anglican Correctional Chaplaincy. Rev. Mr. West has pointed out that a Canadian has approximately eight times the likelihood of ending up in prison than a person who resides in Holland, in the Scandinavian countries or in the United Kingdom, and pointedly asks this question:
Is it because we Canadians are eight times more criminally minded than others? Is it because we have too many bad laws? Is it because we are puritanically punitive? Is it because Canadian authorities have a passion for putting people in prison?
I believe an outsider interested in the science of criminology would come to the inevitable conclusion that Canada is sending far too many people to prison.
A few days ago, during some discussion in this House, there was reference made to the fact that slums breed crime. This is so but it is also a fact statistically-and this can be confirmed not only in Canada but in the United Kingdom, and certainly in the United States-that in times of wealth, of prosperity, of buoyant economy, these are the times when there is an upsurge in crime.
All we have to do to see this, is regard the population problem with which we are faced right now in the educational field. We have discussed it in this Chamber from time to time. It is a crisis which is facing the universities. We are more concerned with the fact that there are a large number of Canadians in the teen age group who will likely be coming under our responsibility as criminal offenders because already they have established a pattern with respect to juvenile delinquency. Therefore I believe that this
May 17. 1965

two-pronged approach by the Government is a good one.
There is the approach by the experts who are going to look at the remission service scientifically, and they are going to have a lot to examine. It seems ridiculous to me that in the parole system of Canada we have only 29 parole officers for the whole Dominion of Canada.
Like some of my hon. friends who have already made contributions to this debate. I have visited several penal institutions. I think I have been in eight of our federal institutions, and I have been in some of them as many as six times. I have seen some wonderful things happen with people from these institutions. I remember well, as a trustee at Queen's University, watching a young man come up and receive his degree after he had served many years in the federal institution. That was some years ago, and I know what that man has done with his life since, and the impact that he had in university during his one year residency. Most of his study was completed in the cells. I could tell you about nurses who have distinguished themselves. I could tell you of things that are perhaps too intimate to bring into this place, but I can certainly assure you there are things such as reformation and turning bitter waters into sweetness.
During the sad days of the Second World War, when Britain was harassed and under immense danger, Churchill said something which we cannot forget. Churchill has said many things, and of course sociology was never a field in which he showed a particular interest; but on the subject of the treatment of the malefactor he said this:
The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm, dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal, against the State; a constant heartsearching of all charged with the deed of punishment; tireless efforts toward the discovery of regeneration processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can find it, in the heart of every man; these are the symbols which, in the treatment of crime and criminals, make and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it.
Only a great Englishman with a faith in the importance of the dignity of each human being, particularly in the midst of war when his nation was faced with crisis, was capable of such an utterance.
Recently I had some conversation with an interesting psychiatrist who has been working in this field of criminology for some
Penitentiaries Committee years, Dr. R. D. Buckner, who worked at Guelph reformatory during the years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958. Dr. Buckner was interested in the use that can be made of electroencephalograms. He takes the view, from his experiments with something like 300 inmates, that there is a clear relationship between crime and physiological damage to the brain. Out of 300 prisoners he examined there were 100 who showed some epileptic activity, and another 100 who showed through encephalography some evidence of theta waves, which to the professional is an indication of psychotic personality, of the psychopath, the person who habitually lies, who cannot be governed by cause and effect, who is egocentric and grandiloquent in his views and so on. His conclusions were that two out of three people who were in this Ontario institution showed physiologically some mental disposition to abnormality. The criminal person apparently springs from the maladjusted, the immature, and those of disordered character.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Recent studies in delinquency reveal that over 50 per cent of the subjects manifested serious signs of antisocial behaviour before the eighth year and another 40 per cent before the eleventh year. Nine out of ten delinquents showed signs of trouble before puberty. To my friend from Royal (Mr. Fair-weather)-and he has been my friend ever since we were at Osgoode Hall-I will say only this, though I should like to speak at greater length about minimum security work camps: Perhaps we have something to learn from Russia. It is conceivable that they are doing things in certain areas of penology which are more advanced than what we do in Canada. I think it is an interesting fact that in some camps they have in the North there is only one guard for 150 prisoners, and the guards are usually unarmed. I am not suggesting that large numbers of the people we have in our maximum security prisons could be taken for work in camps of this kind, but having visited St. Vincent de Paul, Kingston, Collins Bay, Joyceville and other institutions of this character, I honestly believe it is important that we should take many volunteer prisoners and give them a chance to work.
I have read the Glassco report and have some idea as to the contents of the Stevenson and Kellogg report. Generally speaking capital and labour in Canada are not very anxious that there should be any useful em-
1388	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Committee ployment provided within our penal system. They regard it as a threat. Why should they be asked to pay taxes to set up some kind of penal enterprise to compete against them?
I think it is of the essence that we should discover right now more fruitful ways of employing prisoners in our federal institutions.
I have seen a situation where a brick wall has gone up so many feet before being knocked down so that the work of building might be started once more. This is not good enough, because in the workshops of our institutions we have many skills. These skills should be put to use and I believe the time will come when we shall pay our prisoners reasonable sums with which they can assist their families. This is not unrealistic, it is not stupid; it is good logic and good business. It costs Canada something in the order of $250 a year to parole a man. Why should we keep a prisoner at a maximum or medium security institution at a cost in excess of $2,750 and allow him to remain idle so that there is an 80 per cent chance or better that he will commit further offences and return to confinement? In effect, why should we run schools for crime on a vast scale?
Some people are doing things of great value to effect rehabilitation and reform. One man who has impressed me very much is the chaplain at Kingston penitentiary, Rev. John A. Nickels. There are many men like him across this country. 1 think it is ridiculous what we pay these people. I discover that a chaplain serving in a federal penitentiary full time is paid $5,400. Can you imagine a man with an arts degree and a professional degree in theology, a married man with a family, providing for his family and paying for a home on a salary of $5,400 a year? On a part time basis the salary is $3,400. The chaplains interested in correctional work, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, are willing to take and train some of the best young men we have in Canada, and prepare them for this work.
A school like Queen's Theological College is prepared to gather together people of all faiths who are interested in this field. Very useful work is being done in Kingston under the leadership of William Lederman, dean of law at Queens' University, involving not only this school but the faculty of medicine, the department of psychology and Queen's Theological College. Penology seminars should be encouraged by the federal authorities and they should not be dictated to by the penal service. A lot of able professional people are interested today in these problems.

