1965-02-24

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, affecting the members of this party who represent constituencies in British Columbia. My specific question of privilege relates to an article which appeared in the Vancouver Province of February 22, written by Mr. Ormond Turner. This copy of the Vancouver Province only came to my hand this morning. I am therefore raising this matter at the very earliest opportunity that was practicable.
The article reads in part as follows:
A local union official has privately admitted that at least six B.C. unions have conspired to get N.D.P. candidates elected fraudulently by entering fictitious names on the voters' lists.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The article continues:
He said that union members (and others) then went to the polls and used the phony names to help elect N.D.P. candidates.
He didn't seem proud to have been involved in this illegal and shocking subversion of Canada's election laws; he agreed that a conspiracy to fraudulently affect the outcome of an election was an affront to democracy-no matter what the candidate stood for.
Here's how it works;
A union hiring hall in Vancouver gets a call for 25 men to go to a job at Nanaimo . .. While there an election is called and registration begins. The 25 workers are registered at Nanaimo (quite legally) but, by the time the election day comes around, they have either returned to Vancouver or gone on to another construction site. There are 49 days set aside for registration and they could be registered anew at each site, often without their knowledge. Remember, when the enumerator comes around, you can be registered by the landlady.
At each site a list is kept by the local union giving the names and addresses used in the registrations. On election day, some one casts these votes. Some of the names are fictitious, some have phony addresses, some are legitimate-but there is no doubt that illegal votes are cast.
In every riding where this has been proved to happen, the NJD.P. has benefited, with or without that party's knowledge.
20220-738J
I shall quote one other sentence in which the writer says:
-the evidence I've got weighs about three pounds. It's conclusive, it's shocking, and it will provide a good deterrent to anyone who intends to play around with our form of democracy at the next election.
I shall be quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to place with the Clerk a full copy of the article because I have not taken the time of the house to read all of it. This article casts a serious reflection upon the trade unions in the province of B.C., and calls in question the legality of the election of certain members of this party.
The president of the international woodworkers of America, who drew this to my attention, has written me a letter a copy of which I shall also place with the Clerk. It is dated February 22, addressed to me, and says:
Please find enclosed a press clipping from the Vancouver Province of February 22, 1965 written by one Ormond Turner in which he, by inference, accuses trade unions in the province of British Columbia of conspiring to elect fraudulently members of the New Democratic party.
I am alarmed at these accusations because our union, the international woodworkers of America, being the largest in the province of British Columbia and having a social and political policy at this time of supporting the New Democratic party, and because our policy is so well known to the general public may be tainted by these innuendoes and accusations.
If any unions did indeed, conspire to fraudulently elect anyone I would like to know what unions and which officers did such conspiring. If there is any truth-which I sincerely doubt-in these accusations, then it is only fair that the public and the government know who and which organizations are involved.
It is quite true that there may be duplications of some of our members in federal elections; but this would come about mainly among their transient loggers who could be resident in one of the Vancouver ridings but who at the time of an election gets a call for work in one of the up-coast logging operations and, as there is no absentee voting in federal elections, must either register in the up-coast camp and vote in that riding or be denied a vote. We have always encouraged our members to vote, regardless of who they wish to vote for.
If it can be proven that someone has cast a ballot in a Vancouver riding under the name of an I.W.A. member who legitimately votes in a up-coast riding, then I for one want to know who would perpetrate such an unscrupulous act and on whose behalf it was done. We in the I.W.A. have long recognized that democracy can

Question of Privilege
only work if the people elected to represent various ridings are elected by the majority of votes legitimately cast on their behalf; and -we will strongly deplore any individual or group in society who would attempt to rig elections-whether they be union elections, federal, provincial or municipal elections.
Because of the fact that trade unions have been accused in public of nefarious deeds and because of the fact that so much is at stake, I would request that you do whatever you can to have this whole matter turned over to the proper authorities so that either the culprits (if they exist) are exposed by name, or these scurrilous accusations are publicly laid to rest.
Fraternally yours,
J. A. Moore, President.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Moore. They represent the views of this party. If there are persons who have voted illegally, if there are persons who conspired to commit fraud in the last general election or in any other general election, we say such persons should be named and punished to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, if these allegations are not true they should be proven untrue in order that the good names of the unions and of the elected members of this party from British Columbia may be cleared of the allegations made by Mr. Turner on February 22.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but it will not have much to do with the question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has directly to do with it. Has the hon. gentleman seen the Province for February 23 and the article by the same author; if so, would he read the first paragraph to the house?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not seen the article in question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman
permit me to read it, because it seems very relevant to the point?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It says:
What's the NJD.P. mad about? I never said that their party was involved in a conspiracy to get phony votes-I said that at least six trade unions were involved in a bid to get phony votes for the N.D.P.
Ernest Hall, N.D.P. secretary, says if I have any evidence of fraudulent registration I should send it to the chief returning officer. Hall's a little late-most of the evidence has already gone to CJl.O. Nelson Castonguay.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I see very little value in the interruption by the Minister cf Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact remains that the gentleman in question, Mr. Ormond Turner, made certain charges to the effect that persons had conspired to fraudulently elect New Democratic party members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there is no question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That may not touch the somewhat insensitive susceptibilities of the Minister of Transport, but it certainly touches mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. My point of order is this. The hon. gentleman rose on an alleged question of privilege. A question of privilege has to affect the house or some member of the house. But the author of this article has indicated clearly that he is making no accusations against the house or any member of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I read again to the hon. member the following words:
In every riding where this has been proved to happen, the N.D.P. has benefited, with or without that party's knowledge.
I can see no reason why the Minister of Transport should attempt to resist an investigation into these allegations. If any member of this party or of any other party in the house has been elected by fraudulent means, either with or without his knowledge, this house and the country have the right to know. This attempt to muddy the waters by bringing in something, coming from the Minister of Transport, irrelevant has a very strange aroma.
I wish to move:
That the chief electoral officer be requested to investigate the charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963 made by Ormond Turner in the Vancouver Province of February 22, 1965, and in any subsequent issues thereof, and to make a full report thereon.


Mr. Starr:: Just one scandal after another.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to determine whether there is, in the Chair's opinion, a prima facie case of privilege and whether to put this motion to the house for the house to decide. It does seem to me, in accordance with citation 104 subsection 5 of Beauchesne, that a matter of this sort must be raised at the earliest opportunity and a prima facie case must be made out; and privilege, of course, relates to the rights, security, dignity and freedom of the members in this particular instance.

It seems to me that this motion is more in the nature of a request for a general inquiry, and that in order to constitute a question of privilege per se with which this house should concern itself at the moment, these charges should be made against several members or an individual member and there should not be a general, blanket charge; because laws are provided in this country to deal with fraudulent elections. It does seem to me also that if the hon. member wishes a general inquiry into a matter like this, the proper procedure would be to make a substantive motion, after due notice.
Therefore, without taking further time of the house, it seems to me that there is no reason to put to the house, for its decision, the motion as suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam; and I see no particular question of privilege.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege-


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege. My point of privilege is this, that in the article referred to by my colleague from Burnaby-Coquitlam my constituency was mentioned; therefore my right to sit in this chamber has been reflected upon. I am giving notice now, Mr. Speaker, that I shall make a substantive motion tomorrow to call this individual, Ormond Turner, before the bar of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised on very good authority that the procedure sought to be followed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is not correct. He may, of course, give notice of a substantive motion, but in view of the fact that the time allotted to private members is somewhat limited it is doubtful whether the matter will be discussed during this present session.
I have received a notification from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford), who I presume wishes to talk about the same matter. I admit that I could have asked for a general discussion or for some comments before rendering my decision, but is the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard raising a similar question or another question of privilege?


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, it was a different question. So if you are going to hear hon. members on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam they would be ahead of me.
Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Then if there is nothing else there should be no further discussion on the ruling given by the Chair, which I regret was, perhaps, given a little too speedily. Nevertheless I still hold to that opinion.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for clarification of your ruling. I should like to know whether you are ruling that a statement that there are members who sit in this house from the province of British Columbia, belonging to this party, who were elected by fraudulent means is not a matter of privilege with reference to those who come from that province and who are members of this party.


An hon. Member:: It is a disgraceful ruling.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few comments on this question, and I do so because I have never felt so upset as I am at the present moment. This is not a matter of privilege. I have had the honour of standing for election to parliament, both provincial and federal, 11 times, and I have had the honour to be elected 11 times. The nearest I ever came to defeat was a margin of 3,000 votes. In the federal election in 1963, however, with a total vote for myself of just less than 13,000, I had a majority of 7,000 over the next candidate.
Nine members of this party are from British Columbia. There appears in the press in Vancouver a statement that six of those nine members are here by fraudulent methods.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as the defender of elected members and the defender of democratic principles, are you saying that when we raise a question of privilege at the first opportunity concerning a matter published in a paper-which six members of our party the article relates to, I do not know- we cannot ask for the protection of this house by demanding an investigation into the innuendo and lies directed at those six members in this group who come from British Columbia? I say, sir, that if there was ever a point of privilege it is this. These six members are asking for an immediate investigation, having been charged in the press of Canada with being here as the result of a fraudulent election. We ask you as Speaker, sir, for your protection of our rights and privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the hon. member, and I may say I have personal sympathy with

Question of Privilege
the remarks which have been made. Nevertheless, in effect, what is asked for today is an inquiry into a matter which happened over two years ago, or approximately two years ago. As I understand it, having listened carefully to the citation from the Minister of Transport, the author of this article did not specifically charge the New Democratic party as a whole, nor make any particular charges against any individuals of the New Democratic party.


Mr. Peters:: He did against the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Speaker:: I do think that the discussion we have had this afternoon should be notice to everyone that the privileges of members will be fully protected-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: By whom?


Mr. Speaker:: *-but I am obliged to follow the procedure of the house, which is that inasmuch as I have rendered a decision, rightly or wrongly, further discussion of it should not be permitted at this time although we have had a short extended discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Your Honour has given a ruling in which you cited as one of your reasons a quotation by the Minister of Transport from a subsequent article which I have never seen. How can a statement made in a subsequent article in any way remove a statement which says that N.D.P. candidates were elected fraudulently in the province of British Columbia? All we are asking is that there be an investigation. Surely Your Honour cannot deny us that investigation, and surely the government ought to be glad to have an investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam obviously sees the difficulty of the Chair; nevertheless, rightly or wrongly a decision has been given. If the hon. member is dissatisfied with that decision I invite him to appeal it, because even the Chair is perhaps in the position sometimes of making an error.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am most distinctly not satisfied with Your Honour's ruling, and I therefore regretfully appeal that ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has appealed to

the house. Those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling which is as follows:
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rising on a question of privilege proposed to move that the chief electoral officer be requested to investigate charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963 made by Ormond Turner in the Vancouver Province of February 22, 1965, and in any subsequent issues thereof, and to make a full report thereon.
The Chair ruled, in effect, that he could not find a prima facie case of privilege in the terms of the proposed motion and that, in his opinion, it was in the nature of a substantive motion of which due notice must be given.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the decision reversed. Accordingly it is my duty to put the motion that has been moved by Mr. Douglas, seconded by Mr. Winch:
That the chief electoral officer be requested to investigate the charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963 made by Ormond Turner in the Vancouver Province of February 22, 1965, and in any subsequent issues thereof, and to make a full report thereon.
The house has heard the motion. Those in favour-


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out with respect to this motion, concerning which we voted to sustain your ruling that it was not in order. It proposes that the matter be referred to the chief electoral officer for investigation and report.
I think the hon. gentleman who moved the motion, irrespective of the technical character of the motion under the rules, has made a case for investigation. I do not think there is any doubt about that; but may I point out to him-and I was going to rise if the Speaker's ruling had been sustained-that there is no chief electoral officer at the present time to whom this matter can be referred.
On that ground, and indeed on other grounds, surely it would have been preferable to have the matter referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I wonder would the hon. gentleman accept that amendment; because there is no chief electoral officer at the present time, due to the change in legislation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question. Is there not an acting chief electoral officer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the motion does not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. friend will accept the fact

Question of Privilege
that if this matter is one that should be investigated it should be investigated by a committee of the house, not by an officer of the house.


