1965-05-12

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government Notices of
Motions.
May 10-The Prime Minister:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business:
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1.	That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the Committee has unanimously reccommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and, if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting, interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this Notice of Motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders.



AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
May 10-The Prime Minister:
That the House do go into Committee of the Whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed Resolution:-
That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:
1.	That Standing Order 6 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Standing Order 6
6. (1) At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless provided otherwise in these Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day.
(2)	A motion that the House continue to sit after the hour specified in Section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not
May 12. 1965

Amendment of Standing Orders be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried. No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting. An extended sitting under the provisions of this Section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
(3)	If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1:00 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m. or between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise, the taking of the vote shall be postponed until after 2:30 o'clock p.m. or until after 8:00 o'clock p.m. as the case may be.
(4)	When it is provided in any Standing Order or in any order of the House that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until the specified proceedings be completed.
2.	That Section (1) of Standing Order 12 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 12, Section (1)
12. (1) Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.
3.	That Sections (3) and (4) of Standing Order 15 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 15, Sections (3) and (4)
15. (3) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business for the consideration of the House, day by day, after the daily routine shall be as follows:
(Monday)
Questions.
Government orders.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of Motions.
(Tuesday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Private bills.
Public bills.
(Wednesday)
Questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers.
Government orders.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of motions.
Public bills.
(Thursday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)

A.	On the first and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Notices of motions (papers).
Private bills.
Public bills.
B.	On the second and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Private bills.
Notices of motions (papers).
Public bills.
(Friday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
Private bills.
(4) When a debate on a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for Private Members' Business on that day shall be suspended.
4.	That Section (2) of Standing Order 31 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 31, Section (2)
31. (2) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time.
5.	That Section (5) of Standing Order 39 be enacted to read as folows:
Standing Order 39, Section (5)
39. (5) Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper, provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed thirty minutes.
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the question period before the Orders of the Day, must be given in writing to Mr. Speaker not later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. the same day.
6.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 41-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 41-A
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
7.	That Standing Order 43 be amended by adding thereto a new Section (2), to read as follows:
Standing Order 43, Section (2)
43. (2) When debate on any motion made under Standing Order 15 (2) is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders.
May 12, 1965

8.	That Standing Order 44 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 44
44. When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to extend the sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
9.	That Section (4) of Standing Order 59 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 59, Section (4)
59. (4) The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to Mr. Speaker; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof. No debate shall be permitted on any decision.
10.	That Standing Order 65 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 65
65.	(1) At the commencement of each session,
a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
(a)	on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development, to consist of 45 members;
(b)	on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of 22 members;
(c) on Crown Corporations, to consist of 22 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(f)	on Fisheries, to consist of 22 members;
(g) on Health and Welfare, to consist of 22 members;
(h)	on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, to consist of 22 members;
(i)	on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 22 members;
(j)	on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 22 members;
(k)	on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(l)	on Labour and Employment, to consist of 22 members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 22 members:
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of 22 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 22 members;
(p)	on Northern Affairs and National Resources, to consist of 22 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 22 members;
(r)	on Public Accounts, to consist of 24 members;
(s)	on Standing Orders, to consist of 22 members;
(t)	on Transport and Communications, to consist of 22 members; and
(u)	on Veterans Affairs, to consist of 22 members.
(2)	The Special Committee shall also prepare
and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees :
on Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on
Amendment of Standing Orders
the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
on the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 21 members;
provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
Provided that, in the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.
(4)	The Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; and to print, from day to day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and Standing Order 66 shall not apply in relation thereto.
(5)	Any member of the House of Commons who is not a member of a standing committee, may, unless the House or the standing committee otherwise orders, take part in the deliberations of the standing committee, but shall not vote or move any motion or any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
11.	That Standing Order 99 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 99
99. No Bill for the incorporation of a railway or canal company, or for authorizing the construction of branch lines or extensions of existing lines of railways or of canals, or for changing the route of the railway or of the canal of any company already incorporated, shall be considered by the Committee on Transport and Communications, until there has been filed with the committee, at least one week before the consideration of the bill, a map or plan drawn upon a scale of not less than half an inch to the mile, showing also the lines of existing or authorized works of a similar character within, or in any way affecting the district, or any part thereof, which the proposed work is intended to serve; and such map or plan shall be signed by the engineer or other person making the same.
12.	That Standing Order 105 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 105
105. Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the Committee on Transport and Communications; the bills not coming under these classes, to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questions

[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1965
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 23 (Supplementary)-Mr. Nasserden:
1.	How many projects in each province have been approved for grants in the federal-provincial centennial grants program?
2.	What is the total amount granted for each province to date?
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
1.	Number of Centennial Projects approved by Centennial Commission as at April 6, 1965:
Local Centennial		Conf. M.
	Projects	Projects
Newfoundland	24	1
P.E.I.		1
Nova Scotia		1
New Brunswick	1	1
Quebec	6	
Ontario	144	
Manitoba	5	1
Saskatchewan	59	
Alberta	6	
British Columbia		1
Yukon		1
N.W.T.		
Total	245	7
2. Amount of Grants approved by Centen-		
nial Commission	as at April 6, 1965.	
Local Centennial		Memorial
	Projects	Projects
N e wfoimdland	$ 139,848.00	$ 2,500,000
P.E.I.		2,800,000
Nova Scotia		2,500,000
New Brunswick	20,210.00	2,500,000
Quebec	1,549,999.99	
Ontario	1,776,586.52	
Manitoba	12,935.00	2,500,000
Alberta	653,001.50	
Saskatchewan	93,376.01	
British Columbia		2,500,000
Yukon		250,000
N.W.T.		
Total	$ 4,245,957.02	$15,550,000



[Stage Direction]
Question No. 100	(Supplementary)-Mr. Coates:
1.	How many projects in each province have been approved for grants in the federal-provincial centennial grants program?
2.	What is the total amount of grants for each province which has been approved to date?
Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
1. Number of Centennial Projects Approved
by Centennial Commission as at April 8, 1965:		
Local Centennial		Conf. M.
	Projects	Projects
Newfoundland	24	1
P.E.I.		1
Nova Scotia		1
New Brunswick	1	1
Quebec	6	
Ontario	144	
Manitoba	5	1
Saskatchewan	59	
Alberta	6	
British Columbia		1
Yukon N.W.T.		1
	-	-
Total	245	7
	-	-
2. Amount of	Grants approved by Cen-	
tennial Commission as at April 8,		1965.
Local Centennial		Memorial
	Projects	Projects
Newfoundland	$ 139,848.00	$ 2,500,000
P.E.I.		2,800,000
Nova Scotia		2,500,000
New Brunswick	20,210.00	2,500,000
Quebec	1,549,999.99	
Ontario	1,776,586.52	
Manitoba	12,935.00	2,500,000
Saskatchewan	93,376.01	
Alberta	653,001.50	
British Columbia		2,500,000
Yukon N.W.T.		250,000
Total	$ 4,245,957.02	$15,550,000


OBSERVERS AT SEAL HUNT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What members of the society of the prevention of cruelty to animals, the Humane Society, or the Audubon Society observed the hunting of young seals during the 1965 hunting season?
2.	On what day did the sealing season open?

May 12, 1965

3.	Were any officers of the above-mentioned associations provided with facilities to observe the hunting operations on the opening day of the season?
4.	Did the Minister or any of the officials of the Department of Fisheries receive protests from any of the above mentioned organizations regarding cruelty on the part of seal hunters during the current season?
5.	What officials of what organizations asked for permission to observe the sealing operations?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.	Mr. Jacques Vallee, General Manager, Canadian S.P.C.A., Montreal, P.Q.; Mr. Brian Davies, New Brunswick S.P.C.A,, Fredericton, N.B.; Mr. Patrick Hardy, Managing Director, Canadian Audubon Society, Toronto, Ont.
2.	Monday, March 8, 1965.
3.	No, but Mr. Hardy was on the Magdalen Islands on his own initiative. Arrangements had been made well in advance to have representatives of the various societies visit the ice on March 15-a time at which, from previous sealing history, hunting of young seals would be at its height. When the catch on March 8 was so large as to indicate the quota of 50,000 young might be quickly taken, each of the nominees was phoned and arrangements made to transport them earlier. Only the three named in (1) above were able to take advantage of the change.
Questions
4.	Yes, from Mr. A. L. McLaurin, President of Canadian S.P.C.A. Montreal; and Brian Davies, New Brunswick S.P.C.A., Fredericton, on shooting of adult seals.
5.	In addition to the three named in (1), the selected delegation was to include: (1) Mr. T. I. Hughes, General Manager, Ontario Humane Society, Toronto; (2) Mr. R. C. Passmore, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa; (3) Dr. D. H. Pimlott, Toronto, representing Canadian Audubon Society; (4) Dr. Carleton E. Buttrick, International S.P.C.A. Boston, Mass., U.S.A.; (5) Mr. Frederic D. Cordwell, Halifax, representing the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies; (6) Mr. J. Robert Smith, Chief Administrator, International S.P.C.A., Boston, Mass., U.S.A.


CENTENNIAL PROJECTS, BRUCE COUNTY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 140 (Supplementary)-Mr. Loney:
1.	In the county of Bruce, what centennial projects have been approved to date?
2.	What are the municipalities, the dates approved, and the amounts approved?
Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
1 and 2. Centennial Projects in the County of Bruce, Province of Ontario approved by the Centennial Commission to April 9, 1965:
Municipality
Project
Date Approved
Township of Eastnor Village of Teeswater and Township of Culross
Town of Hanover
Park
Installation of Artificial Ice in Teeswater-Culross Memorial Arena Pavilion on Park lands
Feb. 19, 1965 Dec. 7, 1964
Dec. 7, 1964
Amt. of Fed. Cont'n Appr. $ 900.00 2,688.00
4,374.00
CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 65-281	1. 192.


Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many applicants were there for the position of Tourist Development Officer with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Competition No. 65-281?
2.	How many of these applicants were granted personal interviews?
3.	Has an applicant as yet been selected for the position and, if so, what is the name of the successful applicant, and what, in detail, are his qualifications?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
2. 6.
3.	No, the competition has not yet been completed.


DREDGING TENDERS, BIG ISLAND. N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders for dredging at Big Island (Merigomish), Pictou County, N.S.?
2.	To whom has the contract been awarded?
3.	When is the work to be completed?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. F. W. Digdon & Sons Ltd., $6,042;

May 12. 1965
Questions
Colin R. MacDonald, $7,102; R. A. Douglas, $12,932; Stanley Reid, $13,197.
2.	F. W. Digdon & Sons Ltd.
3.	Two months after award of contract.


DREDGING TENDERS, MACDONALD'S COVE N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders for dredging at MacDonald's Cove, Pictou County, N.S.?
2.	To whom has the contract been awarded?
3.	When is the work to be completed?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. F. W. Digdon & Sons Ltd., $9,371.25; R. A. Douglas, $12,521.25; R. C. Goodall and A. E. MacMaster, $13,387.50; Colin R. MacDonald, $14,017.50; Stanley Rein, $19,608.75.
2.	F. W. Digdon & Sons Ltd.
3.	Three months after award of contract.


WINTER HOUSE CONSTRUCTION APPLICATIONS, KAMOURASKA COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many applications were submitted to the Department of Labour by the citizens of Kamou-raska under the incentive program to encourage winter construction of dwellings?
2.	How many applications were accepted?
3.	What amount was paid out under this program in 1963?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. Ten applications were submitted to the Department of Labour by citizens of the County of Kamouraska under the 1964-65 Winter House Building Incentive Program.
2.	Six of these applications were accepted.
3.	Under the 1963-64 Winter House Building Incentive Program, the Federal Government paid $13,831,000 in respect to dwelling units qualifying for the incentive.


INCREASES IN VETERANS PENSIONS
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many of this country's veterans have had their pensions increased during 1964?
2.	What was the total amount of this increase?
3.	What is, to date, the number of Canada's veterans who have had a reduction in the amount of the increase granted to them in 1964?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) 146,885 veterans had their disability pensions increased under the amendments effective September 1, 1964. (b) 4,332 disability pensioners had their pensionable assessments increased during the period from January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964.
2. The increase in annual liability for disability pensioners as a result of the increased
[Mr. Cardin.l
pension rates effective September 1, 1964 was $13,197,559.
3. 567 disability pensioners had their pensionable assessments decreased during the period from September 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, NEW HAVEN, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What are the plans of the government for further harbour improvements at New Haven, Victoria County, Nova Scotia, and how soon will any proposed improvements take place?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No definite plans-matter under consideration.


GRANTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH PROJECTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What psychiatric research projects being conducted by the universities, government and private foundations are being financed by federal health grants for the current year?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of these grants for mental health research being done in each province?
4.	What is the total value of these grants for Canada?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Under the public health research grant, the Department of National Health and Welfare has allocated funds in 1965-66 toward the conduct of research into the prevention and treatment of mental illness and for the promotion of mental health in Canada at various Canadian universities hospitals and other health agencies.
2. Sixty one research projects are being supported in the present fiscal year. The grants vary from $1,450 to $42,150.
Newfoundland	-
Prince Edward Island	$ 6,000
Nova Scotia	17,680
New Brunswick	-
Quebec	181,620
Ontario	173,635
Manitoba	59,765
Saskatchewan	131,337
Alberta	43,525
British Columbia	121,125
Northwest Territories	-
Yukon Territory	-
4. $734,687.
May 12, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1199
.	Questions
FEDERAL LAND PURCHASE, CHARLOTTETOWN, TENDERS FOR COASTAL SERVICE, P.E.I. TO P.E.I.	NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. MacLean (Queens): With regard to 0.34 of an acre of land purchased by the Crown in 1964 from A. Pickard & Company, Charlottetown, for the Department of Transport for $7,428.37	(a) were there any costs to
the Crown other than the above price of the land (b) what were the amounts of these costs, if any (c) to whom were these costs paid?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a) Yes.
(b)	and (c): The depreciated replacement cost of building No. 1, $2,500; the depreciated replacement cost of building No. 2, $1,790; cost of demolishing buildings Nos. 1 and 2 and cleaning up site, $2,950; depreciation to the balance of the Pickard property due to the expropriation: 10 per cent of $34,991 (value of residue), $3,500; 10 per cent for forcible taking calculated on cost of land and buildings, i.e., $11,723.37, $1,172.33.
The land value plus the above cost totalled $19,345.70 and for an amicable settlement the figure was rounded to $20,000 which was considered very reasonable.
There were no appraisal charges but the agent for the Minister of Justice in finalizing the transaction charged $107.90. The negotiations with Mr. Pickard were carried out by the Department's Regional Real Estate Officers and a survey was completed by our Regional Land Surveyor.


ENROLMENT UNDER VOCATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Mr. Gelber: What is the latest information available, by provinces, of the number of persons in training under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Number of Students in Vocational All other voca-High School tional training
1963-64	Feb. 28, 1965	TotalNfld.	366	2,125	2,491P.E.I.	395	266	661N.S.	1,636	1,661	3,297N.B.	5,882	2,873	8,775Que.	*	26,440	26,440Ont.	121,103	15,985	137,088Man.	4,728	2,598	7,326Sask.	6,731	1,788	8,519Alta.	11,206	4,813	16,019B.C.	12,373	5,475	17,848Y.T.	77	110	187N.W.T.	*	82	82Total	164,497	64,216	228,713
*No statistics available.


Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for the coastal service from Prince Edward Island to Newfoundland?
2.	What companies tendered on this service and what is the amount of the various tenders?
3.	What company was awarded this contract and what is the horsepower and speed of the vessel to be used on this service?
4.	How long had the company which previously held this contract operated this service and what is the name of that company?
5.	Is the Minister of Transport aware of the importance of this contract to the port of Pictou and will the Minister ask the Canadian Maritime Commission to reconsider their decision and award the contract to the company which held this contract until now?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	North Shipping and Transportation Limited Tender: Federal subsidy $82,900; Provincial, $30,000. Gulf and Northern Shipping Co., Limited, Tender: Federal subsidy $84,500; Provincial, $30,500.
3.	North Shipping and Transportation Limited, Horsepower, 900; speed, 11 knots.
4.	Nine years. Gulf and Northern Shipping Co., Limited.
5.	Yes, and contract calls for service to Pictou at least equal to service previously provided. Contract has been awarded as above, and no change could be made unless the terms of the contract were not fulfilled.


VESSEL ASSISTANCE TO INLAND FISHERMEN
Mr. Stefanson: Has the federal government any plans to extend the Fishing Vessel Assistance Plan to make it available to inland fishermen like those on Lake Winnipeg and other Manitoba lakes and, if so, when will this plan be implemented?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A proposal has been made to Manitoba and other provinces having inland fisheries. Matter has been the subject of discussion by Federal-Provincial Prairie Fisheries Committee. Implementation must await decisions by the provinces.


GRANTS FOR FISHERMEN EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Slefanson: To what universities or technical schools has the federal government made grants for fishermen education programs, during the past five years, listing the names of the universities and the amount of the grants?

Questions


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May 12, 1965

St. Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, N.S.	51,700
Social Economic Service (Laval)
La Pocatiere, P.Q.	27,100
University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C.	11,200
Memorial University,
St. John's, Nfld.	Nil
1961-62 $	1962-63 $	1963-64 $	1964-65 $51,700	51,700	51,700	51,70027,100	27,100	27,100	27,10011,200	11,200	11,200	11,20025,000	25,000	30,000	30,000


ASSISTANCE FOR FISHERMAN EDUCATION PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: Has the government received a request from the province of Manitoba for assistance for the University of Manitoba to establish a fisherman education program?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This government has not received a request.


SERVICE TO GROSSE ILE, QUE.
Mr. Berger: 1.	What is the tonnage and the number of crewmen of the vessel serving Grosse lie?
2.	What was the operating cost for the said vessel, including fuel, repairs, crew wages, etc. for the years 1962-63-64?
3.	How are transportation and supplies handled during the winter season and what was the total cost of them for the winters of 1962-63-64?
4.	What was the total cost of improvements, if any, to the aircraft landing strip which would normally be used as the only means of servicing the Island during the winter months?
5.	Has the assistance of helicopter service been used or suggested, and what was or would be the cost of it, as the case may be?
6.	Is coal still used for fuel on Grosse lie and, if so, how many tons per annum, and how is it carried to the Island and what is the cost of transportation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minisier of Agriculture):: 1. The tonnage of the vessel serving Grosse He is 42.98. Two (2) crew men handle the vessel.
2. Operating cost for said vessel:
Fuel	Repairs	Approximate crew wages while on vessel1962	$226	$15,555	$ 5,6001963	$216	$ 3,062	$ 7,5001964	$399	$ 3,331	$ 7,500Total $841 	$21,948	$20,6003.	Transportation of food supplies, mail, minor supply items, and personnel is handled during the winter season by prearranged and special airplane and helicopter service between Montmagny or Quebec City and Grosse He. About once each winter emergency supplies are transported to Grosse lie by a Department of Transport icebreaker. The cost, exclusive of icebreaker service, was:Helicopter	Airplane1962	NIL	$ 5251963	$1,867	$ 3301964	NIL	$ 810Total	$1,867	$1,665
No record of the cost of the supply items transported in this manner is available.
4.	The total cost of the improvements to the landing strip was approximately $390.
5.	Helicopter service was used in 1963 (before the landing strip was levelled). The cost was at the rate of $100 per hour. A return trip to Grosse lie averaged two hours.
6.	Coal is the prime type of fuel used and 600 tons are burned annually. Transportation cost of the coal is included in the price per ton delivered to the Grosse lie wharf. The price for that delivered in the fall of 1964 was $19.50 per ton.


CONTRACT FOR BRAS D'OR ILLUSTRATION STATION
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
For what reason was the contract for the Bras d'Or Illustration Station not renewed?


Harry William Hays: The project farm at Bras d'Or was used mainly as a test area for varieties of oats and barley and as a cereal rust nursery. Experience has shown that similar response along these lines can be obtained at Nappan on the Experimental Farm and at Truro in
May 12, 1965

Questions
co-operation with the Agricultural College. improvement of harbour facilities, This is the most efficient arrangement.	arnes, man.


MAIL CONTRACT. SENNETERRE-RAPIDE DES CEDRES, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Has a new contract been let for the carrying of mail between Senneterre and Rapide Des Cedres and, if so (a) when did such a contract come into effect (b) what is the term of such a contract (c) who submitted bids (d) what is the amount of each bid (e) to whom was the contract finally let?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: No. The proposed mail service between Rapide Des Cedres and Senneterre has not yet been established.
(a)	The contract will become effective as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed.
(b)	The term of the new contract would be for a period not exceeding four years.
(c>
and (d) Jean Paul Blouin, Box 611, Senneterre, $4,825; Leo Berube, Senneterre, $4,990; Ernest J. Kenney, 751-10th Ave., Senneterre, $5,728.32; Alcide Ricard, Box 547, Senneterre, $5,900; Narcisse Grand-Maison, Box 581, Senneterre, $6,260; Philippe Rivard, Rapide Des Cedres, $6,800; Maurice Robichaud, Senneterre, $7,825; Florent Belanger, Box 1033, Senneterre, $8,000; Francois Durocher, 36010th Ave., Senneterre, $8,500; Hebert Lessard, Rapide Des Cedres, $9,900; Camille Coulombe, Box 441, Senneterre, $10,500; Late Tender (Received 15 April 1965-2:00 P.M.), Eugene Leo Robitaille, Belcourt, $8,500.
(e) The contract has not yet been awarded. In accordance with the terms of the Post Office Act, an enquiry is now in progress to determine whether the lowest tenderer is able to meet the requirements of the service.


INSURANCE FOR LOBSTER FISHERMEN
Mr. Lloyd: 1.	Would the government give consideration to the introduction of a proposal that an insurance program be undertaken that would reimburse lobster fishermen against seasonal catch losses due to storm destruction of equipment in the same manner that crop insurance is provided to farmers against crop failures?
2.	Has the government made an approach to the Government of Nova Scotia seeking the introduction of such a policy?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: ): 1. Consideration has been given to the general problem of catch loss or failure arising from any cause, but it has not yet been found possible to devise a practical program.
2. No.


Mr. Stefanson: What plans has the government for improving harbour facilities at Arnes, Manitoba, and when will these be carried out?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): No improvements of harbour facilities at Arnes, Manitoba, are under consideration.


COMPLAINTS RESPECTING HOME CONSTRUCTION, RICHMOND, B.C.
Mr. Webb: 1.	Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation received complaints from home owners at Richmond Gardens, Richmond, British Columbia, relating to the quality of construction, faulty workmanship and other matters of homes built at that place by Consolidated Building Corporation under the National Housing Act?
2.	If so, what action has been taken with regard to these complaints?
3.	Has an investigation taken place and, if so, to what effect?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisler of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. Each complaint has been carefully investigated by officials of the Corporation with a view to assisting the purchaser in obtaining satisfactory completion of his home. Wherever warranted, the home was visited by a representative of the Corporation and a special examination of the construction was carried out. All faults listed by the owner were checked to confirm whether or not construction was defective. Subsequently, the Corporation took steps to insure, as far as possible, that the builder would carry out the necessary remedial work. Where NHA loan funds were not fully disbursed, holdbacks were retained until deficiencies were corrected. Some of these holdbacks are still being maintained.


LICENCES AND INSURANCE OF LOBSTER FISHERMEN, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many fishermen in the four Atlantic Provinces have purchased a licence permitting them to catch lobsters?
2.	How many of these fishermen carry lobster trap insurance under the fishermen's indemnity plan?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1.	Licences are still being issued for present season. For past licence year; i.e., Oct. 15, 1983, to Oct. 14, 1964, licences were issued as follows:

May 12. 1965
Questions
Nova Scotia	15,144
New Brunswick	5,169
Prince Edward Island 3,098 Newfoundland	9,781
33,192
2.	In the above period 143 fishermen carried lobster trap insurance.


EMPLOYMENT OF ISAAC BEAULIEU
Mr. Howard: 1.	Is one Isaac Beaulieu employed by any agency, department or branch of government and, if so, what are (a) his duties (b) his salary (c) the date upon which he commenced employment (d) his qualifications, and (e) the name of his predecessor?
2.	Was the said Mr. Beaulieu employed as a result of a competition?
3.	Is this the Isaac Beaulieu who was associated with the National Indian Council?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Mr. Isaac Beaulieu is employed as a Community Development Officer in the Social Programs Division of the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, at present, is undergoing three months' training at the Community Development Institute in Ottawa.
(a)	His duties include taking measures to stimulate economic, social and cultural growth and promoting the participation of Indians in the development process; facilitating development of local government and other organizations; conducting group meetings; supervising specialists and Indian employees; encouraging joint efforts and consultation between Indian and non-Indian groups and facilitating the participation of various agencies and others in community development.
(b)	His salary is $7,230 per annum.
(c)	He commenced employment on March 31, 1965.
(d)	Mr. Beaulieu has Bachelors' degrees in arts and education. He has had experience as a community teacher, Executive Secretary of the Indian-Eskimo Association and as liaison officer with the national Indian Council. The combination of his academic and experience qualifications met the requirements for the class, Indian Affairs Officer 4.
(e)	Since this is a new position, Mr. Beaulieu has no predecessor.
2.	Yes, by open competition.
3.	Yes, in the capacity of liaison officer.


TRANSFER OF LANCASTER VETERANS HOSPITAL
Mr. Bell: 1.	Has the transfer of Lancaster D.V.A. Hospital to Moncton or elsewhere been considered and, if so, with what result and, if not, will representations be accepted from medical, Legion and municipal groups?
2.	What is its present treatment rating compared with other military and civilian hospitals?
3.	Will the importance of the regional medical status of the Saint John area and their future hospital expansion plans be a factor in any changes?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	No suggestion has reached the Department of Veterans Affairs to the effect that Lancaster Hospital should be moved away from the Saint John area. In the event that such a suggestion should be made, representations from the groups named would be considered along with all other pertinent factors.
2.	Lancaster Hospital is accredited by the Canadian Hospital Association. This distinction is shared by all other D.V.A. hospitals and many, but not all, civilian hospitals.
3.	Answered in (1) above.


ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITIONS
Mr. Gelber: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works conducted, in the past year, any architectural competitions for the design of public buildings?
2.	Is the Department planning to open architectural competitions for any public buildings?


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


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Basford: In each year since 1950, what has been the total moneys paid to residents of the province of British Columbia under the (a) Old Age Pensions Act (b) Old Age Assistance Act (c) War Veterans Pensions Act (d) War Veterans Allowance Act (e) Family Allowances Act (f) Blind Persons Act (g) Disabled Persons Act?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 21, 23, 24 and 25 are acceptable to the Government. I ask that notice of motion No. 13 be now called. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.
May 12. 1965


CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Brewin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged during the past year between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General or other provincial ministers regarding methods of amending the Constitution of Canada; and also for other papers and documents prepared for and presented to the meeting held in October between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General relating to the amendment of the Constitution of Canada.
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Government will agree to the first part of motion No. 13, which relates to all correspondence exchanged during the past year between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General or other provincial ministers regarding methods of amending the constitution of Canada.
As to the documents referred to in the remainder of the motion, if it is agreeable to the House 1 suggest that no order to produce them be made, because they are in the nature of confidential documents. These documents concern the in camera proceedings and discussions that took place between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General of the provinces. If it is agreeable to the mover I suggest that the motion be adopted in that fashion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Bigg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Canadian National Pensions Association and the Prime Minister since May 1, 1963 regarding increased pension benefits for retired C.N.R. employees.
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS UNDER CUSTOMS ACT FIXING DUTIES Motion No. 23-Mr. Moreau:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 23, 1963, under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties.
Motion agreed to.
1203
Inquiries of the Ministry INCREASED PENSIONS FOR RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Motion No. 24-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and/or messages since January, 1964, between any association of superannuated Civil Servants or other individuals and the Prime Minister or any member of the government asking for an increase in the superannuation allowance.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Canadian Metal Mining Association and the Government of Canada, and the United Steelworkers of America and the Government of Canada regarding proposals to permit immigration into Canada of miners and skilled tradesmen.
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct the Prime Minister's attention to the report of a suggestion made by Mr. George Ball, United States Under Secretary of State, on the creation of a force which I think he described as an inter-American peace force, to be maintained permanently for crises in the western hemisphere. What is the attitude of the Canadian Government to the creation of such a force limited to the Americas? Would the creation of such a force have a detrimental effect on United Nations peace keeping operations; and generally, has there been any action taken in the last few days on the part of Canada in the Western Hemisphere for membership, either direct or associate, in the Organization of American States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first part of the question is concerned I, like my right hon. friend, noted with interest the proposal, perhaps an important proposal. We are taking steps to find out more about it through discussions with the United States Government authorities. I can only say now, pending further discussions, that we would prefer peace keeping forces of this kind to be under the United Nations rather than under any regional organization, though there may be occasions when regional organizations could

May 12. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry be useful, especially if they could be brought under the general auspices of the United Nations.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, to my knowledge there has been no approach made to Canada in recent days for either membership or association in the Organization of American States.


John George Diefenbaker: It is understandable that the proposition advanced by Mr. Ball is receiving attention. Can it be taken for granted that Canada's attitude would be that it would be opposed to setting up any peace keeping operations in any part of the world except under the auspices of the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, that would certainly be preferable, Mr. Speaker.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, seeking some clarification of the espionage cases which were discussed yesterday in the House. I would like to ask the Minister if he could give the House the approximate date when the Canadian citizen who co-operated with the R.C.M.P. first acquainted that body with the fact that he had been approached and indicated his willingness to work with the R.C.M.P. and approximately what date this information was communicated by that body to the Minister of Justice.


Guy Favreau: As
to the last part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the matter was communicated to me by the officers concerned in the normal course of communications in relation to matters which concern security, and external affairs.
As to the first part of the question, this is one of fact concerning which I must ascertain the minute details.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am asking the Minister what is meant by being informed in the normal course of events? I ask the Minister this more specifically. Was there any lapse of time, and if so what was that length of time, between the approach by the citizen in question to the R.C.M.P. and the communication to the minister of the fact that this gentleman was going to act for the R.C.M.P.?
IMr. Pearson.]


Guy Favreau: All I can answer for the moment is that the R.C.M.P. are satisfied that this person did make the appropriate communication at the appropriate time. I repeat that so far as the exact moment and date of the communication are concerned, I must state that I am not in a position to say what they were exactly.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not?