DEBATES	May 17. 1965
I am startled by the illogical way in which
the Federal Government is contributing to no less than 40 after-care agencies. What is the role of the after-care agency? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has addressed himself to this problem. There has to be some clarification of function and financial support. I should like to see far more involvement on the part of the community as a whole. When a man gets into trouble in jail- and I know something about this because I am an experienced enough lawyer that a number of my clients have gone into jail; I have followed many of their careers and watched events in their families. After-care agencies, given the proper assistance, could very easily move in to help a man's family. I should like to see the churches brought into this picture to a greater degree. This might prevent the wife breaking up the home and moving in to live with someone else by whom she might have two or three other children.
It is a simple matter. The earliest question asked of man to God was: Am I my brother's keeper? We may deny our responsibility in other directions, but in this we cannot, because these people in the cells are in our power; we are their keeper. We are not doing a very good job. I believe that under the present Minister of Justice who has already analysed this subject to my satisfaction in a scholarly, sober and thorough way, the situation is bound to improve. I think it is time Parliament and the country as a whole took a close look at it.
Recently in Kingston Penitentiary there was a visit by Dr. Ernest Gordon. Some hon. Members will probably remember him. He wrote a book called the Valley of the Kwai. He commanded one of the Highland Regiments and was in captivity by the Japanese for a long time. He has been dean of Princeton Theological College. Recently he visited Kingston Penitentiary for several days. There used to be a situation at Kingston that even during church services there was a machine gun behind the pulpit ready to fire through a tiny hole. But that is not the case any more. There is a new atmosphere. Today in Kingston chapel no person is armed and there is practically no appearance of guards. Inmates who go there do so on a voluntary basis. This has had an electrifying effect. It takes some courage for some of these people who have a reputation for toughness to leave their cells to attend regular worship. I think the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) was present at Easter when the place was
May 17, 1965