Mr. Monieith:: What are you afraid of?


An hon. Member:: They want a committee composed of Grits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of what has been said by the Prime Minister, may I point out that there is a person who is filling the post of chief electoral officer of this country. That person is Mr. Nelson Castonguay, whose title is representation commissioner. The fact is that he is holding the post at the moment under the title of acting chief electoral officer; and if the Prime Minister thinks this presents a difficulty which should be corrected I would be happy to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena, that the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately before the words "chief electoral officer" the word "acting".
I suggest the experiences we have had this session in referring matters to the committee on privileges and elections indicate that it might be better to do something else. This is a serious charge which has been made, and surely the house as a whole would be happy to have it investigated by a person in whom we have tremendous confidence, as we have in Mr. Castonguay.
It has been suggested we have no confidence in the committees of the house. Some house committees do a tremendous job. I have just served on one which has done outstanding work. But when a committee has referred to it a matter which has political or partisan overtones it sometimes gets lost among those overtones.


An hon. Member:: A question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the suggestion of the Prime Minister that some alternative course might be followed, but it is our view that the proposal we have made that Mr. Castonguay conduct the investigation is a better one. I welcome the indication by the Prime Minister that my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam had made out a case for an investigation. We thought so in the first instance; we thought this would be all over in the first five minutes of today's sitting. However, if our amendment can be accepted and if we can refer the matter to the acting chief electoral officer, we shall have dealt with the matter satisfactorily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make a few comments on the observations of the hon. gentleman. In the first place this house by an almost unprecedented act made the former chief electoral officer the representation commissioner. We then, by another completely unprecedented act, gave him a very heavy responsibility and set a deadline for the carrying out of that responsibility. It is surely more important that he should carry out the function which this house entrusted to him as representation commissioner to ensure that there is a proper redistribution of the membership of this house than it is that he should conduct such an investigation as the hon. gentleman suggests. I submit that for this reason alone it would be-


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on a motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, surely we have had a motion which has been voted on, and it is not debatable.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, with the greatest respect, you are making a debate. The Minister of Transport is trying to make a case so that he can get his own way. He is trying to get it to a committee, which will suit him and his friends much better. Surely this question is not debatable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The motion has not been put, or it has been put but it has not been voted on. It is a debatable motion, and I surely have as much right to speak as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am exercising that right, though there does seem to be a certain view in this house that freedom of speech is something for the other side only.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a serious point of order? This is a procedural matter and it should not take too much time. I am prepared to put this amendment before the house in order that we may get on with the business.


Malcolm MacInnis: The time I take will depend entirely on the Chair. I call your attention to the fact that the hon. member for St. John's East was on his feet, as was the hon. member for Carle-ton, when the Minister of Transport rose and

began to make his remarks, once again without recognition from the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognized the minister, as is the custom in the house. The Chair recognizes ministers, the leaders of the different parties and generally, by custom and tradition, those sitting in the front row. They have no particular privilege but it is the custom of the house that they be recognized. In consequence I did recognize the minister.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will accept the priority given to the ministers on the front bench. But you, sir, did not give recognition to the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the impression, sir, that you were pretty reluctant to recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Or the hon. member for Carleton.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may continue what I was seeking to say. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, to be fair to him, worked as hard as any member of this house to establish the new method of redistribution, would not want to put that in jeopardy by having an extraneous matter dealt with at this time by the gentleman who is no longer the chief electoral officer but the representation commissioner with a full time job in that capacity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? In view of the concern the Minister of Transport has expressed about the time it might take Mr. Castonguay to deal with this matter, may I ask him what would be the situation if the government were defeated or if the house were dissolved and we had an election? Would not Mr. Castonguay have to deal then with something which would take a great deal more time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would all depend on whether a new chief electoral officer had been appointed in the meantime. That is in the realm of the hypothetical, and I am speaking now about things which are actually facing the house at the moment.
But there is another reason, and a more compelling reason, why this matter should be referred, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister suggested, to the committee on privileges and elections. The house decided to overrule Your Honour by determining that this was a question of privilege though Your 20220-739
Question of Privilege
Honour did not consider it to be such. Now, it is a time honoured practice of the house, when a question of privilege is recognized by the Chair, to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections. This is done because the house is the judge of its own privilege, not some other person, even so eminent a person as an officer of the house.
It seems to me, therefore, that to refer a matter which the hon. member, by appealing Your Honour's ruling, has made a matter of privilege to some body other than the committee on privileges and elections is tantamount to an expression of want of confidence in the House of Commons itself and in its committees.
There is another important reason why this matter, now that the house has decided it is a question of privilege, should be examined by the committee on privileges and elections. It is because that committee can set up its inquiry tomorrow; it can get to work immediately and relieve the conscience of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who must have some doubt about his right to sit in this house with this shadow cast over him-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and who would therefore, I suggest, want to have the matter cleared up as quickly as possible and also, I further suggest, as publicly as possible. There is no doubt there is no other way in which an investigation could be started so quickly; and assuming that hon. gentlemen opposite have nothing to hide I would think they would welcome having a committee of this house investigate the matter.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I confess that until the minister spoke I had rather agreed in advance with what he advanced during the course of his argument. But the solicitude expressed by him for the right of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to sit in the house, and all the other expressions he used, convinced me that the proper manner in which an investigation should be carried out would be to hand this matter to the person holding the position held by Mr. Castonguay-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -for, after all, whatever the preceding circumstances were, this motion reads very clearly-and the amendment covers the same person, in a different position-

Question of Privilege
That the chief electoral officer be requested to investigate the charges of irregularities in the federal election of 1963 made by Ormond Turner in the Vancouver Province of February 22, 1965, and in any subsequent issues thereof, and to make a full report thereon.
The person with the greatest knowledge of electoral procedure is certainly the man in question, Mr. Castonguay, whose views all of us respect and whose integrity has been upheld over and over again in this chamber. It is not for me to cast any aspersions on committees set up by the House of Commons. If this were strictly a matter of privilege, and the motion read accordingly, I might hold other views; but the motion has to be taken by itself, with the amendment, and it reads "be requested to investigate the charges".
It has been very interesting to watch the attitude of the Prime Minister, who occupies the position of one of the major custodians of the rights and privileges of parliament. He did what he could, by vote, to prevent this matter being looked into.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor at the moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the statement of the right hon. gentleman is inaccurate and untrue-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am speaking on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this privilege?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I voted to sustain your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I proposed that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no matter what subterfuge the Prime Minister uses, he and his associates have been trying to cover up something here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the house will have noticed the haste with which the Minister of Transport rushed to produce his document. Did he have a guilty conscience? Is that why he had it before him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was not elected in British Columbia, and the transcontinental telegraph does not extend to my constituency.


John George Diefenbaker: I have always known that the hon. gentleman, following the leadership of his late leader, has been said to have extraterrestrial communication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that he has now proven that he has; because he did not get the document from any normal source, apparently.


Mr. Speaker:: There are one or two other members who wish to speak on this matter. The hon. member for Carleton.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Minister of Transport I do not believe I have anything to add.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, most of what I wanted to say has of course been said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I would remind hon. members on the other side of the house, however, that at least we on this side of the house do have some form of communication, and I might remind-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr^ Speaker, this is a rather unusual set of circumstances, and I speak as one who has had some experience with the controverted elections act. Normally if allegations are made there is available certain machinery under that act, but in this case it is too late for that machinery to come into operation and what we have before us is a question of privilege which is analogous to the case of the member for Labelle. We all remember the very fine, eloquent and righteous words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at that time, and I would ask him to consult Hansard of that particular day and apply the language he used then to this situation, and accordingly to follow the suggestion made by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam has spoken on the main motion. I should like to put the amendment to the house, and the hon. member may then speak. It has been moved by Mr. Knowles, seconded by Mr. Howard:
That the motion be amended by inserting therein immediately before the words "chief electoral officer" the word "acting".


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I merely want to say that I am sure there will be a good deal of curiosity and bewilderment at the attitude of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport in apparently trying to do everything they can to prevent this matter being referred to the acting chief electoral officer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: They do not want an impartial inquiry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One pretence after another has been raised.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A red herring.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Even while I was still making my statement on the question of privilege the Minister of Transport popped up with the article in yesterday's paper, which has not yet come to me. I would like to know how he came to have the article on his desk at this particular time. This was only published in yesterday's paper, in the city of Vancouver, but he already had a copy of it on his desk at the time I raised my question of privilege. A lot of people will wonder whether the writer of the article was already trying to get some protection against the wild and sweeping assertions which he made.


Mr. Greene:: Why don't you sue him?


An hon. Member:: Abraham Lincoln is back.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the fact that a man will make a statement saying that B.C. unions have conspired to get N.D.P. candidates elected fraudulently is a matter that ought to be investigated, and it ought to be investigated by the person who is qualified to look into the election machinery and see whether there has been any fraud perpetrated.
I want to point out two things; first, that Mr. Ormond Turner himself, according to what the Minister of Transport said when he interrupted me, apparently said he has already sent this material to Mr. Castonguay. Therefore Mr. Turner himself apparently recognizes that the proper person to investigate this matter is the acting chief electoral 20220-739i
Question of Privilege
officer. I want to point out, second, that this attempt to take it away from the official charged with this responsibility and put it in a committee, where Liberal members can continue to confuse the issue and prevent any decision on it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -is an obvious attempt to drag a red herring across the trail and prevent this matter being properly investigated. If the acting chief electoral officer, when he reports back to the house, says that in his opinion there have been frauds perpetrated and persons have voted illegally and unlawfully, then the matter should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hellyer:: Charges should be laid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But what the government is afraid of is that Mr. Castonguay will report that these statements about fraudulent elections are incorrect. That is what they are worried about. The government does not want a report.
The Minister of Transport said he had some doubts about my right to sit in this house. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubts about my right to sit in the house, but I want the public to know beyond any shadow of doubt that neither I nor any other member from British Columbia have any doubts about their right to sit in this house. The difference between the members of this group and the members of the government is that when any doubt has been cast upon our right to sit in this house or to occupy any office, we are prepared to have that matter investigated fully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the amendment, it seems to me that by the addition of a few words we can have a resolution which could easily be carried unanimously without further debate, in view of what my hon. friend has just said. Certainly the amendment to put in the word "acting" is a sensible one because there is no chief electoral officer.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has indicated that in certain circumstances the report of the acting chief electoral officer should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections because it is a matter of interest and importance not only to an official of the house but to the house itself. There-

Question of Privilege
tore if we could add to the resolution the words "and that the report of such officer be considered by the committee on privileges and elections", I am sure my hon. friend would be glad to accept it.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Michael Starr: You are messing it all up.