Guy Favreau: Second, I have to consider whether it would be in the interests of the ends of justice to state such information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, it does not seem germane to the original question whether the R.C.M.P. are satisfied; it is whether the House is satisfied that the matter was reported to the Minister promptly. That is all I am asking the Minister. Did any period of time elapse between the incident taking place and the Minister being acquainted with this fact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This seems the proper time to refer to Beauchesne, citation 181(4):
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by the Minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be replaced on the notice paper. The refusal of a Minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege.
It does seem to me we have had very extensive questioning on the subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I did not take it that the Minister was refusing to answer. If the Minister is refusing to answer the question then of course I shall sit down and refrain from continuing. I merely took it that the Minister was not clear as to the question I was asking. I was trying to secure information as to whether there was a lapse between the time the R.C.M.P. were acquainted with the information and the time the Minister was acquainted with it, and respecting the period of time between the Minister being acquainted with this information and it being passed on to the Prime Minister.


Guy Favreau: I said two things, Mr. Speaker. First, I could not state exactly the date, the time or the minute when the information was relayed, but I said also that given such information, under my responsibilities I have to consider whether it would be proper for me to communicate this information. I must point out to the House, and I know all concerned will understand the position, that it has been not only the custom but has been
May 12, 1965	COMMONS
found to be the duty of Government in certain of these cases either to release part of the information or not to release any information at all. One instance was quoted inter alia yesterday with respect to the previous government-and I have no quarrel with them in this respect-having refused even the suggestion of the R.C.M.P. to publicize one such instance. So in the circumstances I think it is not only proper for me not to volunteer information on the spur of the moment, but it is my duty to consider fully the advisability of doing it or not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the Minister is considering this matter will he also consider giving information to the House as to when he communicated the situation with respect to this espionage case to the Prime Minister?


Guy Favreau: Subject to my answer, Mr. Speaker, I will.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponfiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the reply he has just given and of the necessity of dealing with this matter confidentially, would the government consider the advisability of holding a meeting behind closed doors, so as to provide members of the house with all the information they are entitled to obtain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, would be a very unusual occasion if we had an in camera sitting for a matter of this kind. I do not need to tell the House that security investigations are going on continually, unfortunately; and as my colleague the Minister of Justice has said, some are made public and the results are made public, but others are not.
It was considered on this occasion, on the advice of the security authorities, to give maximum publicity to the incident in question. I would be very happy, as I said yesterday, to meet the leaders of the various parties and give them information which it would be appropriate to give them but which it would not be appropriate to give to the full House of Commons in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: If I might speak, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister, if he thinks over what he has said, has any 22620-785
DEBATES	1205
Inquiries of the Ministry right to do that. He can only transmit secret information to those who are of the Privy Council, and for leaders of parties to get this information is quite outside the ambit of the rights of Parliament. There is no doubt about that, is there-that secret information or anything of that nature cannot be passed on to anyone but a Member of the Privy Council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know whether I can accept what the right hon. gentleman has suggested as being in fact the constitutional practice. Of course a Privy Councillor is subject to the Privy Councillor's oath. But there have been occasions in the past, I am quite sure-indeed, I know-when the Prime Minister considered it desirable to consult leaders of other parties as well as the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition when he was not a Member of the Privy Council, in respect of matters which were confidential.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say immediately that at no time when I was Prime Minister did I consult with any private Member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -did I consult with any Members of Parliament not Privy Councillors and give them such knowledge. And, may I add, in view of the applause which greeted the first part of my remarks, there was not the same attitude in those days of no communication between Ministers as has been evident in connection with recent cases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is related to the topic we have been discussing and also to the question I asked yesterday. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether there is an orientation course for civil servants designed to acquaint them with the techniques of subversion, the likely areas of interest and the methods used by subversives for exploring and penetrating those areas of interest? If not, does the Government not think it adviseable that information similar to that published by the British Government in its handbook for all government employees entitled "Their Trade is Treachery" should be made available widely and immediately within the Canadian Government service both at home and abroad?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question is being considered, but I would inform the hon. Member at once that there is, of course, a security
May 12, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry panel of senior civil servants and that it is the duty of members of this panel and of the Deputy Minister to acquaint all employees who have access to sensitive and secret information of their duties and of the dangers. I know this is done in the Department with which I have been particularly familiar.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a related or supplementary question to address to the Minister of Justice. I believe the man Poluchkin, one of the two Russian spies, did not have diplomatic immunity according to the embassy list showing those who are entitled to it. If this is correct, why then was this man not charged?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I can deal with that question because I have been in touch with the Department of External Affairs on this very point. It is true that one of the Soviet officials in question did not have diplomatic status, but he had official status on the diplomatic list, and he was given the same treatment in this regard as members of the Canadian Embassy in Moscow are given whether or not they are diplomatic officers as such.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Basically, this man did not have immunity from being charged?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He did have a certain immunity which is conventional to members of diplomatic staffs in his position, and he was treated exactly as a Canadian official in his position in Moscow or in any other communist country should, and I believe would, be treated.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is he aware that since the R.C.M.P. has been put in charge of security at Quebec harbour the reports are made in English, although all employees are French speaking?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that but I shall inquire.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware of the confliction in reports out of Halifax respecting conditions which allegedly jeopardize the safety of air traffic using the Halifax international airport? Would the Minister investigate reports that radar facilities at the airport are inadequate to meet safety requirements?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard about the report to which the hon. Member refers. I commend to the hon. gentleman an article which appears, I am informed-since they did me the courtesy of giving me an advance copy-in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of today which corrects the report of yesterday. I may say that to the best of my knowledge there is no hazard; that is according to the best information I have been able to secure from those in whom I have confidence. It will be understood, of course, that I have no technical competence myself in this field, but the trusted officers of the Department are of the opinion that there is no hazard of the kind described in the Halifax Mail Star of last night.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. Is the Minister aware of a narrowly avoided mid-air collision between naval air trackers from Shearwater and a commercial airliner in the vicinity of Halifax airport, and is this incident included in what the Minister refers to as the correction?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had heard the report, of course, but I had not heard about it in any other context. I am not sure whether the report is correct, but it is being investigated by those charged with this duty.


Malcolm MacInnis: One further supplementary question. Will the Minister investigate why Air Canada flight 463, under what appeared to be very good conditions, had to make a second pass at the runway before landing on May 10, Monday last?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If by "investigate" the hon. gentleman means will I make inquiries of those competent to investigate the matter, I will.
May 12, 1965	COMMONS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A supplementary question. In this connection would the Minister also check into a report that the radar equipment used by traffic control at Kelly Lake has a blind area-I believe that has not been denied-with a view to correcting this condition, which is not a desirable one regardless of whether or not it is dangerous?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Queens for doing me the courtesy of advising my office that he intended to raise this matter today. I have been informed about the blind area to which the hon. gentleman refers. I think I will not take the time of the House to deal with the matter, because the whole thing is set out very clearly in an excellent story in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of this morning.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish
to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that Hon. Denis Healey, Minister of Defence for Great Britain, has instructed British military authorities to delete all cold war propaganda from any news sheets distributed to the British troops in Germany, has the Minister given consideration to issuing a similar order to the Canadian military authorities in West Germany?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this alleged fact, but I expect to see Mr. Healey in two or three weeks and I will be pleased to have a word with him about it then.



INQUIRY AS TO PROCUREMENT OF NEW TACTICAL AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which may appear to be familiar, but I think he knows the pattern he has set in this regard. Would the Minister allay the anxiety of the House, the air force and members of the other armed services by indicating when he may be in a position to announce a decision with regard to major aircraft replacement?


An hon. Member:: Soon.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter
DEBATES	1207
Inquiries of the Ministry of current interest and study, and we hope a decision will be taken in the not too distant future.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is even more vague than before.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry whether they have a reply today regarding the theft of cobalt concentrates at Deloro, Ontario.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as I think the House learned yesterday, there has been a theft of cobalt from Deloro Mining and Smelting Company of Ontario. The matter is now under investigation by the provincial police. Perhaps it would suffice for the moment to say that this cobalt was the property of the Federal Government and was in storage in custody of the Deloro Mining and Smelting Company in consequence of a storage contract entered into for the custody and safekeeping of the material.
Under this contract the company was required to certify quarterly to the Government as to the inventory on hand. The most recent certificate dated April 1 of this year, indicated that as of April 1 the full amount of the cobalt was on hand. Since then the company has discovered that a large part of it is missing. The Ontario provincial police, who were originally called in, are now conducting an intensive investigation.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. In view of my question yesterday in regard to this matter and the answer today by the Minister, can the Minister inform the House whether such a storage contract involved any bond coverage on the part of those responsible for storage, or was this valuable and strategic material covered by any insurance in case of theft such as that which has now been revealed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, Deloro Mining and Smelting Company is, as I think the House is aware, a reputable operating company. There is no provision which required the company to insure or bond against theft in the contract for storage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question for the Minis-
1208	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ter of Industry. In view of the fact that the Deloro company in question was responsible for storing this cobalt for the Government of Canada, who is going to suffer the loss? Will this company be responsible or does the Department of Defence Production assume the loss?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is asking me to give a legal opinion, which 1 understand I am not authorized to do. I am informed that the contract for storage clearly placed upon the company the responsibility for the safe custody of the cobalt and its return intact on demand by the Federal Government.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of Justice if he is now in a position to advise whether he has communicated with the Department of Immigration to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the report which appeared in Le Devoir to the effect that Georges Lemay was in Montreal on April 23, 1965, having entered and left Canada at Rouses Point?


An hon. Member:: Was that the date of the Liberal convention?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will be in a position to answer this question tomorrow.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-STATEMENT ON LAYING OF CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question directed to me some time ago by the hon. Member for the Yukon concerning the Sefkind bankruptcies, I am informed that no charge has been laid at the instance of either the Federal Government or the Provincial Government, or by the trustee, the inspectors or the creditors.
1 may add that it has not been the practice for the Superintendent of Bankruptcy or any other agency of the Federal Government to initiate prosecutions against debtors in the circumstances of this matter. The initiation of any such prosecution is considered to be the responsibility of the provincial authorities, the trustee, the inspectors or the creditors. The function of the Superintendent is rather

DEBATES	May 12, 1965
the supervision of the trustees in their management of estates in bankruptcy.
I must add that very recently I had a conversation with one of the crown attorneys interested in this matter. He has advised me that these bankruptcies, together with a number of others, are still being looked into, but that there has been no decision to prosecute and no occasion found to prosecute on the basis of the present evidence.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that the bankruptcies in respect of United Upholsterers and Rec-Stone are now under formal investigation by provincial authorities?


Guy Favreau: I am advised that these matters, and I must repeat, together with a series of other bankruptcies are still under investigation, in the course of the normal discharge of the duties of the Quebec authorities.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister respecting the business of this House, in particular the two resolutions standing on the order paper in his name today. In order that all hon. Members will be prepared so as to make the most effective contribution to the debate when the suggested rules and procedural changes are brought forward, are all the details in this resolution the position of the Government; and are they hard and fast, or will some of them be subject to negotiation and amendment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty in replying to the hon. gentleman's question, which suggests that some special procedure should be followed in respect of these resolutions. They will be discussed and decided by the House, I assume, in the normal way.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the strong protests of New Brunswick fishermen, partic-
May 12, 1965	COMMONS
ularly those in Saint John County, against the new shad and gaspereau fishing regulations, of which I think the Minister has notice, will the Minister cause a new study to be made of these regulations and possible remedies?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would say that the reason for the new regulations is to bring them into line with the regulations covering conservation over week ends for other areas. While we feel that such changes were justified, if inquiries are made the Department would be glad to look into every aspect of any criticism which may be made against these new regulations.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. Will the Minister take into consideration that the competitive position of these fishermen is jeopardized by the trap fishermen, and that they are also losing their lobster bait business in Nova Scotia?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am well aware of the competition and the position of the fishermen involved and, as I have said, if they make representations to the Department we will investigate every aspect of the application of the new regulation.



POSTPONEMENT OF LOBSTER SEASON OPENING IN DISTRICT 6B

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to reply to a question which was directed to me during my absence yesterday by the hon. Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, and which was taken as notice by my colleague the Solicitor General.
The hon. Member asked whether I would give consideration of delaying the opening of the lobster season in district 6B from May 15 to May 24. In view of the fact that the question period was a little longer than usual yesterday, I had to leave at four o'clock before its completion, to attend to departmental duties, including a study of a report which I had received on ice conditions in district 6B. I had also received a number of telegrams from fishermen's organizations as well as representations from my colleague the Minister of Labour.
I have decided after studying the report that the season in this district, which normally opens on May 16, where fishermen are
DEBATES	1209
Inquiries of the Ministry permitted to set out their traps on May 15, will be changed. The opening date for this year will be May 22 and traps may be set on May 21. The closing date for the same district has been postponed from July 15 to July 21.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. J. Mcllrasih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on May 10 the hon. Member for Skeena asked me a question which appears at page 1094 of Hansard. He asked me whether I had any knowledge of a brief that was presented by the Canadian Postal Employees Association and the Federated Association of Letter Carriers concerning the economic conditions of postal employees at Prince Rupert. 1 replied at that time that I had knowledge of the brief and that I would deal with the second part of his question later.
I can now advise the hon. Member that subsequently to the receipt of that brief, a submission from the Civil Service Association of Canada was received, which asked for consultation on this subject and on the subject of allowances generally to employees in semi-isolated posts. A reply was sent stating that we would be glad to grant such consultation with the associations, asking them to fix a time and date. We have not heard from them since that time, but as soon as we do the consultation will be held, the matter raised in the brief will be dealt with and a decision will be made.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Wesiminsfer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Health and Welfare. Before asking the question I should like to congratulate the Minister on her success today in assembling from across Canada a group of young people who concern themselves with problems of health and smoking.
Has the Minister reached a decision regarding a request to the C.B.C. to stop cigarette advertising and, if so, what is that decision?
1210	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for having sent me notice of his question. On this point I can only say, as I have said previously, that the matter is under consideration by the technical committee that advises me.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. Under the United States-Canada free trade car treaty would it be possible for a Canadian citizen to order a Ford car made in Canada to be delivered and picked up at Buffalo at the same price as a United States citizen would pay for it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is quite easy. If a Canadian citizen went to Buffalo to order a car, presumably he would pay the same price for it as would a United States citizen.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. Would the Canadian citizen be allowed to bring that car back to Canada duty free?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Customs Act in its application to this particular car would be the same as in respect of any purchase made in the United States.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 7, 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.
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate on the proposed amendment regarding the Senate, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I am wholly in accord with the constitutional considerations outlined by the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) the other day. That hon. Member made a very valuable contribution to this debate.
I should like to commence my remarks by stating that I am clearly and strongly against the principle of having appointments

DEBATES	May 12, 1965
to the Senate made by the provinces or by any other intermediate body, as has been suggested by some hon. Members of the smaller parties. Some of those hon. Members suggested that such a provision would be more democratic. I hope to illustrate in a very few remarks today why an appointment by any intermediate body would be less democratic and less representative of the Canadian public, and would result in a less efficient Senate. Let me go further by saying that any move to have appointments made by provincial Governments would be a further step toward stripping the Federal Government of its powers. This is something with which I strongly disagree.
I noted with interest and some surprise that the members of the New Democratic Party are against this reform calling for the retirement of Senators at age 75. Some of those hon. Members used the occasion of this debate to talk about the desirability of abolishing the Senate, while others talked about a different type of reform. Nevertheless, inasmuch as this legislation deals with a specific reform providing for the retirement of Senators at age 75, some of those hon. Members have gone on record as being members of a Party of status quo and against this particular reform.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I can only explain the opposition of the members of the New Democratic Party and the members of the Social Credit Party to the present arrangement with regard to the Senate, and why they are suggesting such drastic and unconstructive reform, by the fact that they are not in the position to place members in the Senate. While in certain parts of Canada members of the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit Party can be described as being in the mainstream of provincial political thought, I think it is undeniable that elections throughout the years have shov/n that neither the New Democratic Party nor the Social Credit Party nor the Creditistes are in the mainstream of Canadian political life, and that is why they have not been able to place anyone in the Senate.
Most Canadians, Mr. Speaker, want a two party system. Most Canadians think our two parties are big enough to allow for some range of economic views within those parties without the necessity of having small fringe parties. Most Canadians do not support small parties in federal politics.