packed. This is something completely contrary to anything experienced in the penitentiary before.
How did this come about? It came about because of the courage and leadership of the man Nickels who was naval padre on one of the ships of the Member for-


An hon. Member:: Victoria.


John Ross Matheson: Yes; the member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) knew him on shipboard. This man went to Kingston penitentiary and humanized it and brought these men together.
Certain proposals have been made recently by the hon. Member for Greenwood. They were sensible suggestions. I think, frankly, his bill on the Durham rule which I helped to talk out-


An hon. Member:: Proud of yourself?


John Ross Matheson: I did what I felt was correct at the time. But I have gone back through his speech and read a great deal more about the Durham rule, and it seems to me some of those suggestions are the kind we must bear in mind when we examine the penitentiaries.
Perhaps I have burdened the House for too long. I should like to conclude by reading part of a letter I received as a result of one of my visits to Kingston penitentiary. Incidentally, a number of Members from all parties have been active in these penitentiaries. I am in Kingston very often and I know that the presence of a Member of Parliament in these institutions is of considerable psychological importance. May I read extracts from this letter?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Sir, you and your son were guests at our chapel in Kingston penitentiary and I was one of the inmates who listened as you read the Bible lesson and, afterward, spoke on the frailty and doubt that assails men who represent other men in Government. As I listened something happened inside me; it was like a rent in the fabric of a dam, as though all my life I had been listening for some sign that there was indeed flesh and blood and benevolent intelligence somewhere. Here was a confirmation of a hope which had almost ceased to exist. From my position in the pecking order, it is so easy to believe that the people of government, somehow, get there by being visitors from an enemy planet. I felt within me, as I listened, a burst of emotion, a crying, that came not only from recognition of humanity in a fellowman, but from a deep relief that I was still able to recognize, and feel emotion for, something worthy. Over the years of my life, I have managed, in self-defence or survival, to grow a hard crust over the emotional part of me. Perhaps I raised my own self-image by deriding and trampling better men. You touched me deeply
Penitentiaries Committee and I'm grateful. I think from now on I'll listen a little more carefully for the voices motivated by high principles rather than the voices of the cynics. Just so you will know this letter is without ulterior motivation I shall refrain from adding my signature.
That day I had my son, 17 years old, with me. He spent quite a bit of time with a woman who was perhaps my age, or maybe a little older, in the women's penitentiary, where we had doughnuts and coffee after their service.
I asked my son what this woman was interested in and what they were talking about. He said she was terribly concerned about how he was getting along with the new mathematics course and she wanted to know how he was coping with the problems of French, Latin, and so on. Of course she would be interested in these things; she had five children, she was a human being, and she had committed one crime in her life-she had killed somebody. I mention that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That's a small thing.