John George Diefenbaker: What has happened to this beautiful relationship between the government and the N.D.P.?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, could I say at once, in view of what happened yesterday in connection with the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), who speaks one way and votes another, that we should discount entirely the remarks he has just made and pay no attention whatever to them.
I should like to take up a couple of other points made by the Minister of Transport. I submit that not only are the government attempting to confuse this whole question so they and their cohorts can run around the country with the tarred brush in an attempt to paint every member of this party as black as they possibly can-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: -but in two of his arguments the minister also admitted his own government's dereliction of duty, and he is now asking parliament to come to the rescue.
In the first place, the minister says that Mr. Castonguay, as representation commissioner, is heavily loaded with responsibilities given to him by this house, and that he is in the position of being only acting chief electoral officer. If that is the case I submit the government has been absolutely derelict in not appointing a chief electoral officer instead of proposing a half way measure. The minister used this specious argument in an attempt to bolster some nefarious idea in the back of his mind in connection with this particular matter.
The minister also said that we should give the matter to the privileges and election committee because that committee is in existence right now and could meet straight away to consider the question. I point out to the hon. gentleman that once again he and his government have been derelict in their duty and are really in contempt of this house as a result of that sort of statement. The election act was referred to the privileges and elections committee during the first session of

parliament. Unfortunately that session came to an end before the committee had time to complete its study of the act. In the report we prepared we recommended unanimously that the election act be referred to the privileges and elections committee as early as possible in the next session, which is this present session. This session is now more than a year old, but the government has not seen fit even to attempt to refer the election act to that committee. Then the minister comes along with this false declaration that he now wants to give the privileges and elections committee something to do, in the face of the fact that this government has refused to act upon a unanimous recommendation of that committee about the subject matter to be studied by it.
Another point made by the Minister of Transport with respect to the committee on privileges and elections, the import of which seems to have escaped even him, is the fact that by his own government's declaration this particular session of parliament may end in a matter of two or three weeks; in fact for all we know it could end in a matter of minutes. If such is the case, then upon the conclusion of the business to be dealt with in this session, or as a result either of the defeat of the government or its asking for dissolution on its own initiative, the committee on privileges and elections will go by the board, and whenever the next session does come around we will have to revive the subject matter all over again. But if the matter is referred to the acting chief electoral officer, then it will be in order for an officer of the house to complete his studies regardless of the period of time this session might last.
I merely point out, Mr. Speaker, that each of the three arguments raised by the Minister of Transport is specious, false, and obviously based on his own ignorance.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to hon. members that we have had considerable discussion on this matter. The Chair has an instruction from the house and would like to put the amendment and the motion so the house can get on with its business. Would that meet the general wishes of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) agreed to.
Motion (Mr. Douglas), as amended agreed to.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Sixth and seventh reports of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Richard.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, for the past three years sugar beets grown in Canada have been supported under the Agricultural Stabilization Act on the basis of $13.72 per standard ton of beets.
I am pleased to announce that for the 1965 crop year the stabilization board has been authorized to support sugar beets at $14.35 per standard ton. This is 104 per cent of the base price or ten year average. This higher support for our beet growers will be provided by means of a national deficiency payment program. In accord with recommendations of the Canadian sugar beet producers association the program will be based on the London daily price of sugar, thus protecting Canadian producers against downward fluctuation of the world sugar market.
I should point out that while the program will assure on a national basis a minimum average return of $14.35 per standard ton of beets, under certain conditions average returns to producers would be above this level.
This is assuming that growers negotiate contracts with processors essentially comparable with those in effect over the past years. I might add that the government is working toward development of a national sugar policy which it hopes in due course will bring a new degree of stability to our sugar beet industry.


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, the house has heard the minister at last announce the stabilizing price proposed by the government with regard to the sugar beet industry. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year while the price of sugar was so high and consumers were paying top prices, the opposition urged the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time, so far as the international market was concerned, to enter into an international commodity study with the commonwealth sugar producing nations to see if long term contracts could not be arranged in order to assure the sugar beet growers of this country that the price they would receive for their product would be fair and equitable, and that at the same time
Support Price jor Sugar Beets consumers of sugar would not have to pay top prices for this commodity. We were afraid that the very thing that has happened would occur, that the bottom would fall out of the sugar market and that growers of sugar beets in this country would be placed in an intolerable position economically. This is exactly what has taken place.
I know the sugar beet growers have made representations to the government on several occasions over the last few months in order to have a substantial subsidy applied to this crop. It is to be hoped that the price of $14.35 will be sufficient to keep the industry in business. It is far less than the growers asked for, but it is to be hoped it will encourage the sugar beet growers to go on producing for one more year.
This announcement, Mr. Speaker, is a prolongation of the policy of the Conservative party which members of the present government said in 1962 and 1963 was an insult to the sugar beet growers of Canada. Once more the government has held out the carrot that they are undertaking a study to develop a national policy. We feel some disappointment that at this very crucial time in the sugar beet industry, a farming industry in which some $300 million is invested and which produces $35 million to $40 million worth of sugar at wholesale price each and every year, is faced with this thin thread of tenability. The farmers will accept the price of $14.35 a ton, but if the farmers themselves feel it is not enough the result will be that in many instances there will not be enough tonnage attracted to keep the necessary factories in operation. I feel that the government could have done much better than the subsidy of $14.35 announced today.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, we are far from satisfied with the support level that the minister has just announced to the house. The price of $14.35 per ton is an increase of only 63 cents over the support price for last year. While I have not been able to do the calculations, I am not sure that the increase of 63 cents per ton even reflects the substantial increase in the selling price of sugar during the last two years.
I also wish to point out that under the Agricultural Stabilization Act no payments have been made to sugar beet producers for the 1962 or 1963 sugar beet crops. We are interested to note that the government is working toward the development of a national sugar beet policy, but I must say

Questions
that we are at least ten years later than most other countries in the world in this regard.
Over the years Canadian sugar beet producers have been forced to compete with the lowest price of sugar anywhere in the world. By the way, Mr. Speaker, only about 10 per cent to 12 per cent of the total sugar production is surplus production, and it is with the price for this sugar that Canadian sugar beet producers have had to compete. The time is long overdue for the government to establish a sugar beet policy to protect part or all of our home market so far as the price at which surplus sugar throughout the world is sold is concerned. I could go into a very long discourse as to what should be done in this respect. We are happy with the increase of 63 cents per ton, inadequate though it may be, and I certainly wish the minister success in coming forward very soon with a national sugar policy that will put some stability under the price that our domestic producers receive for their product.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has just announced a slight increase in the price to be paid to sugar beet growers for the 1965 crop.
Those who know something about sugar beet production in the last ten years will realize that the price announced this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture is quite low compared to the fluctuations in the price of sugar in 1963 and in 1964.
Once again we find that, while sugar speculators benefited from nearly a hundred retail price increases in 1963 and 1964, sugar beet growers will only benefit from an increase of about 65 cents a ton for 1964 and 1965.
That is a very small increase to announce to sugar beet growers in our area, in view of the fact that in the past few years many farmers have reduced or abandoned their production of sugar beets, a crop which at first looked like an interesting and paying proposition.
As far as sugar beets are concerned, the experience of these last few years has been that speculators have a free hand while growers cannot make a profit.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Norway house Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No meetings were held with the Indian bands in the Norway house agency. As in the other agencies, however, they were asked by letter to submit any comments on Bill C-130 that they wish to make and were informed that field officers would be glad to discuss the bill with them. While the bill was discussed informally with individual Indians, no opinions were recorded.


AVAILABILITY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCUMENTS FOR RESEARCH
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs a memorandum or directive on the accessibility of department records and documents to writers and social scientists engaged in research?
2.	If so, what is the date of the directive and what is the gist of its contents?
3.	What was the situation in regard to the use of documents in the case of Professor James Eayrs when he was preparing his book on the history of the Department of External Affairs?
4.	What was the situation with regard to the use of external affairs material in the case of Terrence Robertson in preparation for his book entitled "Crisis"; the inside story of the Suez conspiracy?
5.	Was Mr. Robertson given a greater freedom in use of departmental materials than has been available to other scholars and writers?
6.	Was any correspondence entered into on behalf of Mr. Robertson from anyone in order to facilitate his access; if so, by whom and on what dates?


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	The latest amendment to this instruction is dated October 18, 1961. It provides in general that applications for access to official files must be routed through the under secretary of state for external affairs and that permission for access to classified documents will be granted only in exceptional cases to scholars and only when it is clear that the

projects to be undertaken would not be detrimental to the current conduct of Canada's external relations and would in fact be in the public interest (for example, if accounts already published in other countries inadequately presented the Canadian position in regard to the topic of study). Naturally, communications from other governments or belonging to them may not be published without their permission. This directive does not prevent background conversations or interviews with officers of the department on specialized historical topics.
3.	Professor Eayrs was not given access to the files of the department in the preparation of his book on the history of the Department of External Affairs entitled "The Art of the Possible" published in 1961. He had worked on the Mackenzie King papers, by arrangement with the literary executors as assistant to the late Professor R. MacGregor Dawson, and thus had access to certain documents in that collection during work on the preparation of the official biography.
4.	Mr. Terence Robertson was given assistance in 1963 and 1964 in the form of briefing by Canadian officials and others acquainted with the Suez situation. In this process he was given access to certain material of an official nature dealing with particular matters on which he had secured material from foreign sources.
5.	The Department of External Affairs has co-operated with a number of scholars and writers over the years on a variety of projects. It is, however, not possible to make valid comparisons between one such project and another.
6.	Mr. Robertson and his publishers approached the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs for assistance. In accordance with normal departmental practice, messages were sent from officials to the Canadian missions he was visiting abroad, requesting them to give the appropriate assistance to Mr. Robertson. The Department of External Affairs is reviewing its policies on these matters and is considering the staffing and administrative requirements which would allow it to be of greater assistance to those doing serious work in the field of international affairs.