An hon. Member:: Why are we here?
May 12, 1965	COMMONS


Gerald Augustine Regan: Most Canadians do not want socialism or funny money. So I suggest that anything that has been said on the subject of Senate reform by the members of these parties must be considered in conjunction with the foregoing facts.
I would say it is democratic to appoint men who have served this country well, and who have demonstrated across the years by their participation in one of the two major political parties of this country that they are in the mainstream of Canadian political life. 1 think it would not be democratic to appoint to the Senate people who are not representative of the general feelings of Canadians.
We have, for instance, the incongruous situation of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) being extremely critical of the fact that over the years under Conservative and Liberal Governments appointments have been made to the Senate of men who had served in political life, men who had served well in the House of Commons, the legislatures and elsewhere. Rather than appointing these people who have been recognized by the Canadian public by having been elected, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North had the audacity to suggest that a man like Eugene Forsey should be appointed to the Senate, a man who again and again and again has been a defeated candidate and never an elected member. What sort of democracy is that? What brand of democracy would call for the appointment, not the election, to the Senate of a man who has been spurned again and again by the people of the country?


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the hon. Member a question? How many Senators appointed by Liberal Governments have been previously defeated candidates in elections time and time again?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I suggest to the hon. Member that he would find the figure would be remarkably small.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald Augustine Regan: If the hon. Member will bear with me for a few minutes I propose to show that the present system of appointment is extremely worth while by reviewing the qualifications and records over the years of the present 10 Senators, both Liberal and Conservative, who represent my home province in the Senate. If the hon. Member will just stick with me for a little while I will do that.
The present system has brought to the Senate men and women who have been build-
DEBATES	1211
Retirement Age for Senators ers of this country, men and women who have played a part in the growth of economic activity in our nation. It has produced men like Senator Croll, a reformer, and surely no one will argue with that. It has produced men like Senator Roebuck. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I consider the ability of a man like Senator Roebuck, now well past his 80th birthday, this is the only time I hesitate with regard to the retirement legislation now before us.


Mr. Orlikow:: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will deal with any other questions later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: The hon. Member for Halifax has the floor. If he is willing to accept a question he may do so; otherwise I would ask him to proceed.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will be happy to deal with questions from anyone other than party leaders at the end of my speech, and try to answer questions from party leaders immediately. In saying that I am not taking into account the four or five divisions within the New Democratic Party.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a careful examination of the contributions that have been made by the great majority of men and women who are now members of the Senate, as well as those who have been members in the past, will show that the Senate has been and indeed continues to be a very worth-while organization.
It has been mentioned that members of the Senate perform a useful and helpful function in committees. I suggest that their work in that regard could be expanded by their having a greater number of committees and spending a greater amount of time in such work with beneficial results. But surely it is important for the people of Canada to realize that, important as the committee and other activities of the Senate may be, the most important role of the Senate arises out of the fact that its members have the wisdom of years of experience in the mainstream of Canadian political life. This experience is available to provide a sober second thought if that should be necessary by reason of the House of Commons moving too quickly or too rashly at any time.


Mr. Peiers:: Give us one example.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am going to give you 10 examples from the province of Nova Scotia-
May 12, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators


William Arnold Peters: Give us one.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -of whom at least half are members of the Conservative party. I would say, for instance, that Senator Harold Connolly is eminently qualified to sit in the Senate. Here is a man who started out as an Irish boy in Halifax with no great wealth such as some hon. Members opposite have decried. Rather, here is a man who through perseverance and a newspaper career found his way into the Nova Scotia legislature. He started as a backbencher without inherited wealth and made his way up to the top until he served as premier of the Province of Nova Scotia. Is he a worth-while member of the Senate?
Again, let us take Senator Gordon B. Isnor, who represents my city and who celebrated his 80th birthday this week. To this day he continues to turn out more correspondence to his constituency, which is my constituency, than I could ever possibly do, and he remains extremely active in all aspects of parliamentary life. Let me tell you a little bit about him and the contribution he has made, and you can then decide whether he has the qualifications to be a member of the Senate rather than other people appointed in a different way.
As early as 1914 Senator Isnor was elected to municipal office in the City of Halifax, and he served long and well. Then he was elected by the people, not rejected like Mr. Forsey, to sit in the Nova Scotia legislature. While he was in the Nova Scotia legislature he was the man who brought about the first free school books in that province, something in which Nova Scotia pioneered; but perhaps these hon. Members opposite are against people who have had a part in the provision of free school books for the children of our country. Then Senator Isnor was elected to the House of Commons and served in this chamber honourably and well for many years. Never in all his years in municipal, provincial and federal politics did he lose an election. He has never lost an election and he has performed many public services. Is he worthy to serve in the Senate?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I do not want to restrict this consideration to one party, so let me move just for a moment to another political party. How about Senator F. M. Blois from Truro, Nova Scotia, who was appointed several years ago. Again, here is a man who had a long municipal service in Truro, then served in the Nova Scotia Legislature. He is a man who has been active in business and industry in Nova Scotia over

the years. I think he is a good man to be here speaking for Nova Scotia.
Then, let us talk about Senator J. J. Kinley. Senator Kinley received an award from the King of Norway for his distinguished service to Norway when he served with Canadian forces during the First World War. Senator Kinley is the Honorary President of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association and an industrialist. He served as a councillor of the Town of Lunenburg, an M.L.A., served here as a Member of Parliament, he had a distinguished war record and is a distinguished industrialist in the Town of Lunenburg. I suggest he speaks well for the people in that part of the country.
During the debate I heard someone say that the agriculture side of Canadian life was not represented well in the Senate. I am not going to deal with agriculturists from other parts of the country in the Senate, but let me just mention the late Senator John MacDonald from Nova Scotia who died a year or two ago. He was a former Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Nova Scotia and had a long and distinguished career in that regard. He made a very great contribution to agriculture in the Senate.
Since he passed on Senator Frank Welch from the Annapolis Valley, a Conservative Senator, has been appointed to succeed him. Senator Welch is a well known horticulturist, and he is in a position to make a worth-while contribution in the Senate. Then, we have the medical side represented by the Hon. Donald Smith, a dentist. This man served as a councillor, then a Member of Parliament here in Ottawa before going into the Senate to represent Nova Scotia. Would hon. Members tell me who would better represent the main stream of activities in Nova Scotia?


Some hon. Members:: The Member for Halifax.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Then, we have Senator Willie Comeau, who served in the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia before it was abolished. He was then a provincial Cabinet Minister and finally came here to Ottawa. I do not want to cover all of them. If you would like to ask about specific Nova Scotians, I would suggest that all of them are eminently well qualified on the basis of their experience, on the basis of their recognition by the public, on the basis of their achievements or on any other basis you want to mention.


William Arnold Peters: How many of them are you going to retire?
May 12. 1965	COMMONS


Gerald Augustine Regan: I suggest that all of them are well qualified to be Senators.


William Arnold Peters: How many are you going to retire? How many throats are you trying to cut?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say, having mentioned some Nova Scotia Senators and some others who have served well, that I have only scraped the surface. If you were to take out that little red book, "The Parliamentary Guide" and look at the background of Senators, both Liberal and Conservative, then you would find amongst all of those Senators men who have played distinguished and leading roles in public life and, indeed, in the business life of this country, over the years.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there is room for some changes in the Senate. I feel that the idea of retirement at age 75 is, on the whole, a very good suggestion. I would suggest to the Government that it might be worth while to consider that the pension which is being provided for Senators might be made contributory rather than as outlined in the present bill. I suggest this to the Government and hope they will give it some consideration, because I feel it is a suggestion which does have merit.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)-


Robert Norman Thompson: That is right, you don't know.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I wonder if he would accept a Senate seat if he were offered one?


Robert Norman Thompson: No.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Methinks thou dost protest too much. I should like to point out, however, that I have great respect for him. I think I would have to remark that he would be a worth-while member of the Senate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order; I would appreciate it if hon. Members would give the hon. Member for Halifax a little bit more attention and not ask so many questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has had more attention than he has ever had in his life.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Having completely demolished the arguments of the small parties, I am not going to stay with this subject very long. However, I want to say that I am very happy with the present bill. I have made a minor suggestion for a change in the bill. When we do not have matters which are as pressing as we have at the moment, and after a proper 22620-79J
DEBATES	1213
Retirement Age for Senators examination, we may well come to the opinion that other changes in the operation of the Senate should be considered, such as an expansion of the committee work. Perhaps we could use Senators more often on commissions.
I realize this will be a controversial statement to many Members who believe in the concept of responsible Government, but I think I must applaud the former Prime Minister of Canada, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) for placing a Cabinet Minister in the Senate who held a portfolio. I am aware of the principle that most of the Cabinet, and in theory all of them, should be here in this House to answer to the House of Commons. However, I still believe that as a compromise-


Mr. Knowles:: How can such a young man have such old ideas?


Gerald Augustine Regan: -it is a good suggestion. I hear the same old boys are complaining again. We have the example of the United States cabinet system under which the United States Government can go out in the country when they need to strengthen a portfolio, bring a good man in and utilize him in the cabinet. There is perhaps room within our system to do that. We have today the Parliamentary Secretaries who can answer for the Minister. I would suggest, therefore, that not more than two Ministers of the Cabinet could serve in the Senate and hold portfolios. Some will throw up their hands in horror at this suggestion, but I think if you give it long thought you may find that it does have some element of merit. There is the fact that the former Prime Minister did set such a precedent by appointing a Member from the Commons to hold a portfolio in the Senate. This is a personal opinion I should like to put on the record at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are hoping for an appointment from either side.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think this legislation should be speedily passed. I feel that the objection to this worth-while reform arises from the minor parties because of the fact that they, not being in the main stream of political life, cannot benefit from an appointment to the Senate, cannot have an opportunity to contribute. I suggest that, even as Mr. Coldwell was offered a place in the Senate in the past, when they do produce worth-while people who have a contribution to make either Liberal or Conservative Governments may see wisdom in appointing such people to the: Senate.
1214	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate myself but my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Regan) seems to have left the final touch of confusion exemplifying, I suppose, the confusion of the Liberal Party and the confusion we have seen so often among members of the Government. He takes a more-I would not say high-principled-a more idealistic view of the Senate and its make-up than his colleague from Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), who took a much more practical term view of the Senate, as a convenience which provides an area of manoeuvre for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Winch:: Oh, he is a much mature gentleman.


Colin Cameron: He did not try to make out any case, except in one or two weak spots in his argument, that there was any value to the Senate, and my hon. friend from Halifax suffered from the same complaint as the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough, and that is their rancour against the N.D.P. party, which sometimes tends to becloud their objectivity.
Suggestions were again made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Halifax that opposition to the Senate from Members of my party is really envy and jealousy because none of us have been or are likely to be appointed to the Senate. I cannot speak for anybody else but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my reason for opposing the Senate is not because I have not been offered a job there, because I would not want it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Colin Cameron: Well, the other day the young Liberals of B.C., as desperate as the pathetic young Liberals of Ontario who describe themselves as a sick organization, have now been reduced to the point that they started to spread rumours about my impending retirement. The local paper picked these rumours up, so I sent a letter to them to point out that my constituency, my party workers and I myself would decide when I am going to retire and not the moribund Liberal party; and I say moribund because it is completely moribund in B.C., only being in mere existence.
I wound up my letter by suggesting that their only hope was an appeal to my wife who hates Ottawa and loves Vancouver
DEBATES	May 12, 1965
Island; and so, if for no other reason, I could not dare accept an appointment to the Senate because it would not relieve her exile here.
I have heard a strange divergency of views expressed on this question by Members of the Government party, not only divergent views on the value of this particular bill but divergent views on the purposes and meaning of the Senate itself. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) suggest that because civil servants are appointed, therefore this is an argument in favour of the appointment of members of a legislative body.
It struck me as an astonishing confusion, and one which is all too common in the ranks of the Liberal Party, a confusion between an administrative apparatus and a legislature, or a political government. Of course the argument that, because civil servants are appointed in this manner this is an argument for the appointment of a legislative body, is too absurd to waste too much time on, although I was disturbed that my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough in some of his asides gave support to the ideas of the hon. Member for Carleton in spite of the fact that, as I say, the burden of his song is largely that the Senate is a useful political convenience which provides the Prime Minister of Canada with an area of manoeuvre, a political way of getting rid of the deadwood out of his Cabinet.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. Member a question?


Colin Cameron: Certainly.


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he does not realize that statutes are only a small part of the corpus of the law, and that law is made by executive personnel and even by judges in high courts?


Colin Cameron: I cannot quite understand the question the hon. Member is asking. What does it mean?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker-


Colin Cameron: Ask it again.


John B. Stewart: May I develop my question, Mr. Speaker? The hon. gentleman has suggested that I argued that the N.D.P. has contended that appointed persons have no place in the legislative process, and he seems to imply that by a "legislative process" I meant only our parliamentary process. My question
[Mr. Regan.J
May 12, 1965

to him is, does he not realize that statute lav is only one part, and, indeed, only a very small part of the body of the law?


Colin Cameron: Of course I realize that. On the other hand I would suggest that here we are discussing a legislative body. We are not discussing an administrative or an advisory apparatus, or a judicial body, and the suggestion that there is any connection between the functions of the civil service in this regard and the functions of a legislative body seems to me to be totally misleading.


John B. Stewart: Will the hon. gentleman commit himself to reading a book by Sir Ivor Jennings, called, "The Law and the Constitution"?