John Ross Matheson: I hear a bit of laughter over there, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out that we have to approach crime and the crime prone with a little humanity. The other day I was travelling in the train and met a recent graduate from the University of Saskatchewan, Stanley Nottingham, of Saskatoon -and this is something the hon. Member for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones) will know-who told me that Leo Ouellette of Saskatoon was a troublemaker of long criminal record. He was a son of good parents who had always lived in dignity within the law. Ouellette was shot in a tavern. The autopsy revealed that he suffered subdural haematoma, which I am told is a severe bruise on the brain, of long standing. I believe that Dr. Lewis Brand of Saskatoon, who is well known to the Conservative ranks, was familiar with the details.
I am not advocating any policy of softness, but I do believe that when Members of this House of Commons go into jails it will be their moral duty to visit these places, not with any softness or sentiment, fully recognizing the danger that accompanies our police officers, but believing that reform is possible. We must be imaginative to fight crime, crime that is more ugly and more dangerous to our society today than perhaps at any time in the past. We must recognize that our purpose is not to be vengeful, but rather to deter crime and, above all, to reform.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that my recommendation with respect to work camps in
1390	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Committee the North brings laughter. I would like to suggest that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) take a very close look at the penitentiary service and make some kind of assessment as to what type of good mechanical, electrical or other work could be done in those institutions which would not seriously imperil labour or industry in Canada which now feels so sensitive that they would be adversely affected. I believe we should approach this problem from that point of view and permit people to work far harder and longer hours, and be paid. That is something that I think will ultimately come about.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be the desire of all hon. Members of the House to proceed to the establishment of the committee as quickly as possible. Therefore I am not going to take many minutes in presenting a few ideas in this respect; in fact, I am going to restrict my remarks to making one major point as we proceed to set up this important Committee. The great concern, as I listened to other Members, seemed to me that this might be just another device brought forward by the Government as a delaying procedure.
It is some 30 years since the Parliament of Canada began to take a serious interest in the problem of penal reform and bringing our system of penology into line with the modern concepts of rehabilitation and welfare. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) have referred to the two major studies that were made in this connection, the first being the Archambault Report, and later the Fauteux Report. Someone has said that it requires a minimum of 30 years between the time an idea is germinated and the occasion when it is implemented in the form of legislation. If this is true in reference to the subject of penal reform, Mr. Speaker, we are due for very drastic action in this field by 1968 at the latest. According to the progress that has been made in the intervening years, we are going to have to move very quickly indeed. Others have made some reference to the excellent work that was done by Hon. Davie Fulton when he was Minister of Justice. He moved into the field of establishing a more suitable facility which would fit into the modern concepts of penology, and we are all familiar with the minimum security institutions that were established under his direction.
Mr. Speaker, the point I want to deal with tonight is the fear that the present adminis-

DEBATES	May 17, 1985
tration is going to move toward the construction of maximum security institutions before this committee even has a chance to meet and consider the broad aspects of modem penology. I get this impression, for example from the statement that was made when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) visited St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary last October. On that occasion it was not a quiet or an unreported visit. Many hon. Members who have spoken in this discussion thus far have talked about their own experience in visiting penal institutions, and most of those visits have been carried out without the limelight of publicity. Last October the Minister of Justice took a group of some 100 reporters along to St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, and they were so shocked at what they saw, and the Minister was so shocked that he said, "There must be a quick end to what I call detestable conditions". It was shortly after that the announcement was made by the Government concerning the construction of new institutions, not of the minimum security variety but of the maximum security variety. I am hoping that these words of the Minister are not merely for the sake of effect; that it is not just a propaganda effort to lull those such as the Canadian Corrections Association, the John Howard Society and all the other voluntary groups that have been working in this field into thinking that something concrete will be done in this important area.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am hoping that before we make any wrong moves in regard to dealing with the provision of extended institutional and custodial care, the committee about to be set up will have an opportunity to take a very careful look at the modern principles of penology as they have been clearly enunciated in this House and outside this House on many occasions. There is a need for a statement on principles and policies in the federal correctional field; and, more important, there is need for positive action based on those principles.
The principles which have motivated our attitude to the care and handling of criminals have been enunciated already this evening in this House. There is the revenge or punitive approach, the deterrent approach; and there is the conversion and rehabilitation approach. I think there is no one in this House-there has not been in this discussion up to the present moment-who would support the punitive or deterrent principle. Obviously the pendulum has swung in the direction of conversion and rehabilitation. This is for obvious reasons,
May 17, 1965