Mr. Howard: 1.	How many placement officers attached to the Indian affairs branch are located in that part of British Columbia north of the 52nd parallel of latitude?
Questions
2.	With respect to each such placement officer what is (a) his name and location (b) his territory (c) the length of time that he has been in that location (d) the number and names of (i) Indian bands, and (li) the Indian population in his territory (e) his and his predecessor's duties, functions and responsibilities in detail (f) his and his predecessor's qualifications and length of service in the Indian affairs branch by occupation therein (g) the number of Indian people by name of each band to which each such Indian belonged for whom he or his predecessors has found jobs and the length of time that each such Indian held that job (h) the names of each Indian village that he or his predecessors has visited, the length of time he or his predecessor stayed in each village, the date of his or his predecessor's visit, and an indication as to whether or not he or his predecessors met with the council of the band and what he or his predecessors spoke about at any such meeting (i) an assessment of the value or otherwise of his work or that of his predecessors?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Three.
2. (a) Mr. D. J. McIntosh, development officer located at Whitehorse, Y.T.; Mr. W. L. Newman, development officer located at Prince George, B.C.; Mr. H. Mahon, project supervisor located at Williams Lake, B.C.
(b)	Mr. McIntosh, the Yukon Indian agency and that part of British Columbia north of the 57th parallel and west of longitude 126; Mr. Newman, the Stuart lake, Fort St. John and Burns lake Indian agencies; Mr. Mahon, Williams lake Indian agency.
(c)	Mr. McIntosh, since October 1, 1964; Mr. Newman, since January 4, 1965; Mr. Mahon, since October 5, 1964.
(d)	Mr. McIntosh, 14 Indian bands:
Name	Population
Aishihik	65
Carcross	89
Carmacks	251
Champagne	237
Dawson	178
Mayo	171
Ross river	130
Selkirk	239
Teslin	214
Whitehorse	336
Atlin-Teslin	199
Tahltan	637
Liard river	441
Kluane	103
Total	3,290

Questions
Mr. Newman, 17 Indian bands:
Name	Population
Finlay river	222
Fort George	67
Fraser lake	143
McLeod lake	142
Necoslie	418
Stellaquo	146
Stony creek	328
Stuart Trembleur	500
Takla lake	221
Fort St. John	168
Hudson-Hope	132
Salteau	125
Fort Nelson	248
Burns lake	25
Cheslatta	98
Lake Babine	739
Omineca	133
Total	3,855
Mr. Mahon, 15 Indian bands:	
Name	Population
Williams lake	198
Alexandria	42
Alexis creek	261
Alkali lake	257
Anahim	503
Canim lake	217
Canoe lake	238
Kluskus	65
Nazko	123
Nemiah valley	141
Quesnel	17
Soda creek	118
Stone	140
Toosey	84
Ulkatcho	198
Total	2,622
(e)	The following are the duties of both development officers, Messrs. McIntosh and Newman:
Under direction, to promote domestic and commercial utilization of the renewable natural resources in programs related to fur management, commercial and domestic fishing enterprises, guiding and tourist outfitting, grubstaking, marketing and the distribution of proceeds to the Indians concerned; to develop placement opportunities, both short term and permanent, for Indians in resource based primary industries; to arrange for training and counselling of individuals and families in their transition from a resource harvesting economy to wage employment. To inspect projects; to prepare reports; to act

as consultant to responsible line officers on technical matters; to maintain contacts with responsible officials at all levels of government and with employers and community groups; to conduct correspondence, maintain records and to assist local people to develop a sense of self reliance and responsibility with a view to their integration into the community; of their taking over the ownership, operation and management of their projects; to perform other related duties.
The following are the duties of Mr. Mahon, project supervisor, who is a casual employee:
To organize and assist employable Indians of the Williams lake agency, in co-operation with the national employment service office at Quesnel; to obtain employment for Indians on the Peace Tower right-of-way clearing through the Williams lake agency.
(f)	Mr. McIntosh was recruited from the federal Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources where he had spent two years in development work in the north. Prior to that time and for 16 years he was employed by the Manitoba department of mines and natural resources.
Mr. Newman came to the Indian affairs branch after 19 years with the Manitoba department of mines and natural resources and his main duties were in the field of renewable resources and wildlife.
Mr. McIntosh's predecessor, Mr. J. H. Cole, spent many years as an employee of the unemployment insurance commission and at the time of his appointment to the branch he was manager of a field office. Earlier in his life he owned and operated a big game guiding outfit in northern Ontario. He spent two years working in northern British Columbia and the Yukon and was transferred to Vancouver island in 1963.
Mr. Newman's predecessor, Mr. R. Buckley, was formerly employed by the immigration branch of this department as a field man and placement officer in the Prince George area. He remained in his appointment at Prince George for two years and left the service for other employment.
Since Mr. Mahon was employed for a specific purpose he had no predecessor.
(g)	Records of the branch do not provide the detailed information requested. However, in northern British Columbia and the Yukon' the great bulk of employment is of a seasonal nature and in referring Indians to jobs detailed information on those assisted is not kept. It is known that during 1962-63 Mr. Cole assisted over 200 Indians to find work in the Yukon. The previous year over 275 were

assisted. During the same period the placement officer at Prince George helped more than 100 into employment and at the same time assisted others into vocational training measures.
Since his appointment to Whitehorse in October, 1964, Mr. McIntosh has visited all areas in his territory and to date he has aided more than 20 Indians from the following bands to gain work: Whitehorse, Teslin, Tahl-tan, Selkirk, Carmacks, Kluane, Atlin-Teslin and Liard river. In view of his recent appointment to Prince George in January, 1965, Mr. Newman had not yet become involved in placement work at the time of the inquiry.
To the end of December, Mr. Mahon, the project supervisor at Williams lake, had assisted over 100 Indians to find jobs on the clearing operation and elsewhere.
(h)	Records of the branch do not provide the detailed information requested. However, it is known that Mr. Cole carried out labour force surveys of all bands in his district and this required close co-operation with the band councils. Similarly Mr. Buckley worked directly with band councils in his district in an effort to assess needs and interpret his program to the Indians. The present incumbents in these two positions use the same approach.
(i)	In the case of the present incumbents, they have been on the job for a relatively short period and accordingly it is too early to make a proper assessment of their work.
With regard to the previous incumbents, it is considered that they make a valuable con-
Questions
tribution in promoting the objectives of the placement program.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1952 has any employee, or former employee, of the Indian affairs branch been charged with contravening any of the provisions of the Criminal Code or any other federal statute and, if so, with respect to each such person by name what was (a) his position within the branch at the time the alleged offence took place (b) the nature of the alleged offence and, if any money was involved the amount thereof and the details about it (c) the amount of restitution of any stolen or misappropriated money (d) the decision of the courts regarding any such charge (e) the details of, and dates upon which any disciplinary action on the part of his superiors took place?
2.	Since January 1, 1952 has any employee or former employee of the Indian affairs branch been suspected of contravening the Criminal Code or any other federal statute in so far as his duties were concerned and, if so, how many such persons were so suspected and what action was taken in each case?


Hubert Badanai: 1. See attached table.
2. Where a person is suspected of the misappropriation of public funds or crown owned property, and this is confirmed by investigation, it is the policy of the department to recommend dismissal. After consultation between this department and the law officers of the crown, the Department of Justice decides whether the evidence warrants prosecution.
[Mr. Badanai.I
Defalcation of accounts
Name and position	Nature, amount and details	Amount recovered	Court decision	Disciplinary ActionFormer superintendent, Indian agency, Ontario	Misappropriation of government 1952 $5,894	funds $5,894	No court case as employee was alleged to be mentally disturbed as he was suspected of having tried to commit suicide.	ResignedFormer clerk, Indian agencj'-, Ontario	Misappropriation of government $1,330	funds $1,330	Brought to court on three charges of forgery. Found guilty. One year suspended sentence February 6, 1957.	Resigned May 18, 1956Former superintendent, Indian agency, Quebec	False removal and travel claims and sale $1,355 of crown owned equipment $1,355	No prosecution.	Dismissed October 15, 1958.Former clerk, Indian agency, Saskatchewan	Shortage of departmental receipts $173.62 $ 173.62	No prosecution due to insufficient evidence	Dismissed August 28, 1957Former superintendent, Indian agency, Manitoba.	Misappropriation of government $3,250.25	funds $3,250.25	Prosecution not recommended due to mental disturbance	Dismissed August 28, 1957Former clerk, Indian agency, New Brunswick	Misappropriation of building materials $ 897.46 and cheque forgeries $897.46	Brought to court and found guilty. Given two years suspended sentence.	Dismissed April 1, 1963Former superintendent, Indian agency, British Columbia and Yukon	Misappropriation of building materials $3,473 and cheque forgeries $3,473	Brought to court on seven charges of theft. Pleaded guilty. Sentenced to nine months imprisonment on each charge.	Dismissed January 1, 1963Former clerk, Indian agency, British Columbia	Forged cheques $1,325	$1,325	Brought to court on 22 charges of forgery. Found guilty. Presently serving one year sentence.	Dismissed April 1, 1964
Note: There are two additional instances of former employees who have been charged but their cases are still before the courts.
11684	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


Mr. Howard: 1.	Within what Indian agencies, hy name, are members of the R.C.M.P. used, officially, or unofficially, as assistants to Indian superintendents, or as sources of information about Indian people who request assistance or help from the Indian affairs branch, and by what authority is this done?
2.	Does the government have any opinion about the propriety of following this course and, if so, what is that opinion?
3.	Will anything be done to stop this practice and, if so, what and when?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Within the following agencies, Akla-vik, Yellowknife, Fort Simpson, Yukon and Edmonton, members of the R.C.M. Police, in some outlying settlements, assist the Indian affairs branch in administering relief assistance by transmitting requests from Indians and cases of need which come to their attention. In a few instances, R.C.M. Police members issue relief and other welfare supplies. These functions are performed through local arrangement between the Indian superintendents and the R.C.M. Police members.
2.	In outlying settlements of an Indian agency where there are no resident Indian affairs assistants, it is necessary to have someone bring the Indians' relief needs to the superintendent's attention or otherwise assist in meeting these needs. In some communities this function can best be performed by the R.C.M. Police.
3.	Wherever possible, the department will terminate this practice as the council of the bands concerned assume greater responsibility for the administration of the bands' affairs. Progress is being made in this direction.


Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government given any consideration to the proposal advanced by American biophysicist Dr. Alexander Rich of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Russian geochemist Dr. Alek-sander Vinogradov of the Vernadsky institute, Moscow. and published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, that a joint disarmament inspection zone be established in the Arctic?
2.	If so, what has been the extent of such consideration by the Canadian government?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Canadian government to give consideration to this proposal, and when?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: 1. Yes.
2. The proposal has been studied. Its nov-[DOT]elty resided in the fact that the co-author is
Questions
a Russian, that considerable stress was laid on the establishment of a system of reliable inspection and that the article was also to be published in the Soviet union. As far as it has been possible to ascertain the proposal has not been published in the Soviet union nor publicly commented upon there.
3. See 2.


Mr. Douglas: 1.	Were any communications addressed to the government or to the Canadian wheat board by the government of Saskatchewan with respect to the drop in Durum wheat prices which occurred in November, 1964?
2.	If so, how were such communications made?
3.	When were these communications made?
4.	By whom were these communications made?
5.	To whom were these communications addressed?
6.	What was the nature of any representations made in these communications?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. No such communications were addressed either to the government or to the Canadian wheat board. Moreover it is a long standing policy of the Canadian wheat board not to divulge the content of correspondence concerning the board's actions affecting prices during the crop year to which such actions pertain.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6. N/A.