Colin Cameron: Yes, I would be delighted to do so. I have benefited a great deal by advice from my hon. friend on books to read. I have followed his advice on many occasions and I will do so on this one. But I would point out that the hon. Member based the largest part of his case for the retention of the Senate on the grounds that it was a useful political convenience, that it provided an area of manoeuvre for the Prime Minister. I suggest to him that the area of manoeuvre he is providing in this bill is so minute as to be hardly worth bothering about, if this is the function of the Senate; but I suggest to you, Sir, it is not or should not be the function of what at least ostensibly is a legislative body.
The hon. Member for Carleton makes suggestions that seem to imply he thought the members of the Senate should engage in various activities that are now the subject of the work of royal commissions, judicial bodies and investigative bodies of various sorts. Again I suggest this is not the role of a legislative body, and I would go further than that with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough. I quite agree with him that there should be some place into which a Prime Minister can throw his deadwood, and it should be a fairly attractive place where they can be thrown without too much pain, but I do suggest that to maintain another legislative body, even though its legislative activities have by now become almost fictional, is a travesty of democratic government and has no particular purpose to it.
My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough was also accusing the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of something he terms the primitive congres-
Retirement Age jor Senators sional theory of government, because of the remarks the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre made, and which were recorded at pages 412 and 413 of Hansard.
I have read the remarks of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, and it appears to me that his argument in the main seems to be against a non-representative legislative body, and incidentally an argument perhaps not in favour of the unicameral system, but an argument which suggests the unicameral system will work as well as a bicameral legislature. But his main argument was against a non-elected, ill-representative body such as we have in the second Chamber.
Why this is termed the primitive congressional theory of government I do not know. It is possible I am not sufficiently erudite to know what that means, but I would think it means that the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough imagines that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre considers that there should be an elected body which has the complete control, shall we say complete power, to introduce and advance legislation, and I see nothing in this speech from the hon. Member to suggest that.
I would imagine, by what I know of him and have heard of him when he speaks, that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, of all the Members in the House is more closely wedded to the Parliamentary system than any other Member, more closely wedded to the idea of responsible government, cabinet government, and that he understands perfectly well the representative roles of a legislature in the modern age, and of an executive. And to suggest that because he protests against the existence of an anachronistic appointed body he is espousing a totally different type of representative government is quite misleading. It is quite unfair to the hon. Member to make that suggestion.
We then come to the third speaker-
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman, before he leaves my poor remarks, would say something about my suggestion that the Members of the N.D.P. should not be pretending that they are sheep in sheep's clothing? My suggestion is that the real reason, or at least one of the principal reasons, for N.D.P. opposition to the Senate is that they look forward to the day when they will be nationalizing many aspects of Canadian life and that they envisage,
1216	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators perhaps reasonably enough, that these proposals will run into opposition in the Senate.
I wonder whether the hon. Member will take off the sheep's clothing or else tell us whether he is, indeed, a sheep.


Colin Cameron: I shall be delighted to do so. I had thought that would be taken for granted. It is the salient point of the hon. Member's speech-the one point on which he did not misrepresent the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: Why does he want to keep the set-up?


John B. Stewart: Give an explanation.


Colin Cameron: The implication of the hon. Member's position is that he feels there should be an appointed body which could thwart the determinations and decisions of the elected body. That is the only logical inference.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he read the sentence in my speech in which I suggest that perhaps at some future time there might be reform along the lines of the Parliament Act of 1911 as amended in 1949? I wonder if he can reconcile that statement with what he has tried to put across.


An hon. Member:: Why not do it now?


John B. Stewart: It would take too much tune.


Colin Cameron: I am not trying to put across my proposition at all. I am merely drawing a logical deduction from the great emphasis which the hon. Member placed on my correct analysis of one of the basic reasons why Members of this party oppose an appointed Senate. The hon. Member did say, of course-and it was a weak obiter dictum-that possibly at some time in the future we might consider doing something along the lines of the Parliament Act of Great Britain of 1911. I would point out that even this Act was made possible only because of the peculiar constitutional position of the second chamber in Great Britain and the role of the Monarch in the second chamber. Greater difficulty might be experienced here, and now is the time to try to overcome these difficulties. So if the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysbor-ough (Mr. Stewart) is not opposed to the idea of the determination of the elected representatives of the people being supreme, he should be willing to give us some help
IMr. Stewart.]
DEBATES	May 12, 1965
now toward achieving real results at some fairly early date.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. Member whether he really thinks that a bill to abolish the Senate would have much more success in the Senate than a bill to put through a modification along the lines of the Parliament Act of 1911?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Lesage is trying it.


Colin Cameron: I am not a constitutional lawyer.
I do not know. But I have noticed in my limited and amateur way that many constitutional barriers which appear to be immovable do fall before the weight of public opinion, and I have no doubt that the barrier which the Senate might oppose would fall in the same way.


John B. Stewart: So, too, might a reform upon the 1911 lines.


An hon. Member:: Nineteen eleven seems to be about their speed over there.


Colin Cameron: If you wish to put it that way. But I suggest the bill we are discussing today is a long way from that sort of reform. In fact, it is not a reform at all. It is an absurdity even from the pragmatic point of view of the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough, whose aim is to have a body which would give an area of manoeuvre for the Prime Minister. I have some sympathy for that point of view. But I cannot see why this area of manoeuvre should find expression in a body which is theoretically, if not in practical terms, as powerful as is this chamber. This, to me, is almost an affront to democracy.
The hon. Member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) made what I thought was a charming speech, although the quotations he gave, one from Lord Campion and the other from an unnamed Member of this House, were actually quotations in support of the N.D.P. contention that the Senate should be abolished. Lord Campion's acid comments on the Senate of Canada could lead to no other conclusion, and the hon. Member made no bones about it. He put forward the constructive suggestion that we might appoint Senators representative of various areas who could act as it were as executive assistants to Members of Parliament. He thought they should be young Senators-a wise provision -and envisaged ways in which such Senators could be most helpful. I am sorry the hon.
May 12, 1965	COMMONS
Member is not in his place today. His speech was perhaps the most refreshing we have heard from the other side, because the hon. Member brings a refreshing and shrewd point of view to the business of politics. It was evident that his heart was in favour of abolition. But if this could not be achieved he intended to see whether he could not get something for himself and other Members of the House of Commons out of these appointments to the Senate.
I think we should make up our minds just what the Senate should be. If we accept the view of the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough that it is a political convenience necessary to the Prime Minister, then I suggest we should set up some other body, a sort of legion of honour with a handsome pension attached to it, to which persons considered suitable could be retired. If, on the other hand, we accept the view of the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) that we should make these people work for a living and provide them with various duties in the public interest, I suggest we set up something analogous to the French Academy. The Academy has entrusted to it a somewhat limited field, it is true, principally the protection of the French language and the making of literary awards.


An hon. Member:: Old Canadians?


Colin Cameron: A good idea. A position with some comfort attached to it in either case. Possibly there is something to be said for setting up such bodies in Canada. But I do not see why what purports to be a legislative body should be supposed to carry out totally different functions.
An amendment of the kind before us must be accepted warily, if at all, because I have learned to mistrust those who tell me to relax because we are about to take a first step, a step in the right direction. I have noticed that sometimes it is like the step of a fly caught on old fashioned flypaper: The fly never gets any farther. This may well be the case now. The public in Canada may be deluded into thinking that this Liberal Government, this new Liberal Party, has decided at last to deal with an ill in our political life, and that it has reformed the Senate. I do not think the public should be deluded in this way. I do not think we should pretend this is really a reform or that it will really make such difference. Even if every Senator who is over 75 years of age were to retire on his $8,000 pension there will,
DEBATES	1217
Retirement Age for Senators no doubt, shortly be others appointed at $15,000, and the Senate would remain just as it is today. Even if the Prime Minister takes the advice of the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough he will make sure that he does not waste a Senate seat on some of those able characters about whom the hon. Member for Halifax was speaking in glowing terms. He does not have seats to spare. He has to save them for deadwood, and I suggest this Government will have great need for many places in the Senate for that purpose.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak only very briefly in this debate. It is a fascinating argument which is occurring this afternoon and I simply cannot resist joining in on it, even if only for a few minutes.
The positions of the various spokesmen give us pretty much the whole range of possible ideas in connection with the other place. Apparently the New Democratic Party want to get rid of it altogether.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: The spokesmen for the Government just want to get rid of the older fellows in the Senate. The Social Credit Party, if I understand their position, is quite happy with it as long as Premiers Bennett and Manning can make the appointment. The Creditistes would be satisfied, if I understand them correctly, as long as half of the members of the Senate were appointed from the Province of Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All you want is to have them appointed from the Northwest Territories.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: My advice to this Chamber, before you fellows get together and either superannuate, emasculate, decimate or annihilate the Senate altogether, as spokesman for the Northwest Territories, is to let us get in on this too before any of these surgical operations are carried out.
I think it is fair to say that in my brief experience of the other place and of the members of the other place I have found them to be most capable people, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the feelings on the part of my hon. friends here to the political left should be so vitriolic. I realize that they speak with that unshakeable confidence which they have, knowing they will never be called upon to form the Government of Canada, and this allows them a certain latitude in perspective which responsible
1218	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators people cannot afford. I think a good example, Mr. Speaker, of this experience was the joint committee discussing the Canada Pension Plan, which Your Honour had the privilege of co-chairing with the member of the other place. This was a very happy experience. The difficult task of that committee was carried out and executed I think most capably, which is a compliment both to yourself and to Senator Fergusson.
When I was young-it is not all that long ago-and a Socialist-after all, if you are not a Socialist when you are 19 there is no real hope you ever will be one-I recall how anxious were the then C.C.F. party to abolish the Senate. I can also recall having had similar kinds of feelings, which fortunately I outgrew, that that might be a good idea. But we have put away our high school books now and gone on to other experiences, and speaking as an individual my experience of the members of the other place has been a positive one. I have had the opportunity to work with this group very closely, so for the life of me I am not trying to do anything wretched or unpleasant to them, and categorically reject the suggestion that these people are either incapable of offering good service or have no real function to perform for our country.
The main point I am trying to make, at which I have hinted, is that those of us who live in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories want to get in on this. I believe I can make a case why this would be an important further step in the political evolution of the people who live in Canada's Northland. Yesterday the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Laing) announced a major step, namely the granting to everyone in the north of the right to vote. Therefore I think it logically follows that since Parliament consists not only of this Chamber-thank God-but also of the Queen and the Senate, until such time as the two northern areas also have representatives in the other place we do not have a full and equal voice in the Parliament of this country. But as I say, this is an important step in the political evolution and development of the Canadian north.
I am sorry the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) has just left the Chamber, because I cannot resist telling him how intrigued we who live in the north are at his statement in today's paper that the way to develop the north country is to people it with convicts. If this is the Liberal idea of vision, then let me tell him that we do not
[Mr. Rheaume.I
DEBATES	May 12, 1965
suggest that all the convicts be shipped to Leeds. After all, he has a healthy enough voting majority now. On the other hand, we do not want the Liberal Government padding the voters lists by shifting into the Northwest Territories all those people who find themselves temporarily or permanently incarcerated.
I suggest that we have the right to be represented in the Senate, and before this debate is over I would hope that someone on the Government side will comment on this matter. I do not want to antagonize my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island but I think it is worth noting that that particular little island with 106,000 people has four Senators and four Members of Parliament, or one seat in each House for every 26,000 people. In the Northwest Territories at the present time there are 26,000 Canadian citizens who certainly feel they have the right to be represented in Parliament. It is only since 1962 that the Northwest Territories has had a representative in this Chamber, a Member of Parliament as such, and we do feel we are entitled also to representation in the other place.
I think such things as the appointment of joint committees would give the north another northerner to represent it, and believe you me, Mr. Speaker, there are not enough northerners for the good of Parliament as it is; we need some more. We want an opportunity to have representatives in the Senate on joint Senate-House of Commons Committees. I think also of the service which could be rendered by a Senator from the Northwest Territories in terms of serving on caucus committees. There would be another voice in the caucus of the Government party obviously, and perhaps of the Opposition party too. There is another opportunity to hear the northern viewpoint, which is quite a bit different from the way the people in the south think. The things the people in the south want are quite a bit different from our idea, and we want to have a voice in these deliberations. So I can see a very vital role being played by someone appointed from the far north to the Senate.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Another possibility the Government might want to consider is that this would give the Government the opportunity to give the Eskimo people recognition and the voice to which they are entitled. It is not likely in the immediate future that the Eskimo race will have a voice in Parliament as it now stands,
May 12, 1965

unless there were some kind of appointment. After all, the Eskimo people are people of great sophistication and experience. I recall last week, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was on Baffin Island visiting the Eskimo people. I went along with him and at a dinner party he was asking a variety of people to tell him about their northern experience. These people were for the most part federal Government officers. The main question he asked was: How long have you been on Baffin Island? And so the conversation went around the room. Finally he moved over and began talking to one of the Eskimo men who happened to be at the dinner party, and the Leader of the Opposition asked how long he had been on Baffin Island. This Eskimo, in a very dignified and humble way, said: "Well, if what I read is true we have been here for
5.000	years". That just points up the importance, I think, of giving this extremely intelligent and proud group of Canadians an opportunity to be represented in the Parliament of this country. I will not take up any more of the time of this Chamber in this regard, but will now return briefly to my main point, that northerners are entitled to representation in Parliament.
No one has suggested that because this House of Commons turns itself into a pail of worms and gets itself into a mess, as it has done in my short experience here, that therefore this area is not entitled to be represented here. The same is true as far as I am concerned in respect of Senate representation, regardless of the interesting arguments put forward by my friends to the left in support of Senate abolition.
Notwithstanding the arguments which have been made, the people of the north are entitled to and want a voice in the federal councils of Canada. There are 40,000 Canadians pioneering in the north and maintaining sovereignty for Canada in respect of 38 per cent of its land mass. We do not expect you, who live down here in the south with access to all those things which make you feel secure, to do the same as we in this regard. We live in the north by choice and are prepared to pioneer this area. Let me repeat that we want a voice and are entitled to a voice in the Parliament of Canada. The onus is on the Government to tell the
40.000	of us who live in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories what steps are to be taken so that we will be equally represented in the Parliament of Canada, and I hope they
Retirement Age for Senators will fulfil this obligation before this bill passes.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any great length on the bill providing for the retirement of senators at the age of 75. However, I should like to express the hope that this piece of legislation is a beginning and not an end. The mere fact that parliament or the government realize that some senators are no longer useful and should be replaced at the age of 75 is proof enough of the fact that the Senate is not useful in some respects and that it should be reformed.
I must say right now that if I seem to voice extremist views, it is because I am personally in favour of the abolition of the upper house. However, I feel that before we come to that stage, we must see what we can do with the Senate until we realize that its abolition is a must because of our parliamentary system which, in my opinion, does not require the presence of senators to scrutinize the legislation passed by such a responsible body as the House of Commons.
The question at this time is not whether senators are honourable or not, as mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). I do not think their honourable character is being questioned, but we note all the same that there are good and bad senators due to the political appointments always being made.
I am convinced that most of our senators are worthy of our respect and of our admiration for the services they have rendered to society in every field where they have served; in the municipal, provincial or federal field, or in the field of industry or business. I could give the example of two senators I have known in my riding, Hon. Howard and Hon. Nicol, who were highly respected by the people of Sherbrooke and always deserved the confidence of their fellow citizens. Therefore, we are not questioning their ability but their usefulness today under our system of government.
There is now in my riding a vacancy for a senator. The candidates are all very honourable people, as are most people in my riding. Well, I am sure that the most honourable of them will never be a senator even if he is more honourable than the most honourable Liberal who will be appointed to the Senate.
Therefore, I fail to see why we should ask those people to supervise the work done in this house. Their qualifications or their super-
May 12, 1965