when you consider that under the present system, which has been largely deterrent and punitive, the recidivist rate in Canada is some 85 per cent of the prison population. As the Commission for Penitentiaries announced, I believe in the report of the Department of Justice for the year 1962-63, the prison population is growing rapidly, particularly in the under 21 age category. So I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, this is dramatic evidence that the program exercised thus far has been less than successful.
In stressing the reform and the rehabilitation approach I should like to suggest that rather than thinking of custodial care and of increasing custodial facilities to deal with crime we should be thinking in terms of reform within society. This approach covers the whole gamut of social welfare problems at the present time.
I am not going to go into detail as to why crime is increasing, why mental illness is increasing or why drug addiction is on the increase. These are by products of an age of social change and social confusion. Certainly we are not going to resolve the problem by using the primitive method of shutting the offenders away from society for a shorter or longer period and hoping that automatically they will return to that society able to cope adequately, when before they were quite incapable of dealing with the situation.
This is why I quarrel with my hon. friend for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) in his rather contradictory presentation here tonight. I quarrel with him on two points. First of all, he regards the area north of the 60th parallel- and this unfortunately has been an attitude which has permeated the whole administration-as an area suitable for only the antisocial elements of Canadian society. Then in his observation a few moments ago the hon. Member for Leeds contradicted himself by saying that if we are going to reform offenders within society they must have access to community facilities, they must have access to community services, that there must be the atmosphere within the community itself which helps to carry out the rehabilitation process. I am sure that the isolation of the North would not be a conducive atmosphere in this regard.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the most useful method or technique of handling the problem is through the expansion of the probation and parole system. We have set up a parole board and a probation board, but we have not begun to tackle the aspect of this
Penitentiaries Committee problem which is the basic one, if the probation and parole boards are going to be able successfully to implement their programs and policies. We do not have the social workers trained in modern penology. We do not have the people capable of supervising the offenders when they are placed either on parole or on probation. I feel that before the Government moves to Em expensive program of constructing maximum security institutions they should give immediate attention to the social aspects of the problem; that is, making it possible for the offender to be rehabilitated and reformed within the community itself.
I do not want it to be understood, Mr. Speaker, that I am of the permissive school of thought so far as dealing with crime or with offences of any kind is concerned. I know in the family circle today that perhaps one of the reasons for the increase in juvenile deliquency is too much permissiveness on the part of parents who are afraid to administer the necessary disipline. If offenders are basically people who have offended against the rules of society and are antisocial in this respect, then, of course, some sort of discipline is required.
I rather subscribe to the viewpoint that the discipline be exerted within the community itself. If there must be punishment, let that punishment be the close supervision of the antisocial offender which comes from an adequate probation and parole system. To punish and not to restore is the greatest of all offences of which you could conceive. It is completely negative. You go out of the same door you came in. If man takes upon himself God's right to punish, which is what we do in the rigidly punitive approach to the problem of crime, then he must take upon himself God's promise to restore. I feel-and this is the point I want to make in concluding my remarks-that this can be done only within the community itself. This has been demonstrated in other countries practising progressive penal systems, and is also demonstrated by the failures shown by the figures in Canada quoted here in this discussion this evening.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we in this group find ourselves a great deal puzzled by this resolution, as well as by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the resolution. The Government of Canada has announced that it has appointed a Special Committee on Correctional Reform. In making the announce-