Mr. Douglas: 1.	Were any communications addressed to the government or to the Canadian wheat board by the government of Saskatchewan with respect to the drop in wheat prices which occurred between January 22, 1965 and January 29, 1965?
2.	If so, how were such communications made?
3.	When were these communications made?
4.	By whom were these communications made?
5.	To whom were these communications addressed?
6.	What was the nature of any representations made in these communications?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No such communications were addressed either to the government or to the Canadian wheat board. Moreover it is a long standing policy of the Canadian wheat board not to divulge the content of correspondence concerning the board's actions affecting prices during the crop year to which such actions pertain.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6. N/A.

Questions


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Have the antihistaminic drugs, meclizine, cy-clizine and chlorcyclizine ever been for sale in Canada and, if so, are they still for sale?
2.	In view of reports of congenital abnormalities in the offspring of animals subjected to these drugs, has consideration been given to the removal of these drugs from the market?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Meclizine, cyclizine and chlorcyclizine have been sold in Canada for more than ten years and they are still on sale. Meclizine and cyclizine were restricted by the Department of National Health and Welfare to sale on the prescription of a physician in 1962 as a precaution, following reports of the possibility of teratogenic effects in humans. These reports have not been confirmed. Consideration is now being given to similarly restricting chlorcyclizine to prescription sale.
2. In the more than ten years that these drugs have been sold in Canada, there have been no cases reported to the Department of National Health and Welfare of congenital abnormalities involving these drugs. The animal studies are considered to have a very limited application since they were conducted at dosage levels far exceeding that ever administered to humans. In the normal dosage used for humans these drugs are considered to be safe for use at the discretion of the physician.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What are the medical and physical standards now demanded of Air Canada pilots?
2.	In view of the predicted shortage of pilots in Canada, has Air Canada considered the relaxation of these medical and physical standards?
3.	Have other methods of maintaining levels of recruitment been considered and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advise as follows:
1.	The medical and physical standards now demanded of Air Canada pilots are based on, but somewhat more stringent than, those required by the Department of Transport for the air line transport pilot's licence.
2.	Air Canada has not predicted a shortage of pilots in Canada, in view of the fact that the Department of Transport has been issuing between 400 and 500 commercial

pilot's licences a year; nor has Air Canada considered a relaxation of medical and physical standards.
3. It has not been considered necessary to employ other methods of maintaining levels of recruitment since no pilot shortage is envisioned.


Mr. Mafher: Is consideration being given to establishing a royal commission on the press, similar to the royal commissions on the press which reported in Great Britain in 1949 and in 1962, with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion, the greatest degree of accuracy and also to make known the control, management and ownership of the press, and news agencies, operating in Canada?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The government is not giving consideration at this time to establishing a royal commission.


Mr. Cowan: 1. Would the Minister of Transport be good enough to table the similar letters dated January 21, 1963, from the chairmen of the Canadian and United States sections of the international joint commission to the chairmen of the international St. Lawrence river board of control, in which the joint commission is reported as requesting the St. Lawrence river board of control to proceed immediately with further studies for the regulation of lake Ontario, to provide, among other possible benefits, for improvement of the levels of Montreal harbour?
2.	Was the purpose of the request designed primarily to provide for the improvement of the water levels of Montreal harbour, as stated on page five of "regulation of lake Ontario, plan 1958-D"?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The
records of the international joint commission, which is an international body with both Canadian and American members, are not subject to production on order of this house. The government will be glad to inquire of the commission whether any information can be given concerning the studies referred to in the question.
2. Answered by (1).


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What Is the scheduled completion date for the construction of the truck rail car ferry to operate between North Sydney. Nova Scotia and Port aux

Basques, Newfoundland, announced by the minister on February 16, 1965?


Jean-Charles Cantin: September, 1967.
Questions


Mr. Ormiston: What was the average weekly price, from March 1, 1964 to February 16, 1965, for No. 1 northern wheat, basis Fort William (a) under the international wheat agreement (b) class 2 wheat prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canadian wheat board weekly average price, No. 1 northern wheat*
	cents and eighths			cents and eighths
	per bushel			per bushel
Week ending, March 6, 1964	208	September 4,	1964	20513	208	11	204/620	208	18	204/527	208	25	204/5April 3	207/4	October 2	204/410	206/5	9	204/517	206/5	16	204/424	206/5	23	204/430	204/4May 1	206/7	8	206/3	November 6	204/415	205/5	13	204/322	205/5	20	204/129	205/5	27	204June 5	205/5	December 4	204/312	205/5	11	204/519	205/5	18	204/426	205/6	25	204/2July 3	205/6	January 1,	1965	203/210	205/7	8	203/217	205/7	15	203/224	205/5	22	203/131	205/4	29	199/ ;August 7	205/4	February 5	191/314	205/2	12	191/321	205/1	19	191/528	205	
*Basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur, under the international wheat agreement and Class II prices identical


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the proposal of American and Russian scientists that the north pole area, like Antarctica, be included in the nuclear test ban zone?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: All countries with territories within the Arctic circle have signed and ratified the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water.


Mr. Slogan: 1. What tenders were received for the mail transportation contract on R.R. No. 1, East Selkirk and in what amount?
2. To whom was the contract awarded; for what amount and for what period of time?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1. Joseph Kromley, East Selkirk, $2,910; Leslie Mazur, East Selkirk, $2,960; Edwin David Anderson, East Selkirk, $3,100; Mike A. Komadowski, R.R. No. 1, East Selkirk, $3,237; Stephan Slipetz, Selkirk, $3,275; Mike Youzwa, R.R. No. 1, East Selkirk, $4,604.
2. The contract for a four year period has not yet been awarded. In accordance with the terms of the Post Office Act, an inquiry is now in progress to determine whether the lowest tenderer is able to meet the requirements of the service.


Mr. Bell: Was any of the printing in connection with the "do it now" campaign obtained from the United States and, if so, for what reason?

Motions for Papers


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 213 are acceptable to the government.
I understand that motion 211 is to be withdrawn. I understand also that the hon. member wishes to reword motion 201 so it will read as follows:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of documents showing the dates of employment of Raymond Denis and the date on which his employment was terminated and showing also all moneys paid to him on account of his employment.
If the motion were reworded in that way, it would be acceptable.


Mr. Coates:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


John B. Stewart: Motion 216 is acceptable subject to the usual reservations concerning intradepartmental materials and documents.
Will Your Honour please call motions 183 and 184? I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 183-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs by each provincial government or any person representing a provincial government.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I have had a discussion with the hon. member for Skeena concerning the two motions 183 and 184. It is the feeling of the government that since the submissions, presentation of briefs and other documents that he has requested were presented at a confidential meeting between the provincial governments and the federal government, and that all governments were encouraged to speak frankly and openly in expressing their views, and did so in their briefs, these are confidential communications. The opening speeches, I believe, have been made public. I have offered to present these to my hon. friend but he feels he cannot accept the offer. Unfortunately we must refuse the production of

all other documents. These views apply to both motions 183 and 184.


Frank Howard: If we were to deal with both of these motions at once, that would be quite agreeable. Since the subject matter involves the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens, I feel I cannot accept the suggestion of the minister that we dispense with them. I feel the motion should be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that under the rules it is not possible to deal with two motions at one time. Do I understand this motion is to be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 184-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents, and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs by the Canadian government, or any person representing the Canadian government.
He said: May I ask that this motion also be transferred for debate?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 201-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of documents showing the dates of employment of Raymond Denis and the date on which his employment was terminated, and showing also all moneys paid to him on account of his employment.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 203-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government and any agency or branch thereof and any other person, group or organization since December 20, 1963 relating to Bill C-130 of the first session of the twenty-sixth parliament entitled an act to provide for the disposition of Indian claims, except those documents tabled pursuant to notice of motion No. 59 passed by the house on Wednesday, April 1, 1964?
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 204-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all opinions of Indian bands, band councils or individual Indians about Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament submitted or forwarded directly or indirectly by each Indian superintendent or other officer of the Indian affairs branch to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 205-Mr. Malheson:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all postmortem and other reports, press clippings, and correspondence received relating to the execution of Jasper Collins at Calgary, Alberta, on February 17, 1914. Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. Malheson:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all postmortem and other reports, press clippings and correspondence received relating to the triple execution of Mrs. Tomasina Sario (nee Teolis), Leone Gagliardi and Angelo Donafrio at Montreal, Quebec, on March 29, 1935.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 207-Mr. Malheson:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all postmortem and other reports, press clippings, and correspondence received relating to the execution of Peter Bal-combe at Cornwall, Ontario, on May 25, 1954.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 208-Mr. Malheson:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all postmortem and other reports, press clippings, and correspondence received relating to the execution of Antonio di Lena at Bordeaux Jail, Montreal, in May 1915.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 209-Mr. Malheson:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all postmortem and other reports, press clippings, and correspondence received relating to the execution of Benny Swim at Woodstock, New Brunswick, on Friday, October 6, 1922.
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXECUTION OF ANTONIO SPRECACCE Motion No. 210-Mr. Malheson:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all post mortem and other reports, press clippings, and correspondence received relating to the execution of Antonio Sprecacce at Bordeaux jail, Montreal, on September 12, 1919.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 213-Mr. Douglas:
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 between the city of Saskatoon and any minister of the government regarding the federal property and housing units at the Saskatoon airport since December 4. 1964.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 216-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents, related to the proposed cut backs of duties and employees at the Nappan experimental farm.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house if former superintendent Belec of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who we were told was proven guilty of misappropriation of funds, is happy to retire on a pension of $6,000 or more per annum?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: I think this is the type of question that ought to be put on the order paper so that the exact figure may be set out for the house. So far as the remainder of the question is concerned, I am not ready to comment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and ask him if he has received a telegram from Mr. William Mahoney,

Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian director of the united steelworkers of America, contending that the increased price of steel implemented by the Steel Company of Canada is both unjustified and inflationary? May I ask if Mr, Mahoney has asked the government to investigate the whole question of this increased price of steel, particularly in view of this company's high profits, which have gone up from $21 million to $43 million between 1957 and 1964, and also to ask if Mr. Mahoney has urged the government to step in and prevent any further increases?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received such a telegram from Mr. Mahoney, and he has made a request for a full scale public inquiry such as my hon. friend has just mentioned. I believe I should say in connection with this matter, and I shall be replying in this way to Mr. Mahoney, that we all recognize of course that any change in steel prices is of importance because steel is such a significant item in the cost of manufacture in so many products. I think we also all recognize that the government has no legislative authority to control prices or wages.
In order to keep this matter in perspective, as indeed Mr. Mahoney tried to do in his message, it is important to note that steel prices have changed very little for many years. There has been no general increase since 1957. The increases announced as yet, at any rate, apply only to some steel products and average about 4 per cent. They cover about 22 per cent of the domestic shipments of steel.
I think it is also pertinent to recall that since 1957 the wholesale price index has gone up 8.2 per cent and the consumer price index 12.2 per cent. Therefore the situation as it is at the moment does not, in the government's view, warrant a request to the company to postpone the price increases here and now. But, Mr. Speaker, we agree this situation is of such economic importance that it should be kept under close review, and the government's view which I have just mentioned does not rule out the possibility of either making a request or initiating an inquiry if the situation should develop in a way that calls for reconsideration of the position I have stated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that this company's profits have doubled in the seven year period, in fact more than doubled, would the Prime Minister not consider whether some investigation would be warranted into the justification for these steel price increases, particularly having ref-

erence to the effect they may have on the whole economy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I admit that is a very pertinent factor in the whole consideration of the question, as is the fact that hourly earnings in the primary steel industry have risen by 26.5 per cent in that period.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES PROPOSED HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Secretary of State regarding the projected activities of the B and B commission, and he informed the house that it should be directed to the Prime Minister. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister whether its announced intention to hold public hearings again across the country has the government's direct approval, or has it been made upon the advice of the government? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because I sense a great deal of concern across the country that further public hearings might antagonize and upset a situation which has vastly improved in the past few months.	[DOT]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the government would be open to very severe criticism if it attempted to interfere in the way a royal commission should conduct its hearings. The decision in this matter to which my hon. friend has referred was made by the commission itself.
I would hope that the interim report of the commission, which I believe is to be tabled tomorrow and made available to hon. members, will remove some of my hon. friend's fears about unfavourable consequences from the work of the commission.
While I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, might I mention a question raised yesterday, and also a few days previously, by the hon. member for Edmonton West, regarding the unauthorized circulation of certain copies of the interim report. I indicated yesterday that the government copies had all been accounted for and had not been circulated in any unauthorized way at all. I am now informed by the secretary of the royal commission that their records have been checked, all copies of the report in their possession are accounted for, and that in so far as the commission is concerned no unauthorized persons received copies of the report.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister misunderstood me because I was not talking about the past operations or work of the commission. I was merely mentioning the projected plan for reopening public hearings in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, that decision was taken by the commission and not with the advice or approval of the government because, if we gave such advice, either for or against, we would be interfering in the conduct of the work of the royal commission. However, I shall be glad to bring the hon. member's observations to the attention of the commission.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: As a
supplementary question, while we are pleased that we are going to receive copies of the interim report I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the house will have the opportunity of debating that interim report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker. It is a very important report dealing with a very important subject and, if not at this session I would hope that early next session we would have an opportunity to discuss it.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: As a further supplementary question, in view of the fact that there has been some criticism about the B and B commission proceeding with further hearings, does the Prime Minister not feel it might be to the advantage of the government, the commission and the house if a debate on the interim report were proceeded with without any delay?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, if a debate were proceeded with without any delay it would constitute quite an interruption, perhaps a somewhat lengthy interruption in the consideration we are giving to the pension bill, and I think we should discuss it and attempt to get it through first.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rober-val.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: As another supplementary question, does the Prime Minister feel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member has had two supplementaries.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: But this is on the same subject.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to the Chair that it was pretty well covered. It is all right to draw supplementaries out of a question, but
Inquiries of the Ministry there are only so many supplementaries that can be drawn.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gaufhier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
It has to do with the civil service commission's circular letter No. 65-591A which states that the commission will accept applications for the position of hospital management consultant (hospital systems, etc.) which carries a maximum salary of $17,000 a year.
This is what it says about the qualifications required of applicants:
A knowledge of English is compulsory; however, a knowledge of French will be useful though not indispensable.
Therefore I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she is aware of this new interpretation of Canadian bilingualism. Second, will she take the necessary action to make sure that the rights of the French language are respected by the officials of the civil service commission of Canada? IText]


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. friend did not have the courtesy to send me notice as I would have tried to answer him in French. However, I am familiar with the advertisement and I should like to say the officers are sought for a specific purpose. They are to look into burgeoning costs of hospitalization across the country in those provinces which have not opted out with respect to that service, and they are for that particular purpose only. It is therefore thought not absolutely necessary that they be bilingual.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
I think the minister has misinterpreted my thought, because the office which I referred to is indeed located in Ottawa and, therefore, there must be bilingual people in that office. [Text]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has

Inquiries of the Ministry had time since yesterday to locate the resolutions that were forwarded to him by the counties of Ontario and Grey in respect of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, requesting an amendment to the amount provided under the act for the loss of cattle? If he has located them, will he advise us if he will accede to the request made?


Harry William Hays: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce forwarded to me a copy of the resolution related to the question asked yesterday. I find that the resolution was received from the county council of Grey county requesting that consideration be given to increasing the compensation payable under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act for grade cattle from $70 to $100 per beast and for purebred cattle from $140 to $200 per beast. Resolutions supporting the representations from Grey county have been received also from the county councils of Oxford and Ontario.
I should like to point out that under our area testing programs for brucellosis and tuberculosis, the test is conducted at the request of the majority of owners in an area. It is designed to assist livestock owners in eliminating diseased animals from their herds, thus making them more productive. In providing this compensation to livestock owners, it has never been considered that the compensation would fully cover any loss which the owner might sustain but rather was to assist him in the purchase of replacement cattle. It should be noted that the owners of animals ordered slaughtered under the above programs are entitled to the salvage carcass value which, when added to the compensation, represents a sizeable sum. I may say, however, that these rates of compensation are under constant review by my department.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: May I
ask a supplementary question? In view of the deteriorating situation in eastern agriculture, to which I have drawn attention so many times, I wonder if the minister will not reconsider the terms of the resolution as presented by the county of Grey?


Harry William Hays: I pointed out in my reply that these are under constant review and consideration.



REQUEST FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS ON CANADIAN BRED RACE HORSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask when he intends


to introduce a bill to provide for breeders' premiums payable to thoroughbred breeders in Canada for horses which they have raised?


Harry William Hays: This would be a matter for a policy decision by the government, and if we give consideration to it we will announce it in due course.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Is it the intention of the minister and of the government to bring forward a bill of that type this session or in the coming session?


Harry William Hays: I can say that we do not seem to be racing toward that situation.


Mr.   Kindi@: Why does the Minister of Agriculture give a facetious answer like that to a sensible question? As Minister of Agriculture he should inform the people of Canada, when questions are asked about what they can expect.



REQUEST FOR MORE COMMUNITY PASTURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. Would the minister not consider having a little more money spent this year on community pastures in Saskatchewan? He will recall that last year during the dry spell many farmers had to sell their cattle because there was no community pasture available to them. To prevent such a situation occurring again, would not the minister consider means of providing more community pastures in the province.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: The initiative in this respect remains with the province. If the province of Saskatchewan feels this is an urgent matter, projects can be placed before the ARDA administration which will be glad to study them.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Could the Minister of Forestry confirm the rumour going round at this time to the effect that he intends to go into provincial politics in order precisely to hasten the application of this ARDA act much more than now?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government is doing a fine job with regard to the application of ARDA and I feel that all people in Quebec are aware of it.



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN FODDER TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the drought situation in northern Saskatchewan last summer and the unusually severe and long winter, would the government consider extending the assistance provided with respect to fodder transportation so as to assist many of the livestock producers in northern Saskatchewan who now And they are short of fodder?


Harry William Hays: The initiative for such a program would have to come from the province. The federal government would then consider it.



MILK-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPORT PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, more especially in favour of the establishment of a minimum support price of at least $3.50 per hundredweight for industrial milk, will the minister make an official statement to that effect before April 1 next?


Harry William Hays: The Prime Minister and the cabinet heard a brief put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture yesterday afternoon and I can assure the hon. member that we are giving it a great deal of consideration at the moment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Donald Gordon will or will not remain as president of the Canadian National Railways after the expiration of the 18 months agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A week or so ago I saw Mr. Gordon and discussed with him the question of his continuing in the office of chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways in
Inquiries of the Ministry view of his suggestion in his letter to me of October 3, 1963 that he hoped to complete certain work to re-organize and strengthen the railways in about 18 months. As our parliamentary timetable has not permitted any progress with the legislation on which certain of this work was to be based, I expressed to Mr. Gordon the hope that he would continue in his present office and I am happy to say he has agreed to do so.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he was faced with as much opposition from the Liberal members as there was in 1962 on the same subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We on this side are happy with the work Mr. Gordon is doing.



WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT ON 1963-64 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: In the
absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to direct a question to the acting minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has announced the closing of the 1963-64 wheat pool account, can he now give us the date of the closing and would he confirm the average of 55 cents a bushel as the average final payment on wheat?


Harry William Hays: I shall be glad to bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he returns tomorrow.



THE MONARCHY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The hon. gentleman is quoted in yesterday's Ottawa Journal as saying in reply to a question on the abolition of the monarchy in Canada:
In the present political context it is useful for the legislative process but whether this should be something permanent is a different question.
My question is: Does the minister's reply merely confirm the position taken by the

Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario and Quebec Liberal student organization, or is it a balloon indicating government policy?


Guy Favreau: The
Prime Minister stated the policy clearly yesterday. I fully agree with that policy and I never said anything which showed I was tending to disagree.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a supplementary question to direct to the Minister of Justice. It relates to the answer he gave to a question put to him a few moments ago by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Is the minister denying that the words quoted from the Ottawa Journal and attributed to him were his words?


Guy Favreau: I am afraid we are getting into a debate here. I believe there have been enough questions and enough answers on my part to make my position on this subject clear. I have just stated it as clearly as could be.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The words in the paper are your words, then.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is one for the Minister of National Defence-I have sent him notice-but in his absence I will address it to the associate minister or to the Prime Minister. Is the Canadian government giving consideration to the major redeployment or switch within NATO which is advocated by the British white paper on defence with a view to limiting nuclear defences; and is the Canadian government planning to withdraw Canadian forces having a nuclear role as part of this process?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I presume this question is based on a report appearing in a morning newspaper concerning the publication of the British white paper on defence. We are of course giving consideration to all the important questions facing the NATO alliance at the present time. These questions include strategy and future force goals which have been and still are being actively considered by members of the alliance. I think it would be quite misleading, however, to forecast any major redeployment in the near future. What


is occurring is a change in emphasis to reflect changes in the balance of power and in the strategic situation which have occurred in the last ten years. The British white paper seems to reflect this trend, which has already been set out in our own white paper of last March. The hon. member will recall that our white paper forecast a diminution of our nuclear involvement, particularly in the strike role, and an increasing emphasis on conventional capability.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the hon. gentleman used these words at the conclusion of a reply to an earlier question put by myself:
The government proposes to continue and develop policies necessary to a continuing improvement in the employment situation.
Will the minister inform the house what specific proposals or projects he has in mind, because as I understand current projections the unemployment situation next winter will be considerably worse than it is at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not half a million.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is likely the hon. member's projections are as inaccurate as his statements that there are half a million people unemployed in Canada at the present time.


Mr. Bell:: Nearly as bad as Paul Martin.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no intention of making a statement on these policy matters in reply to a question on the orders of the day.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider that 408,000 people are unimportant?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What's 100,000?