the age zero, which would amount to the practical abolition of the Senate.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that if the Senate is not abolished, it must be reformed. We must keep the senators busy, give them work to do so that the Senate is not only a political haven.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about two aspects of this discussion, first about the retirement of Senators. The bill we are considering today deals only with the question of the retirement of Senators. It is true that there are Senators who are beyond the suggested retirement age. A good example is Senator Arthur Roebuck who is 87 years of age and a man of great intellectual acuity. However, there are many members of the Senate who have passed the time of life when they can be of service within that legislative body.
Despite the reports that have been circulated in this House that somehow or other the Senate is a refuge for men of great wealth, there are many members of the Senate who need to retire but simply cannot afford to do so. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this bill serves a very important purpose in providing the means whereby men who realize they can no longer serve in the second House of this Parliament and wish to retire can do so with dignity and with security. That is the real purpose of the bill, and it is a purpose I am sure all Members of the House would support.
The other question raised here and discussed by many Members is the question of Senate reform. There is one point about the Senate which I think must be emphasized, namely that the Senate, an appointed body, is a house of absolute veto. I do not know of any other bicameral parliament where the second house has this very serious power. The power has not been exercised. The members of the Senate do not wish to exercise that power. They are very reluctant to exercise the power they might exercise because they realize the overwhelming significance of their position. This is something we must look at.
When we have in the Senate men who have been trained in the two major parties which have formed the Governments of this country, they are certainly going to co-operate in ensuring that the business of the Government is proceeded with and the wishes of the House not frustrated. This is a very important
Retirement Age for Senators aspect of membership in the Senate, but it seems to me that the Senate will have to evolve. Certainly the British Parliament, with which we are very closely associated and from which we draw so much strength, has seriously amended the role of the House of Lords. In the United States the second body, which is an elected body but not representative in terms of proportionate representation, has great power. But the Canadian Senate, although it may not initiate money bills and may not do other things with regard to money bills, has very great authority. In theory it can frustrate the House of Commons if it wishes to do so. I know it does not wish to do so. I know that the members of the Senate do not wish to have this power. Therefore it seems to me we should redefine the role of the Senate in much more realistic terms, in terms of the role of "a chamber of mature second thought", a house where men can serve in terms of the legislative function in our country.
The present role of the Senators should not be underestimated. A good deal of experience and wisdom is brought to the consideration of legislation. The Senate has also done a great deal of valuable work in its committees and in special committees such as those headed by Senator Croll. On joint committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, certainly on the Pension Committee and on the Consumer Credit Committee, many valuable contributions have been made by Senators. In parliamentary representation of Canada abroad at association meetings in which many Members of this House have taken part, Senators have contributed continuing experience and have brought a great deal of authority to our delegations. Senators have also served on Canadian delegations at meetings of the United Nations.
These are very important and significant roles, but it seems to me that in this wide-ranging debate on the role of the Senate we should remember that the Senate has this enormous power and that the Senators themselves are inhibited in their role by reason of the fact that they have such power. I believe that this absolute veto is something which must be looked at very carefully. We must be mindful of it. We must think of reforms of our Parliament and the evolving role of the Senate.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of some of the things that have been said today, I should like to make a few additional remarks on
May 12, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators this question. I hope that I will not repeat what I said when we were at the resolution stage, but I am prompted to speak briefly in view of some of the comments that have been made today. I take second place to no one in the respect that I hold for many of the men and women who occupy seats in the other place. Having been in this House for a long while, I have got to know a great many of them. I have got to know some of them in a personal way and I have had associations with them on a number of joint committees. They are fine, outstanding Canadians. There is no question about that and no one denies that point.
But surely, Mr. Speaker, Members can realize that that has nothing whatever to do with the issue as to whether or not our Parliament should include, as part of its law making authority, a group of people who are not elected by the electors of Canada. We have had several fine phrases uttered about the Senators this afternoon. They have been referred to as ladies and gentlemen who are capable of giving mature second thought to what goes on in this House. We are told that they have served their country. We are told that they played a part in Government at the municipal, provincial and House of Commons level. We are told that they have been active in business and in the life of the country in various ways. So have thousands of Canadians; but what has that to do with the fundamental question around which this debate has revolved as to whether or not persons who are not responsible to the electors of Canada should have, with the elected Members of this House, an equal say in the making of the laws of this country.
Reference is sometimes made when we are critical of the Senate as an institution-and this is what our criticism is directed to, the institution, not the individuals-that sometimes this House is not a paragon of virtue. In this House we sometimes make mistakes. This House sometimes becomes a bit of a shambles. The people in this House sometimes fail to perform as Canadians expect them to do. However, everyone in this House, if he wants to stay here, has to go back to the electorate and face the people. I suggest this is a quite different story from that which obtains with regard to those in the other place.
I repeat what has been said earlier today by others who are defending the Senate. I have enjoyed my work on joint committees with members of the other place. I think of

the work of two committees in particular, the Joint Committee on Old Age Security back in 1950 and the Joint Committee on the Canada Pension Plan in 1964-65. There were Senators on both of these committees who made very worth-while contributions. But, Mr. Speaker, I know many Canadians in other walks of life-in business, in labour, in the church and in other circles-who could have made valuable contributions to the work of those committees. Like the Senators, they are not elected. They are not responsible to the people, so we do not put them there. Our whole concern is that here are some 102 people who are not elected, who are not responsible to the people of Canada and who do not have to go back for a vote of confidence, who are allowed to have the same authority that we have when it comes to making laws.
The hon. Member for York South (Mr. Gelber) has just emphasized a point which often is not realized by Canadians, namely that the power of the Senate of Canada constitutionally is greater than that of the Upper Chamber in any other bicameral Parliament in the world. Here is a group which can not only veto what is passed in this House once or twice or thrice, but can go on doing it to the end of time. As the Member for York South said, this is a right the Senate does not exercise, but it does not exercise it for very obvious reasons. Our whole point is that Parliament should not be constituted on that basis.
We can understand the thinking of the Fathers of Confederation 100 years ago. Their thinking took place in a different political climate, when it was felt that democracy was all right: Let the people have their say, but somehow or other do not go too far with this; provide for some senior people-some lords or what you may call them-to check on the elected people. Well, I contend that we have grown up since then, that democracy can be trusted. My friend the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) accused me when he spoke the other day of trying to create some primitive congressional form of Government rather than a parliamentary system. I do not believe I need spend any time on that because my colleague the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) dealt with it. I see the professor has a question.


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask the preacher a question. I should like to ask him if he, too, will read a book by Sir Ivor
May 12, 1965

Jennings entitled, "The Law and the Constitution"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have read a good many portions of Ivor Jennings' book, and I think I know to what the hon. Member is referring, namely the extent to which the law of the country is built up by the work of civil servants every day. However, I would contend that precisely because of the great importance of the work of the civil service in the drafting of our statute law for us and in advising us, there is all the more reason that the ultimate say as to whether or not these things go through should be in the hands of the elected people. Has my friend another question?


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. gentleman not agree that it is not simply a matter of drafting bills but a matter of drafting regulations, most of which are never even tabled in the House of Commons, and a matter also of propounding expositions of the law in the courts, which make up a very large part of the vast body of law under which we live?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would go even further. I would say that the whole process of administering the law has to be done or is done by people who, to a large extent, are appointed. The drafting of the law, the drafting of regulations, the administering of all these items and court decisions are all part of a process; but it is precisely because this process has become so complex, so extensive, that I think the basic principle that the final decision should be made by elected people has even more validity today than it had when this complex was not quite so extensive as it now is.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, it seems fairly obvious we are not going to win this argument in this particular debate. The reason I wanted to speak again was that I was anxious that at least we get the air clear on this one point. I say this in answer to the younger Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) who told us about those ten good Senators from Nova Scotia. He did not tell us their ages, but there are ten, and so there is no place for him. I do not know why he pleads so hard when there is no vacancy in his province.
But surely the point can be made clear that our concern about the Senate does not arise because of any feeling of ill-will towards the Senators as individuals. It does not arise because we do not appreciate the contributions they can make. It arises be-
Retirement Age for Senators cause of our political philosophy, our belief that democracy should be run on the basis of the final decision being made by the elected people.
I thoroughly disagree with the suggestion made today by the hon. Member for Halifax that the Liberals should follow the Conservative line and put more Cabinet Ministers with portfolios in the other place. I do not know what he would do with the questions he gets answered at ten o'clock if a couple of Ministers were over there. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I think a move in that direction is to move away from the whole concept of parliament's being a place where the final decisions are made, and therefore should consist only of those who are elected.
Some may say that this point of ours could be met if there were a second chamber that was elected. I would think that would be just a fifth wheel. We have enough difficulty at present resolving problems in this House, and enough difficulty resolving our problems between the federal and provincial levels. If we had a second House that was elected and had the same right to stand on its feet as we do, I think we would compound our troubles. In any event, we take the position that democracy would be more democratic in this country if all those who have the right to vote on our laws were elected. Because the Senate is a non-elected body we feel that instead of seeking to reform it, it should be abolished.
I believe another word should be said about this measure as a so-called measure of reform. Really, no one has risen in his place to contend that it is a measure of reform. Certainly anyone who has read the history of the Liberal Party for the last 45 or 46 years, and who thinks of the times Mackenzie King and others promised to reform the Senate, cannot support the view, after all those years, when all we get is a bill to provide that those appointed from now on will retire at 75, that this is a measure of reform.
Surely what my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) said is correct, that this is just a delusion. The Government is trying to make the people of Canada think that something has been done to reform the Senate, that some first step has been taken. But it is precisely because we feel this measure is a delusion that we think it ought to be turned down.
Speaking of reform of the Senate, I would like to pose this question quite bluntly: I
1224	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators wonder if Members of this House really want the Senate to be reformed. In fact I wonder if the people of Canada want it to be reformed. Certainly in the ranks of the two old parties there has for a long time been a lot of talk about Senate reform, but nobody has done very much about it.
One hon. gentleman recently did try to reform the Senate, and the gentleman to whom I am referring is Senator Grattan O'Leary. He tried to reform it from the inside. He tried to say to his fellow Senators, "Look, we have got certain constitutional rights. We have to stand on our feet and exercise those rights." As a matter of fact he took this position two or three times, and even though I disagree radically with what he did I agree he had the constitutional right to take that stand. On one occasion he took the stand that the Senate should refuse to put something through that this House had just passed, and as a result there was a delay of a few days in the paying of unemployment insurance.
What happened with that attempt to reform the Senate? The result was an outcry against the Senate exercising this authority, and the result is that Senator O'Leary's reform has since become another one of those quiet revolutions, more quiet than revolutionary. The fact of the matter is that if the Senate did stand on its feet, did exercise the authority that it has to veto legislation, to hold up things passed by this House until it considered them in its own leisurely way, there would be the kind of hue and cry against the Senate that would result in my bill to abolish it having a better chance than it has had heretofore.
Though there has been a lot of talk about reforming the Senate, what the members of the old parties in particular really want is for it to continue in its own quiet way, causing as little trouble as possible but existing as a place that the Prime Minister of the day can use, as has already been pointed out, to place people for whom there is no longer any room in the House of Commons.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I just want to express again my very strong objection to one or two provisions in the bill, and we will restate that objection when we get into Committee of the Whole. It is pretty clear from the way we have been speaking that we do not favour this legislation. We do not favour an attempt to reform the Senate. We think it should be abolished; but if we have

DEBATES	May 12, 1965
a bill that gets second reading we will have
to consider some of the provisions in it.
I want to say again that I think the provision that makes it possible for a Senator who is there now, who may have been there ten or 20 years, or who may be there for another 30, to retire at age 75 on a pension that would now be $8,000 a year-without having to contribute one nickel for it-is just about scandalous. I thought the remarks made by the hon. Member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) the other afternoon on this point were very pertinent. I know it is not always regarded as popular to make the kind of reference he did, but it is a reference that needs to be made.
This is a Parliament in which we have not found it possible to get the Government to agree to raise the old age pension to $100 a month. Yet here we are being asked by the Government to give a free pension of $8,000 a year to people who have already had the gift, for whatever number of years they have been in the Senate, of the indemnity and allowance that goes with a Senate appointment.
We have now accepted the principle that pensions should be on a contributory basis. The Canada Pension Plan is on a contributory basis, and in a sense old age security is a contributory plan because certain taxes are collected from our people to pay for it. Our pensions in the House of Commons are on a contributory basis. But here we single out a group of people who have enjoyed and are enjoying a period of time in the Senate, which they have been given as a free gift, and we choose to give them a pension under present terms of $8,000 a year at age 75.
Furthermore, look at the choice we give these people. We say to a man over there who is now 75, and may have been there 10, 20 or 30 years, "You can retire now and take this pension, or you can stay. You can stay for the rest of your life at full indemnity, or stay three, four or five years, and then if you feel you can no longer carry on, you can retire and get that free pension". There is nothing else like it anywhere in the country. Even the judges' pensions, which are free pensions, do not have this latitude, this range of choice that is made available to members of the other place.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that those who are appointed to the
May 12, 1965

Senate after the bill comes into effect-and these will have to be under 75, somewhere between 30 and 75-will be required to contribute under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, so when they reach the age of 75 they will get pensions they will have paid for out of their indemnities. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, when the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was passed for Members of this House there were many Members who had been here for a number of years. They were given an opportunity to cover their pension rights, but they had to pay for it. I submit that just as we had to pay for our pension rights, so Members of the other House should have to pay in respect of their past services.
If it is argued that given such a choice they will elect to stay and draw their full indemnities for the remainder of their days, then in the eyes of the public they would have to take the responsibility for such a decision. I do not think we should be made to look foolish by passing legislation which seems to give so much to these people for so little. When the Canada Pension Plan was under consideration there was a lot of talk about its providing pensions for those who did not need them and failing to provide pensions for those who did. I do not think this criticism was valid in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, but certainly this is what is happening now: People who have been receiving good indemnities for many years will get these generous pensions without paying for them at all. I think the very tributes which have been paid to these Senators, tributes regarding their public spirit and so on, suggest that if they were given the kind of choice we propose they would make a socially responsible choice.
We feel, as has been said on a number of occasions, that the Senate is an anachronism. In our view a non-elected body should not be part of our parliamentary process and for this reason we believe that to try to reform it is just a delusion. Accordingly we shall be opposing this bill. However, if our opposition does not succeed in defeating it we hope that when we get into committee of the whole some of the changes which we believe ought to be made in it will be carried out and that some of the rather scandalous provisions which it contains will be removed.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering Bill No. C-98 whose object is, as outlined by previous
Retirement Age for Senators speakers, to fix at 75 years the retirement age for Senators.
Before coming to the heart of the matter, I must say that here, in Ottawa, there seems to be no desire to reduce or change the status of the upper house while in the province of Quebec, the legislative council is now considering a bill initiated by the legislative assembly to reduce the powers of the legislative council in that province. Yet, in Ottawa there seems to be no wish to change the legal status or the present powers of the Senate.
What is most appalling about the Senate is that this legislative body is not responsible to the Canadian people.
People like to refer to the United States. And yet in that country the senators are elected by the people. They have to go through general elections. However, here in Canada it has not yet been deemed advisable to proceed to truly serious reforms of the Senate other than to fix the retirement age of senators at 75 years.
Mr. Speaker, I have here several articles written by persons who have expressed their opinion on the Senate, either from the constitutional point of view or from some other angle. I would like to put on record an article written by Mr. Jacques-Yvan Morin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Montreal. It was published in Le Soleil of June 6, 1964, and is entitled: "Laws of federalism altered by the Senate". I quote:
Mr. Jacques-Yvan Morin stated yesterday before the committee of the legislative assembly on the constitution that the Canadian Senate, in its present form, goes against the laws of federalism.
Mr. Morin said that the Senate does not have a federal form, because one of the elements of federalism is the participation of member states in the operation of the legislative process in the central bodies.
From the very beginning of confederation, Mr. Morin continued, the Canadian Senate was faked because Senators were appointed by the central government. The appointment of Senators by the provinces was rejected, Sir John Macdonald insisting for a state of the type of the legislative union. Mr. Morin pointed that the United States holds more powers than the Canadian Senate and that it carries more importance than the House of Representatives.
According to Mr. Morin, the provinces should appoint the senators. They could be appointed by the government, by the legislature or even be elected.
Because the senators are appointed by the central government, Mr. Morin believes that Canada is not a federation in the true meaning of the word.
In its issue of October 23, 1963, La Presse of Montreal gave statistics compiled by the
May 12, 1965