May 17. 1965
Penitentiaries Committee merit of the appointment of this committee on April 9, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) listed the terms of reference of the committee and I should like to read a few of them:
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
"To study the broad field of corrections, in its widest sense, from the initial investigation of an offence through to the final discharge of a prisoner from imprisonment or parole, including such steps and measures as arrest, summonsing, bail, representation in Court, conviction, probation, sentencing, training, medical and psychiatric attention, relief, parole, pardon-
And so on.
Having appointed a committee of experts to study the whole field and make recommendations, the implementation of which could change the entire prison population in terms of numbers, length of sentence and the kind of treatment they will receive, the Government at the same time has announced its intention to establish a parliamentary committee to consider prisons. How can such a committee make recommendations about prisons before knowing what the expert commission will recommend as to the kind of correctional system we ought to have? How could that committee make recommendations before it knew the objectives of the recommendations of that expert commission?
We are being asked by the Government to approve a program for building prisons and correctional institutions in Canada as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening. How ridiculous can the Government get? On the one hand it appoints a committee to look into the whole question of correctional institutions and, I hope, the broad question of expansion in the field of probation, which will in years to come result in a sharp decline in the prison population and a complete stoppage of the year by year increase, while at the same time it proposes a tremendous construction program.
I do not have before me the newspaper article, but in an issue of the Globe and Mail of a few weeks ago a judge estimated the program, to which the Government has committed itself, at a potential cost of $120 million over the next ten years. It seems completely idiotic that the Government should decide in advance to build $120 million or $100 million worth of new correctional institutions, at the same time it is asking a committee to look into the question of our correctional institutions, and to report as to whether we ought to have a different approach to this situation. I have asked on several occasions, specifically

tonight when I asked a question of the Parliamentary Secretary, about the specific program to build detention units to which the Government has committed itself. I understand these are to be maximum security prisons. The Parliamentary Secretary told us this evening that there are to be ten built across Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state that I made no such statement. There is to be one built in each penitentiary district of which there are four.


David Orlikow: I will accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, but there are plans to build a number of these institutions.
Dr. Jaffray, who died recently, wrote in an article which appeared in a correctional magazine that on the basis of the experience of countries like Great Britain, we were planning to build at least twice as many of these institutions as necessary. I understand that the liaison committee established by the Canadian Corrections Association and the John Howard Society of Canada has been meeting with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and his department, and has had an opportunity of looking at the plans. Reports indicate that that committee was horrified by the plan which provided, among other things, for the construction of cells in which there is to be no light except that which comes from a skylight system. Reports indicate that the committee informed the Minister and his officials that they were very disturbed in this regard, but that their protests were ignored.
In the event that hon. Members think I am exaggerating, I have before me a telegram which was sent to the Minister of Justice by the Canadian Corrections Association signed by one of the people the Minister thinks is so expert he qualifies to act on the royal commission of experts. That man is Mr. William McGrath. I should like to read this telegram into the record. The Parliamentary Secretary was very careful not to put it on the record during his statement this evening. I believe it was sent to the Minister on May 7, although I will not vouch for that date. I am sure that the contents are correct.
The telegram states:
Having seen the plans of the new federal penitentiaries under consideration or proposed for the future the Canadian Corrections Association feels obliged to express its serious concern to the Minister of Justice.
These structures appear to have been developed without regard to the study program objectives
May 17, 1965

of the Penitentiary Service and we therefore request that the design for the maximum security institutions be placed before the proposed Parliamentary Committee for thorough examination and that no new units be contracted for or constructed until such examination has taken place.
Further, we request that the construction of the special detention unit in the Province of Quebec be stopped immediately and no further such units be contracted for or constructed until a thorough examination of the plans be made by the proposed Parliamentary Committee.
These special detention units are completely unacceptable to the Canadian Corrections Association on the basis of scientific evidence related to the effects of psychological and physical isolation. Among other things we fear the deterioration of inmates who are confined in cells without windows.
Mr. McGrath is the Executive Secretary of the Canadian Corrections Association.
It seems to me there is little purpose in appointing a parliamentary committee or a royal commission to study the whole question in all its facets at a time when the Government seems determined to go ahead with a program to build maximum security units which have been criticized and condemned
Business of the House
by the people who have given the most thought and the most study to the question of what is needed in the field of correction in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose calling the following items of business: the third reading of the Senate reform bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Senate pension bill.


George James McIlraith: I stand uncorrected on the point. The second item to be called is second reading of Bill C-102, an Act respecting banks and banking. The third item to be called is second reading of Bill C-103, an Act respecting the Quebec Savings Bank. If there is time, we will then return to the motion under discussion tonight.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 18, 1965