Eric Alfred Winkler: To you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is, as I have stated, the best situation that has prevailed in Canada for a good many years, and it is our intention to apply further measures to reduce unemployment in the future.


Eric Alfred Winkler: What are those measures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Those measures will be disclosed at the appropriate time.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. With regard to those measures, will efforts be made to put to work all those people I have written him about in the last few months-and they are a goodly number, and he very kindly always answers me. I would very much like the minister to reply, however, and say that he will do his best to put as many of these people to work as he can.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to get my hon. friend re-elected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: You did the last time.


Mr. MacEwan:: Patronage.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I owe a reply to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who asked me a question on Monday last with reference to the negotiations that might be taking place between the United States and Canada with regard to the Alaska highway. I want to make it abundantly clear that there are no negotiations in respect of the highway at government level. What is taking place are discussions on a technical basis having to do with the standard of highway that would be required. That is what has been discussed at these meetings. The last meeting took place on January 22 and was attended by representatives of the United States, the government of Canada and the government of the territory of the Yukon. I had hoped that the government of British Columbia would be represented, and to that end extended an invitation to the Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, who found it impossible to send anyone at that time. Any discussions at government level contemplating the relocation, rebuilding or paving of the Alaska highway would be entirely premature at this time. My own department and that of my colleague the Minister of Public Works have under way at the present time an inquiry into the total cost of relocation, rebuilding, and the cost of paving; and my own department has an economic study under way by
Inquiries of the Ministry the Stamford Research Institute of Canada respecting the benefits to Canada of the work. I think I have brought the hon. member up to date in this respect, Mr. Speaker.



FORT CHURCHILL, MANITOBA-TRAINING SCHOOL FOR ESKIMO CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a reply to the hon. member for Churchill-I have had it with me for several days, but he has not been in the house-respecting the location of a school at Churchill for Eskimo children. At the present time we have located there in residence 150 Eskimos from outside the territory. His fears can be allayed in respect of the short time we will have them there, because on September 1 we intend to put an additional 100 Eskimo children into Churchill.
It is our plan and intention, in finality, to locate the educational and residential schools for the Eskimo children within the territories, but I would not anticipate that this would take place within a matter of anything less than five years.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his reply. I would have hoped that he could make it a little clearer as to just how long this establishment may stay in Churchill. I want to comment, also, on the fact that he mentioned I had been out of the house for the last few days, and would assure him that I was spending a very interesting time at the world's championship dog races at Le Pas, Manitoba, in my constituency.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and relates to the white paper on the constitution. Has the Prime Minister heard from all the provinces now, and can we expect the tabling in the house of this white paper before we go into the opting out debate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be possible to table it at the beginning of next week; at the latest, I hope, on Tuesday. If we have not heard from every province on every aspect of the matters that we have addressed to

Canada Pension Plan
them, I think we will table the white paper in any event next Tuesday.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production which has to do with his press release to the effect that the federal government has approved the sale of the Salaberry plant of Canadian Arsenals Limited, Valleyfield, Quebec, to Canadian Industries Limited of Montreal.
The announcement goes on to say that negotiations have been carried on by the minister's department for the sale of this crown owned company. I want to ask the minister why there were no open bids and why there were simply negotiations with this company, or were any other companies approached so that they had an opportunity to make this purchase?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member did not notice the very large advertisements placed in the newspapers last spring soliciting bids for not only this plant but the plants at Val Rose, Quebec, and Long Branch, Ontario. A number of bids were received, none of which was satisfactory in respect of Val Rose and Long Branch. Only one bid in respect of the Salaberry plant was received, from Canadian Industries Limited. This led to negotiations with that company to improve, in a number of regards, their original bid, and these improvements have been made.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-136. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under discussion.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night I was saying that 20

years after the coming into force of this legislation, the actuaries expected a contribution of about 4 per cent from the employees, which represents in fact a kind of tax on all salaries below $5,000, as well as a similar contribution from employers.
The economic consequences for the whole of Canada must be considered in particular when a thorough study is made of the employer's contribution. I appreciate that the benefits paid will be adjusted according to the cost of living index at the time, but the cost of living for the population as a whole will increase considerably through the 4 per cent contribution made by the employer.
The employer's contribution will inevitably lead to an increase in the cost of living index, an increase which will be borne by the whole population because some people will not get anything out of that plan, as was made clear on several occasions.
Therefore, the economic impact will certainly be felt, and rather harshly in the case of many people who in many instances will be unable to benefit from the pension plan but who will still have to face an increase in the cost of living.
On that subject, experts, actuaries in particular, have told us, in many instances, that a large scale pension plan or social insurance scheme, if you prefer, would have necessarily to take into account a great many factors.
To be realistic, one must consider that in 1990 or in 1985, that is in 20 years from now, through automation and cybernetics, the number of workers will no doubt be lower than it is at this time in proportion to the population of Canada. That means that the number of contributors will be less while the number of beneficiaries will be larger through immigration and natural population growth.
To be realistic, it seems to me that one should not go by the workers' and the employers' contributions alone to set up a really great social security plan to provide for those who, some day, will have to retire from work, but consideration should be given also to the situation that will prevail at that time for workers of 45, 50 or 55 years of age.
At the request of our neighbour country, experts in automation submitted a report last fall stating that the effects on the economic factors and the economic life in the United States would be greater following the use of machines and automation than the consequences and effects of the war of 1939-45.

We should, therefore, bear in mind that similar effects will hit Canada, but to establish a plan based solely on contributions paid by the wage earner is not very realistic.
It has also been pointed out that a truly social security plan should take into account many factors. It should, among other things, take into account the value of the dollar today and the value it will have in the future.
Now, I am pleased to quote what the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) said yesterday about the value of the dollar. He stated, as reported on page 11658 of Hansard of February 23, 1965:
Suppose a young person comes into the scheme at 25 and contributes for 40 years. The dollar, declining at the rate I have mentioned, would be worth about 25 cents by the time he was 65. In other words, a person who puts money in at a certain figure would be drawing out dollars which are only about 25 per cent of the value of the dollars he put in.
In this connection, he has stated previously:
Here is a dollar. I have it in my hand. Today, that dollar is worth 100 cents. If we go back over the years we find that the value of the dollar in terms of its purchasing power has declined to the extent of about 21 per cent per year.
I will also quote what the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said concerning the value of the Canadian dollar, as reported at page 11660 of Hansard:
I have been interested in this subject ever since I came to this House of Commons in 1945. On March 30, 1950, I made a speech in relation to the then old age pension legislation. At that time I took some care to do some research as to the purchasing value of the dollar. According to a table which was presented to me by some well informed individuals, based on the purchasing power of the dollar in 1939 as being 100 per cent, the purchasing power of the dollar in 1820 was two dollars and fourteen point six cents. In 1964, in relation to this table, the purchasing power of the dollar was approximately 50 cents.
I am happy to say, although some may think that the proposals we have set forth in view of establishing in Canada a real social security plan would entail a runaway inflation, that two other political parties in this house at least admit that our present financial system is an inflationary system, because there is practically a difference of $2.50 between the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar of 1820 and that of 1964.
Judging by the rate at which the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar devaluated over the past 25 years, we can readily see what it will be in another 25 years.
Therefore, in order to be practical, in establishing a plan we have to take into account many economic factors. The devalua-
Canada Pension Plan
tion of our dollar in our present financial system should also be taken into account.
I recall very well, and those who unreservedly support this pension plan probably do so also, the double talk of the former minister without portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) over the television, the full pages of advertisement during electoral campaigns where the people were warned against the threat of inflation which the monetary theory advocated by Social Crediters would bring about. This is an acknowledgement, by the Conservatives as well as by the members of the New Democratic party or, at least, by certain of their members, that the Canadian dollar is following an inflationary trend never seen before.
It is the present system then that is inflationary. In the pension plan before us, it would be imperative then to take those factors into consideration.
We must keep in mind also that the world's productivity will increase more and more.
The Canada economic council in its recent report, pointed out that the primary goal to achieve is full employment in Canada. Full employment is perhaps the most difficult dream to bring about. This full employment objective is undoubtedly the result of the visionary ideas praised so eloquently by Canadian socialists as well as by "Beveridgian" socialists.
So, I feel that a contributory and compulsory pension plan, that is the Pearson-Lesage plan, if you want to call it that, should be scrutinized before being adopted, and I think that we are about to create the most monstrous administrative organization ever to be seen and which, once again, will overburden the small wage earner, for whom we are supposed to set up social security programs likely to protect him in his old age. [Text]


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in the discussions on this very important piece of legislation up to the present moment, and I had not intended to do so at this stage. As one can well imagine I have followed the deliberations of the committee with considerable interest, and I was rather envious of the fact that I was not able to be a member of that committee, because we all felt that those members were engaged in pioneering in the field of social welfare legislation. I have long been interested in the subject both inside and outside this house.
The reason I rise to speak briefly now is that I have gained the impression from listen-

Canada Pension Plan
ing to the debate that the legislation is not living up to the high hopes that I for one, and I think many others in the country, had anticipated from it. For those who have been interested in social welfare measures over the years there has been much discussion around the point that our social welfare program had fundamental inadequacies and gaps. This resulted from the fact that social welfare in Canada has largely been established upon what might be called a jerrybuilt structure. It has come together in bits and pieces as a result of hasty adjustments to the urgency of the immediate rather than the careful consideration of long term problems. In other words, the programs have been implemented from the standpoint of vote getting procedures rather than dealing with the fundamental changes in social structure and organization which have occurred in Canada, and indeed throughout the whole civilized world, during the past three decades. For those who have followed the problem over the past three decades, and even longer than that because these changes actually began in the wake of world war I, the record is well known.
When this legislation was first introduced into the house, as I listened to the remarks of the minister as she commented upon the mark I version of the pension plan I came to the conclusion that this was the ultimate solution to the fundamental problem which has existed in our welfare program. As a member of the former Conservative administration I know that this was the approach we took in tackling what we regarded as the last major inadequacy in our social welfare program, the provision of financial security and an adequate income for those least able to look after themselves. I refer, for example, to survivor benefits for dependants which up to that time were and still are a major gap.
Unfortunately the government has proceeded with unseemly haste and it is only after the many suggestions that have been put forward in the house, the excellent suggestions that have been put forward by the various provincial governments when they have been belatedly consulted by the federal government and also, of course, after the excellent work of the committee that we have a piece of legislation that has come a long way from the initial presentation. As has been said by most speakers during this debate, in my view the officials deserve a great deal of credit for the marvellous job they have done in bringing the present order
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
out of the initial chaos, but they can only do so much.
As one who did not have the opportunity to sit in on the discussions of the committee but who has read the voluminous reports of their proceedings, I can see that responsible groups such as the Canadian Welfare Council and the Canadian Association of Social Workers are still concerned over the fact that the legislation before us, even though it is going to cost billions of dollars, even though it is going to raise the taxes of every Canadian by 3.8 per cent on top of the other tax exactions for pension and welfare programs, does not come to grips with the basic inadequacy in all our welfare programs, namely the problem of the low income group, the people who actually need this sort of security. I think anyone who is interested in social welfare benefits will agree that all a government social welfare program can do is to ensure a certain level of financial security. It is not social security or social welfare in the broad sense because social welfare in the broad sense can only come from the functioning of our basic social institutions.
Certainly this is a point that must have been brought before the government because I recall reading a speech on the subject of social welfare in Canada made on September 15, 1959, by the then editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, Mr. Tom Kent, in which he referred to the real problems of welfare as non-material misery. He was dealing with the real social needs as distinct from the financial needs to which I referred a moment ago. He also referred to the subject of preventive welfare, programs designed to meet basic welfare needs. The legislation before us obviously does not meet those intangibles in social security programs. It is merely a program designed to ensure certain financial and income benefits to a broad cross section of the Canadian public and unhappily it once again perpetuates the basic inadequacy of not meeting the needs of what are sometimes referred to as chronic indigents.
Actually the reason I decided to speak was that the parliamentary secretary to the minister spelled out in some detail, as reported on page 11642 of Hansard for yesterday, that the government understands it is not meeting this problem. He was replying to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who had dealt with the difficulty of pauperism and chronic poverty. The parliamentary secretary said:
I do not believe this question should be raised when we are discussing a wage related contributory pension scheme.