Administration of Justice Canadian Institute of Public Opinion concerning the existence and the operation of the Senate, the reforms which it needed and even its abolition. Apart from those statistics, here is another excerpt from this article:
Should the senators undergo an election, they would experience an atmosphere of strong disapproval. Sixty six per cent of the Canadian people disapprove the recent increase of the senators' indemnities from $10,000 to $15,000 yearly. Only 16 per cent of the people approve this measure.
A former public opinion survey showed that 59 per cent of the people disapproved the increase of the federal members' indemnities, and that among farmers, this proportion reached 72 per cent.
A similar proportion of farmers, 72 per cent were against the pay boost for senators.
Of those who approve the measure, one out of four feel that senators have responsibilities whereas, of those who are against the measure, one out of five feel that the increase was too big.
The following question was asked: "What do you think of the recent salary increase for senators who now get $15,000 a year instead of $10,000. Are you in favour or against?"
Here were the results. In Canada, 16 per cent of the people are in favour of the increase, 66 per cent are against it and 18 per cent are undecided.
Various reasons given to condemn the measure were: too big an increase, 20 per cent; senators are already well paid, 19 per cent; senators are not worth that much, 16 per cent; senators just sit and do nothing, 13 per cent; senators are mere figureheads, 11 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being live 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 and public bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brewin:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of the Minister of Justice calling a conference of himself and the Attorneys General of the various provinces for the purpose of giving consideration to a scheme to be jointly financed and operated by the Government of Canada and the governments of the various provinces for the provision of legal aid in all criminal cases in which imprisonment is a possible outcome.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this motion was adjourned a week ago the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) adjourned the debate after having first indicated, in the few minutes available to him, his complete
[Mr. Rondeau.)
approval of the motion and of the principle behind it. Unfortunately, owing to a prior commitment he is unable to be here today, but I am happy to be able to continue the debate knowing that the things I say, albeit in a less colourful manner, are the things he would say, and that the principles I espouse are also his principles.
It often seems to us today that whereas in most western states we have adopted principles which attempt, through the means of state intervention, to provide for the problems of disease, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance, sometimes the state assumes vis-avis the individual too great a role; that the shadow thrown by the monolithic, pragmatic and impersonal state has a tendency to dwarf the individual. So when the opportunity arises, as it does in this particular resolution, to strike a blow for what I think is the preservation of individual rights, we seize upon it. Because no matter what else the state may be attempting to do, I think that everything must be based on the necessity for giving effect to the principle that the individual must always be the centre around which our society moves.
For this reason I am very happy to support the resolution which has been moved and which has been the subject of a very eloquent address by the hon. Member who moved it and by all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. There might be some issue raised on the constitutional aspect, but I doubt it. I think that under the authority given to the federal Parliament under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, which deals with the criminal law and our procedure in criminal matters, while I doubt that this particular aspect has been the subject of judicial pronouncement I am quite convinced in my own mind that a right does lie in the federal Government, despite the fact that the provincial Governments in organizing the courts, through the departments of the respective Attorneys General, provide for counsel to appear as agents for the Attorneys General to prosecute. Certainly the way in which the motion is drafted embraces all of the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial Governments, and I think this question should be the subject of discussion.
There may be those who say that the existing Legal Aid Societies which function in the provinces provide the answer. I pay full tribute to the way in which members of the Bar in the various provinces have
May 12, 19G5	COMMONS
taken it upon themselves as a public duty to provide assistance in these criminal matters through the organization of the Legal Aid Societies, thus supplying trained counsel to represent those who may be charged with a criminal offence. But I think that despite this a gap is left.
The resources of the state today are such that in the prosecution of criminal trials tremendous power lies in the hands of the Attorneys General to a much greater degree than was the case before. All too often the assistance provided through the format of the Legal Aid Society does not meet the requirements of each case. I think that we must work out and devise some means by which we can supplement what has been the practice in the past.
Some very fine quotations were cited in the debate, and 1 approve them. My own few comments, Mr. Speaker, will be based on my own personal experience in the practise of law in a small community as a student and as a member of the Bar for over 40 years, a period which includes the depression days when funds were not very large. I would say that a large number of the cases in which I appeared in the criminal courts were of a variety which today would be the subject of a motion of this kind.
It is true that in many cases, particularly in murder trials, some assistance is given by provincial Governments. In my province I think back to the days when it was provided that counsel would be remunerated to the extent of $50 a day for two days, which would include appearance before a coroner's inquest, appearance at a preliminary hearing, briefing witnesses and appearing at the trial itself. As anyone can well realize, the opportunity to provide an adequate and proper defence should not be determined in any given case, whether the case be a murder case or any other criminal matter, by the meagreness of funds provided not only for the accused person to be represented by counsel, but for the proper opportunity to brief witnesses and to prepare for trial. The proper place to commence this exercise is following the first interview with the accused. There is initiated the course of action in the matter of seeking out evidence, in the matter of making proper preparation for the preliminary trial, in the matter of seeking professional and technical advice, and finally in the matter of appearing before a judge or a judge and jury. The length of time involved, the amount of work entailed and the expenses incurred in proceedings of this kind are very substantial.
DEBATES	1227
Administration of Justice They were substantial in previous days, and of course they are even more substantial today.
I think it is a shocking thing that in our vaunted approach toward a more equitable society we fail to provide adequate assistance to people who are charged with criminal offences. There is a tendency for people who watch television programs such as The Defenders and the Perry Mason series to think that all that is needed is brilliant expose in the courtroom. But that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. In our profession, genius in these matters is defined by the capacity to take infinite pains. The time available is such that with the detail involved counsel for an accused person cannot discharge his or her responsibility to their client under the hit or miss arrangements which have so far prevailed.
I made reference to my experience in capital offences, of which there have been almost a score. In all but two I was paid through the provisions of the provincial Government. In one case I was paid by the Department of Indian Affairs, I happened to be the only Tory lawyer in the whole north country at the time, which I think was the only reason I was engaged. But there a more reasonable arrangement was made. I think this is the kind of thing we should consider. I do not know what the present arrangements are, but the Department of Indian Affairs should make provision for a per diem allowance for preparation and a per diem allowance for appearing at a preliminary hearing and at a trial.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
While referring to Indians I think we should bear in mind that for some reason the department has said yes, in connection with capital cases, they are prepared to retain counsel, but they will not retain counsel in other cases. Much of the work I have done has been in connection with the Indians and Metis in the north country, some of them charged with offences other than murder. I have always thought it monstrous under the circumstances, as they were not subject to provincial jurisdiction, that the Federal Government should reject out of hand any suggestion that some form of assistance should be provided. I think it is not right that the opportunity of an accused person to present an adequate defence should be predicated upon the willingness of some individual lawyer to appear as counsel for him or her.
1228	COMMONS
Administration of Justice
We say that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and that the onus of proof lies upon the Crown and that it must be discharged beyond any reasonable doubt. These are fine sounding phrases, but to give force to them we must provide the means whereby an accused person can obtain the needed assistance.
We have had a lot of discussion and publicity recently in this country about a man charged in the United States and apprehended in Canada in respect of an offence involving narcotics. I cannot go into the details of that case, of course, but it strikes me rather strange that people under these circumstances can spend thousands of dollars in an effort to escape or avoid justice, in contrast to the relatively small sums which may be made available to other people charged with other breaches of the Criminal Code. In my opinion this does not constitute equity, but is inequitable and unjust.
For that reason I am more than pleased to lend my support to this motion and I hope it will have the result of initiating at the federal-provincial level some discussion about this very serious problem which, until relieved, in my humble opinion does constitute a blot on our administration of criminal justice.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has put the House in his debt by introducing this resolution, and introducing into the deliberations of this Chamber what has become an increasingly important question not only in this country, but in a great many other common law jurisdictions.
We in the common law system, and for this purpose I refer to the criminal jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec as well, have proceeded in the trial of matters upon the adversary system; founded upon the assumption that that most elusive object, the truth, is best arrived at in connection with legal matters by conflicting arguments of parties themselves in court, and in the case of criminal questions by a contest in open court between the state and the accused. In so saying, that is not to say that no other system of law, such^ as the civil law system which follows the inquisitorial method in criminal matters have not an equally effective means of arriving at the truth.
We can say, however, with some pride, that we have achieved, so far as it is possible within human fallibility, some success in our common law system. But it is very curious

DEBATES	May 12, 1965
that an anomaly exists in this type of an adversary system that, until very recently, had not been observed or provided against in the various jurisdictions in which the common law is in force. I am referring, of course, to the fact that in an adversary system, the manner in which the system is supposed to act, assumes a conflict of two parties equal in every way and, more particularly, two parties equal from the standpoint of representation by counsel and economic means. Generally speaking, this works out effectively in our system, but until very recently there had been little or no public recognition of the fact that in the case of an indigent against the state there is no equity at all in that contest which is supposed to produce the truth, but rather it is no contest at all.
I have already made reference to other jurisdictions in which the question has arisen. Perhaps the United Kingdom may take the credit for having taken the lead in providing legal assistance for people without means, particularly in criminal cases. The first English legislation arose out of voluntary activities in the early part of the century, and is dated 1907. In Britain they have continued to extend this, particularly by the Acts of 1933, 1949 and even as recently as 1960.
What is even more surprising to us, however, is that under the United States constitution, in which its citizens take just pride, and which has been the subject of extensive deliberation by the Supreme Court of the United States, there have been many eminent cases by many eminent authorities; yet until comparatively recently-in fact, the year of my birth-there had been no definitive statement of the right to counsel of indigents before the court. The case of that year was Powell v. Alabama, and down through the years there have been the cases of Betts v. Brady and Gideon v. Wainwright, which stimulated the hon. Member to bring this motion before the House. I should point out to him that the great man there was Mr. Gideon, and not Mr. Gideon Wainwright as he said.
The United States Supreme Court case has declared the principle under the United States constitution under which an indigent is afforded the means of protection in criminal cases. Contemporaneous with the decision of the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright, there was great concern about the question of an indigent before the federal courts, and at the insistence of the then Attorney General for the United States, now Senator Robert
May 12, 19S5	COMMONS
Kennedy, a study was undertaken by Professor Allen of Northwestern University which resulted in a report entitled "Poverty and the Administration of Federal Criminal Justice" which, in a definitive way, set out the views of the reporter as to the changes that should be effected in Federal law. I would suggest that this could well serve as a model not only for ourselves, but for all other common law jurisdictions, not only in respect of the type of inquiry we should have, but in respect of some of the basic principles that should be followed.
I point out to hon. Members that the question received broader consideration in the International And Comparative Law Quarterly of October, 1963. That article is a study of the question in respect of the Malaysian and Indian constitutions which is of particular interest since, of course, those constitutions came into effect since the war and it was intended that they should take advantage of the accumulated jurisprudence of the United States. The conclusion of the writer on this particular question was that despite the obvious importance of the question, the constitutions did not seem to have clearly provided any right of an accused to counsel, which only goes to indicate how comparatively recent, in many areas of the common law system, has been the recognition of the importance of this question.
We have also observed a great deal of study on this question within Canada in recent years. There was an Ontario study, the report of which has recently been delivered to the Attorney General of Ontario, copies of which we hope will soon be made available to the public. The Province of British Columbia carried out a very considerable study of this question, and the Province of Alberta, after a very successful pilot scheme in the City of Edmonton, guided by Mr. William Morrow and Mr. David McDonald, extended the legal aid system throughout the whole province.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Historically the responsibility for criminal jurisdiction in Canada has been divided between two levels of Government. The Federal Government has under the British North America Act, our constitution, been given responsibility for enacting criminal law including, in that sense, criminal procedure, while pursuant to section 92 (14) the duty of administering justice within the provinces has fallen to the Provincial Governments. In particular in this connection the provinces have the responsibility for maintaining the
DEBATES	1229
Administration of Justice criminal courts, including provision of the offices of Crown Attorneys who are responsible for conducting prosecutions of criminal matters. The provinces also have the responsibility for providing the structure of justices of the peace to administer those provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to laying informations by which prosecutions are started and for granting bail. The provinces equally have the responsibility for retaining custody of prisoners pending and during trial. Equally, it has been and is the responsibility of the Provincial Governments to legislate for the status and functions of the legal profession in general.
The motion which the hon. Member has brought before the House can, I think, be analysed in the light of that particular division of authority. In my view the proposition which he has put forward should really be subsumed under two headings: First, what changes, if any, should be made in the Criminal Code so as to be certain that justice will be assured in the trial of all charges, but more particularly those involving loss of liberty of the subject, by requiring that the accused have the opportunity of representation by legal counsel. In other words, are changes desirable in the Criminal Code to make the retention of counsel not only a right of the accused but also an obligation of the prosecution? The second point has to do with whether or not the provinces have the financial means of carrying out the requirements of legal representation which this Parliament might set out in the Code.
I would submit that logically the first of the two questions comes first in time and therefore should also be the first for decision. We must take the responsibility first in this Parliament of determining what changes, if any, must be made to the Criminal Code for the purpose of assuring equal rights to indigents before our courts.
In order to inform Parliament's decision on this question as on the many other disputed questions of criminal procedure, the Government has taken the responsibility of convening a committee of persons expert in the fields of criminal procedure and corrections to consider and report to the Government on the entire correctional process extending from the first apprehension of the offender right up to the moment of his final release back into society. May I say here, Mr. Speaker, that I think all Canadians should consider themselves fortunate in the quality of the personnel who have agreed to devote their time and
1230	COMMONS
Administration of Justice attention to this committee's study. X would refer particularly to the Chairman, Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet of Montreal and to the vice chairman, Mr. G. Arthur Martin, Q.C., who is one of Canada's leading criminal defence lawyers. The question of the position of the indigent accused before the court is one of the questions which that committee is to examine and report on to the Government.
The principal concern of the hon. Member for Greenwood, as indicated by his motion and by his speech, appears to be as to the problem of the financing of the various provincial schemes of legal aid. As I have already indicated, in my opinion that question is premature and it can only be meaningful when a decision has been arrived at as to what requirements should be introduced into the Criminal Code which will assure that no one who seeks to have legal representation in a serious case can be put to his trial without the opportunity of having counsel.
Before developing further some of the procedural questions which I think the committee will probably have to consider, it might be of some assistance if I were to set before the House some of the provisions of the present Code which relate to this question. The procedural provisions of the Code, such as those in Part XVII relating to procedure by indictment in the case of offences, make frequent reference to the appearance of the accused by counsel. For example, I would refer to section 555 and section 557 (3), the latter of which sections provides as follows:
An accused is entitled, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence personally or by counsel.
I have cited that particular section, Mr. Speaker, because it is indicative of the terminology employed by the Code throughout, and from that terminology I think it will be apparent to all hon. Members that the Code assumes that an individual may appear and be properly tried without actually having counsel to defend him; in other words, there will be no impropriety in a particular prosecution if an accused stands unrepresented at trial.
The situation is somewhat better with respect to procedure on appeals. In this connection I refer to section 580 which reads as follows:
A court of appeal or a judge of that court may, at any time, assign counsel to act on behalf of an accused who is a party to an appeal or to proceedings preliminary or incidental to an appeal where, in the opinion of the court or judge, it appears desirable in the interests of justice that the ae-

DEBATES	May 12, 1985
cused should have legal aid and where it appears that the accused has not sufficient means to obtain that aid.
It is clear, therefore, from a general examination of the Code that while there is a clear right for an accused to be represented by counsel there is not an equivalent obligation upon the state to make certain that the indigent person without counsel is represented.


Mr. Brewin:: I wonder whether I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. Has he considered the effect on the Criminal Code of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which, as I understand it, say that no law shall be interpreted or applied so as to deprive a person of due process of law or so as to abrogate the rights of any person, or to deprive a person of a right to retain or instruct counsel, or a right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of justice? I want to ask the hon. Member further if he does not think there is an extremely strong case for the view that passage by this Parliament of the Bill of Rights, which says that no law shall be interpeted or applied so as to deprive a person of these rights, should be interpreted as enacting that any conviction based upon the fact that an indigent did not have counsel, following the general principles of the Gideon and Wainwright case, would result in a mistrial and the conviction therefor should be set aside; and if that is so do we not need to provide the machinery to make the law effective, rather than change the law?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would agree with the merit of the hon. Member's argument and I would say I would be delighted if I could be assured that the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights would be effective in producing the results he has suggested. However, as a more senior member of the Ontario Bar than myself, I am sure he is well aware of the rather indifferent reception of that statute by the courts, and in particular I would refer him to the review last year by Professor Schmeiser of civil rights in Canada, who pointed out in a well written chapter some of its very obvious weaknesses. I would agree that the terminology used in the section to which the hon. Member has referred obviously has drawn its inspiration from the amendments to the United States constitution but, given the status of the Bill of Rights, I am not satisfied that a court would necessarily feel bound by its provisions or inter-
May 12, 1965	COMMONS
pret them in the way that both he and I would like to see them interpreted.
As I have already stated, it would be a desirable first step in dealing with the question to have the committee consider whether the Code should stipulate as an essential ingredient in all prosecutions, or more serious ones at least, that the accused must be protected by counsel unless he positively asserts his right not to retain counsel.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I should like to deal with a number of questions which I find difficult and which I am sure the committee will want to consider in this particular connection. An initial and difficult question is, of course, as to what degree of seriousness in an offence should be a prerequisite to the right to legal aid. The hon. Member has made his choice in this regard. To follow the terms of his motion, he has said "for the provision of legal aid in all criminal cases in which imprisonment is a possible outcome". All offences? Should persons be entitled to legal aid for all offences or only those which, as this motion suggests, might lead to a possible sentence or involve the accused in the loss of his liberty?
An argument which I am sure would immediately be raised from the prosecution side is that requiring legal representation in even the most minor offences would unduly delay and burden the administration of justice, and by such delay work a prejudice to the rights of persons awaiting trial. In this connection we may note the Minister's announcement that the committee will have the assistance of consultants, experts in special fields related to the committee's study. I am sure the experience, for example, of people on the prosecution side such as police officers will be very valuable in assisting the committee in determining questions such as these, namely what offences should entitle a person to legal representation through the agency of the state?
Another question would be as to the point in time at which the prosecution action should be stayed so that an indigent person may secure representation. As hon. Members with legal training know, the real outcome of a criminal trial may be predetermined by events occurring during police investigation, such as statements or actions of the accused or tests he has undergone without knowing he was under no obligation to take them. In the case of a well-to-do person who is accustomed to dealing with a solicitor, his first
DEBATES	1231
Administration of Justice reaction when faced with this kind of inquiry is to seek the counsel of his lawyer. In respect of an indigent person who does not have this recourse ordinarily, there is not the same means or opportunity available and so this problem arises for him. These actions during investigation may be highly prejudicial to the accused who acts in ignorance of his rights. In all justice may I say that there may be no impropriety on the part of the police, either.
Perhaps in this connection I might cite, by way of example, a recent decision by Mr. Justice Haines of the Supreme Court of Ontario in the case of Regina v. O'Connor, which is reported in the April 9 edition of Ontario Reports for 1965, page 360. This was a case in which the facts closely resembled the situation I described, where an accused had been apprehended for an offence under the Criminal Code and had been submitted to a series of tests before he was permitted to communicate with his solicitor. In the course of that judgment, Mr. Justice Haines made the following observations which I think are relevant to this particular point:
It is the lawyer who through his background of experience and training is able to search out, sort and select those facts which bear legal relevance and weight, and to perform that myriad of tasks, routines and presentations which the man on the street standing charged with an offence cannot possibly hope to comprehend and to marshal in his own defence against the so-called strong arm of the law. It is the early participation of counsel both in fact development and fact presentation which lends some semblance of reality to the concept of the balance existing between the accused and the otherwise irresistible forces of the state. To waylay counsel in this crucial and vital stage of fact development, as the police in this instance would seem to have desired to do, is tantamount to waylaying the cornerstone of our concept of criminal justice so painstakingly assembled through almost countless generations.
May I point out, as Mr. Justice Haines has pointed out in that case, it is essential at the earliest possible moment for the accused person or the person who is under investigation by the forces of the law, to have representation. I should like to suggest that one of the questions to which the committee will have to give serious consideration is at what point legal aid counsel is to be provided to the indigent person. This, of course, offers very obvious difficulties from the standpoint of law enforcement. Of course, all police inquiries do not immediately lead to a charge, or even to a charge against that particular person. None the less, the problem does arise.
Mr. Justice Haines has also made-
May 12, 1965

Administration oj Justice


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; I must point out to the hon. Member that under section 2 of Standing Order 31, the time allotted to him has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I only wish to speak very briefly on the resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in order to lend my support to it. The motion calls for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) to convene a conference between himself and the attorneys general of the Provinces to give consideration to a scheme that would provide legal aid in criminal cases in which imprisonment is the possible outcome.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is essential to the administration of justice, because after all our courts are set up for the purpose of interpreting the law, assessing the evidence that is to be brought before them. This is administering justice. The courts are not set up for the purpose of winning an argument in debate, when there is a charge against someone which, as has been pointed out, may result in imprisonment. The reason I think there is a great deal of merit in the motion put before the House this afternoon is, as has been pointed out by hon. Members previously, the layman just simply does not know how to present evidence to the court. He does not know how to assess what is valid evidence in the interpretation of the law, and so on. I think it is essential, therefore, in the administration of justice that something of this nature be done.
For example, when the hon. Member for Greenwood spoke he quoted from Mr. Justice Sutherland, as follows:
Even the Intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law.
When the accused goes into court he may have important evidence but just not know how to present it. Therefore, without going into a lot of details, with which I am not familiar, I should like to say that we in this party support the motion calling for a conference so that justice can be better administered.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak briefly to this motion that has been presented by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and to say that I subscribe to the principles that are inherent in the terms of the motion. There are quite a number of legal opinions on the record now and I feel that we laymen in the House should present some of our
[Mr. Macdonald.)
views, although it seems that in terms of assessing the evidence a layman does not really have a great deal of knowledge to effectively bring the burden of the evidence in the right direction for the desired result. Nevertheless, I feel that when the hon. Member for Greenwood specifies cases in which imprisonment is the possible outcome, I would suggest to him that there are quite a number of other areas of the law which might be covered by the terms of this motion. Indeed, if the Government pays attention to the motion and subsequently acts upon it, it could look on a much wider basis into the application of the principles involved. [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) sits in a certain quarter of the House where Members are inclined to support great socialistic reform within the country. Consequently I think this is one area where he could apply that thinking to a much greater degree. After all, we are on the threshhold of other things to come in this field, such as medicare. We read in the papers today that this is being prepared in the Province of Ontario with the consent of the members of the profession concerned.
Therefore in the first instance I certainly agree with the hon. Member, and in the second instance I say to him he could have broadened the scope of the motion by a tremendous degree to cover other areas where support of this kind is very necessary. For instance, let us take the case of most juveniles, and the case of widows. We consider these categories in other fields such as welfare assistance and so on, and surely this indicates a need in the legal field because, as the hon. Member well knows, there are not many lawyers who go to court without requiring some sort of down payment in advance.
If we are to extend this type of service to the people of Canada, regardless of what way it is applied, then for the sake of justice I think we have to have a more clear-cut means of determining where it is going to apply. I say this with reference not only to the narrow little area mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwood but with reference to a much wider scope of protection, if we are to be sincere in all of the things that have been said in the House this afternoon.
It is clearly indicated that the jurisdiction in the field covered by the motion is both provincial and federal. Therefore the course being suggested is a correct one. I suggest
May 12, 1965

that if the powers of the Attorneys General and the Minister of Justice here in Ottawa can be imposed upon to recognize this need, a need which exists in other fields, then it is all to the good. The Government has moved in other such fields. The party of which I have the honour to be a member, when it was the Government, moved in these fields, and latterly there has been this direction taken with regard to pensions and, as I say, medicare is on the road.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. Member for Greenwood that the terms of the motion could be broadened in order to give the people of Canada a much better area of coverage in the field of legal assistance. I hasten to say again that I support his motion, but I hope the Government will take notice that the field to be covered is a great deal broader than that suggested.
The previous speaker mentioned indigent cases. I do not know in what area consultation will take place and I do not know how one would govern the legal profession. I am well aware there are quite a number of lawyers who would steer clear of a multitude of such cases. I do not suggest they should form the biggest part of their practices, but I certainly believe that some method of consultation, some open method of choice of legal assistance is required if legislation were to develop from the motion that is before us.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has performed a most useful function in presenting this motion to the House and giving us the opportunity to express various points of view on the very important subject matter of the motion. I must say if there is still anyone in the country who considers himself a traditional Conservative- small "c" or large "C", I suppose there may be some similarity-or Tory, or whatever term you want to apply to that class of person, he would probably have listened with a great deal of consternation to the suggestion made just now by the Conservative Party Whip, not because what he suggested would not be accepted on its merits by the public generally, but because a traditional right-wing Tory of the old school would find the suggestion far from his concept, as I understand it, of individual rights and so on.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. Member accept a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.
Administration of Justice


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would like to ask the hon. Member, on the consultation of civic groups, if he does not think my request or suggestion would be a most acceptable one across the country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think that the whole question of providing adequate legal services for all citizens is as useful a topic for consideration as is the question of providing adequate medical care and pensions.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let us not have the decision made by lawyers.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If my hon. friend is the type of fellow who wants to take out his own appendix, I suppose he can offer that type of opinion. I do not want to make a personal reference, but those in the profession know the saying that a person who is his own lawyer usually has a fool for a client. I do not intend this remark as a personal reference to my hon. friend.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Use it yourself.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But I think that type of concept should be taken into account in giving proper recognition to the contributions that can be made to the professions in any sphere of activity where professionalism exists. I was not attempting to criticize my hon. friend for mentioning the type of suggestion he made. I began my remarks by saying his suggestion was quite a distance away from what many people understand to be the traditional Conservative right-wing view.
Having said that, I think he has also made a contribution to the discussion in suggesting, as I have just said in answer to his question, that there is a lot more can be looked at beyond the subject matter of this motion. However, I think the hon. Member for Greenwood attempted to remain within the rules governing the type of matter that can be considered in the House, and attempted to link his suggestion with something he felt would remain within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal Government.
Perhaps under other circumstances he might have broadened his topic, and I do not think he should be criticized in any way for not taking into account the suggestion of the Tory Whip. However, it seems to me I should say that what the Tory Whip is suggesting is some form of legal care, if I may use that phrase. He spoke more or less of a scheme under which people would pay premiums and then get any type of legal service they would require, with the lawyer submit-
May 12, 1965

Administration of Justice ting a bill according to an approved schedule, along the lines of the Windsor medical system.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It seems to be popular with the Grits these days.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is a basic Liberal concept, although I do not know if lawyers have come to accept it. However, I would like to point out to the Conservative Whip that his suggestion that there should be an obligation on any and every lawyer to give the consultation or service which any citizen might wish to ask from him is contrary to the freedom of choice which should be available to every professional man, as well as to those who seek professional services. I believe those of us who feel there should be an arrangement for medical care on a national basis would be the first to agree that doctors should be free to choose their patients while at the same time those in need of medical services should be free to choose the doctors-


Eric Alfred Winkler: The hon. Member asked me whether I would want to take out my own appendix. No, I would want the best surgeon I could find. Similarly I would want the best lawyer I could get my hands on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I hope the situation does not arise in the hon. gentleman's case. But I would point out that sometimes the particular skill which a lawyer possesses may not be in accordance with the needs of a client. A lawyer might become well known, and, in consequence, a client might approach him for advice in a criminal case. It might be that the lawyer had not engaged in the practice of criminal law at all, or for many years, and was in fact best qualified to deal with the administration of wills.


Eric Alfred Winkler: There would be no money left to put into a will.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With the expansion which is taking place under the present Government, that will be happening less and less.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If there is any left the Government takes it all.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A further word on that point. I think there is a distinction to be drawn here. There is a difference between the doctor-patient relationship and the relationship which a lawyer cultivates with his client. A doctor deals with certain impersonal elements involving germs and diseases, conditions of the human frame. The lawyer, for his part, has to establish a certain psychological rap-

port with his client to a degree not required of a doctor. If this understanding were lacking, certain difficulties would undoubtedly arise. Suppose, for instance, a lawyer felt that the information conveyed to him by his client in a criminal case were such that he could not carry on with the case. Those who have had more experience in criminal law than I have had will know what I have in mind. Though there is a great deal of merit in the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member, some of the arrangements he has proposed do not seem to be in the best interest of either the lawyer or the client.
As to the motion itself, it seems to me the argument raised by the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to whether this aid should be provided for all who might be charged with criminal offences or only for those threatened with imprisonment, does not raise serious difficulty. I do not believe there are many offences whether under federal or provincial jurisdiction which do not call for imprisonment in the event that a fine is not paid.
To deal with the question in a broader aspect, I do not think we should limit ourselves to considering the provision of adequate legal services only in those cases where the person charged is indigent. It is well recognized that a person in comfortable circumstances may be totally unable to bear the expense of a lengthy criminal trial. Such a person may be in difficulties just as great when it comes to providing a proper legal defence as the so-called indigent, and we should therefore direct our attention in a wider ambit than we have done so far in this discussion.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Does he not think that some of the problems he has mentioned could well be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference such as the resolution proposes? I agree there are certain difficulties and that it is not possible to put a scheme into effect overnight. But is it not important that the Federal Government should give a lead and that the Provinces could get together to work out all the details which the hon. Member has been discussing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. Member's question fits in with the final point I wanted to make. We already have a committee appointed which is in a position to deal with a question of this kind, and in my opinion this motion would have been more valid if the initiative had not been taken by the present
Mar 12. 1965

Government to set up such a committee. I suggest therefore, that while this motion is useful it does not have the effect it might have had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: The Reverend S. G. West, Director of the Anglican Correctional Chaplaincy, said something that I should like to bring to the attention of hon. Members:
It is reckoned that the average Canadian has about eight times the chance of serving time in prison as the average citizen of Britain, Scandinavia and Holland. Why is this? 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 think the last sentence is the correct conclusion, after studying the available statistics relating to both juvenile delinquents and adult offenders. I think the hon. Member's
Business of the House
recommendation has a great deal to commend it.
May I call it six o'clock?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacNaught:: Tomorrow we shall first consider item No. 5 on today's Order Paper, the resolution preceding the National Housing Act amending bill. This resolution has already received two hours consideration and it should not require much further debate. Then we shall take up item No. 13 on today's Order Paper, second reading of Bill C-101, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act. We shall then resume the debate which was interrupted at five o'clock, namely second reading of an Act to make provision for the retirement of Members of the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought you had dropped that.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1237

Thursday, May 13, 1965