It is spelled out there that this fundamental gap remains, even though we are moving into a new era of social welfare that, as I have already intimated, will build up multi-billion dollar funds, will result in increases in taxation and will have all sorts of ramifications throughout the whole economic structure of Canada. In my own province, for example, it is estimated that the tax of 3.8 per cent which will be required to provide the funds to cover the wherewithal for these pensions will involve the sum of $36 million which would represent a sales tax of about 4 or 5 per cent. Up to the present time Manitoba is one of two provinces, the other being Alberta, that have been able to avoid the imposition of a direct sales tax. It is for this reason that the premier of Manitoba has consistently put forward the viewpoint that in moving forward in a massive way in this legislation we must be sure we are dealing with first things first.
I am not going to go over the ground that has been covered already by several spoke-men of this party and the views which were put forward in the committee in some detail by members of the Conservative party. They spelled out this difficulty in quite specific terms. As I read the committee reports, they put forward amendment after amendment which were promptly voted down by the committee. Having listened to the discussion and having read the record, it is apparent that the whole objective of these amendments was to meet this basic gap in our social welfare program in order to cover those who are actually in need of financial assistance.
Someone has referred to the legislation as upside-down welfare. It gives the most to those who need it the least. Two and a half million Canadians will not be covered in any shape or form by any financial benefit under this legislation. Therefore I can only conclude that the fanfare which has greeted this legislation indicating that it is the consummation of the Canadian welfare structure has unfortunately been saturated with the same political overtones that have unhappily been present in all previous Canadian welfare programs.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up any more of the time of the committee, except to re-emphasize that Canada needs a co-ordinated social justice program. This plan does not meet that criterion. I hope, even at this late date, as has been suggested by other members who have spoken, the government will still consider bringing forward some amendments or adopting others which have 20220-740
Canada Pension Plan
been put forward in concrete terms on several occasions by members of the Conservative party. It is hoped that the government will accept these amendments so that we will get the kind of program the propaganda indicated we were going to receive. I feel it is important this be done while the bill is under discussion because it is going to be a long, long time before a piece of legislation as important as this one is up for discussion again.
As I read the committee report, and as I examine the bill, which is complex and difficult for one who was not in the committee to comprehend, there are safeguards in the bill which make future major changes to the plan extremely difficult. I noticed, for example, that changes can only be effected with the approval of two thirds of the participating provinces and then only if they represent two thirds of the population of Canada. It is for this reason I make this final appeal to the government to make sure that the initial plan is the best possible plan.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: In rising to take part in this debate, may I assure the government and the minister that I do not intend to speak at length. As many hon. members on this side of the house have already pointed out, there are some weaknesses in this bill. I propose to touch on a few more and ask a few questions I should like to have cleared up.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the committee members who worked so hard during the recess. I understand they had 51 meetings and heard a great deal of evidence, some of which was quite detailed. In fact, the whole bill is one of the most complex pieces of legislation to be introduced in the last few years. One of the things which immediately comes to mind when discussing this pension plan is, how much is it going to cost? Some of the evidence that was presented to the committee dealt with that question in this way: It was stated the cost would be similar to increasing the average income tax now paid by 23 per cent, a substantial amount in my opinion. Another way of looking at it according to some evidence presented is that it would be the same as imposing a sales tax of 4 per cent or 5 per cent, again a substantial amount.
As soon as one realizes that it is going to cost quite a bit, he immediately asks, as many people across Canada have been doing, who is going to benefit? Will they benefit? The previous speaker pointed out, and I wholeheartedly agree with him, that a great

Canada Pension Plan
many people will not receive any benefit from the plan, because of their situation. Some of them, of course, find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own. It is too bad that this whole area has to be left out of this pension plan. It is too bad that the pension plan could not be an all-encompassing welfare and social improvement plan of some sort.
When one considers that this plan will be compulsory, he immediately thinks of those people who are already paying into a registered pension plan. In some of the evidence it was suggested that 30 per cent of the working force is now paying into a registered plan of one kind or another. The Ontario brief suggested that 60 per cent of the working force of Ontario now has the right to join a registered pension plan. Of course anyone who is self-employed may join a pension plan on an individual basis with any of the companies that are in the business of selling these plans. The vast number of people who are not likely covered by a pension plan today will be the ones missed by this pension plan. I am thinking particularly of the self-employed, the small farmer, who perhaps may not have a net income of $800. I know this amount must appear rather small to many hon. members. However a great many farmers throughout Canada, not only in eastern Canada and Quebec, have a net income of less than $800 after expenses have been considered. These people will be missed by this plan.
There is one other aspect of the plan that I find disappointing, namely that it is not actuarially sound for any of the persons paying into it. Surely if we are going to leave out those people who cannot afford to pay into it, then those who are paying into it should not be getting a bonus, as is the case for certain groups under this plan. If you are going to give one group in our society a bonus, then I do not believe you have any sound argument for leaving out another class altogether and giving them no chance to participate. I do not really understand the reasoning behind these provisions. I am quite disappointed. I favour a pension plan; I know it has many good points to it, such as portability. Why bring in a pension plan which will give bonuses to some and prohibit others from participating at all? I find this difficult to understand.
I should like to return to a consideration of the farmers for a moment. I am concerned about a situation which may well arise under which a farmer will be paying into the

pension plan. He will have a net income of well over $800. He will be paying into the pension plan on a monthly basis, and then along will come a hailstorm and wipe him out completely. In that year in which he is already paying into the plan, he will not have a net income of over $800. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that on April 30, or whatever the checking up date for the year may be, he will make out a form which will state his net income was below $800 in that year. He will then have to ask for a refund of the money he has paid in, and that year will be called a no income year and will not be taken into account in averaging his earnings.
Suppose a farmer is now 55 years old. Many people in that age group are not participating in pension plans at present, and such a farmer will want to qualify each one of the remaining ten years in order to take full advantage of the Canada pension plan at age 65. Then, suppose that in three or four of those years he is hailed out. He may be willing to pay his contributions to the plan but, because he does not have a net income of $800 during those three or four years, he is prohibited from making contributions to the plan.
I know parts of my constituency which in four out of five years crops have been completely hailed out and in the following year they produced champion wheat kings at the Toronto royal winter show. If this pension plan were actuarially sound there would be no harm in allowing a farmer, who is capable and willing, to pay contributions into it, even though he does not have the minimum income required under the terms of the plan.
I would like the minister to correct me if I am wrong but, as I read the bill, if a farmer pays into the pension plan in a given year, and in the fall of that year his crops are completely hailed out, that year is deducted from the permissible years over which his pension is paid and averaged.


Mr. Benson:: I would like to indicate one or two things in this regard. First of all, a farmer would pay his pension contributions at the same time as he pays his income tax, which is in December and April, so that he would not make a payment for the year 1966 until December 1966 and thus he would know what his situation was before he made his payment.
The second point is that although there is no averaging provision, and I would like to deal with this in more detail when we come to a certain clause in the bill, if we take the

case of a farmer who is 55 years of age and he is hailed out one year during the next 10 years, if he continues to farm between the ages 65 and 70 he could pick up that year by continuing to work until he is age 66, contribute in that year, and then take his pension.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I understand the minister, a farmer will not pay into the pension plan every month?


Edgar John Benson: It will be twice a year, when he pays his income tax.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am firmly convinced most farmers pay income tax only once a year. However, would he still have to make monthly deductions for his hired help?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, if it were permanent hired help and did not come within the exemptions in the bill, 25 days or $250. For permanent hired help earning over $600 he would have to contribute.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then that would get away from his paying in only once a year to the fund at the time when he pays his income tax, and would still exclude those years in which he was hailed out from being pensionable years.


Edgar John Benson: There is the dropping out after the 10 year maturity period and, as the hon. member pointed out earlier in his statement, a person who is 55 years of age and starts paying into the pension plan will, because of the very nature of the plan, enjoy some great advantages. Then, after the 10 year maturity period there is the dropout period, which is presently in the bill at 10 per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Dealing with the minister's reference to a farmer working on past 65 or 70, as I understand it he has the option to work on past 65 but he must take the pension after 70. I do not think farmers are a particularly hardy breed but many of them work on past 70, and I wonder if it is necessary to have so severe a penalizing clause in the bill if they continue work after 70.


Edgar John Benson: There is no penalty for working on beyond 65, except that between 65 and 70 if you have a certain amount of income the amount of pension you would draw would be reduced, or if you have a large amount of income you would continue to contribute. But for each year that you contribute between the age of 65 and 70 you can drop out one of your low income years. If a farmer continues to farm after 70 years he would be getting the maximum pension to 20220-740J
Canada Pension Plan
which he is entitled under the bill, as well as his income from other sources.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He can earn as much as he likes after 70?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Without having anything deducted?


Edgar John Benson: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then I was wrong. I was under the impression that there was a penalizing clause and a limit to the amount one could earn even after 70 years of age.
Though I support the bill I am disappointed in it. The coverage it provides is not as wide as I would like and I really see no reason why a farmer, earning less than $800 net income a year, should not be permitted to make contributions for that year if he wishes. I do not think he could be forced to contribute but I do not see why he is prohibited and I would like the minister to consider this matter.
I recognize that a portable pension scheme will eventually become a good thing for Canada but I had hoped we could be assured it will be portable in all provinces. Apparently we will not know that until 30 days after the bill is passed because the provinces have 30 days in which to announce their intentions of entering the pension field on their own. Only then will we know whether their pension plans will coincide with this one, and they must coincide in order to make the scheme fully portable.
Many people have been wondering how existing pension plans will be integrated with this one. The Canada pension plan is not actuarially sound but private plans are, and this will cause a great deal of difficulty. Quite a number of people will be paying into two pension plans. It is true they will reap the benefits of both plans, but we are a young country which needs to be developed. We should not be enjoying the luxury of saving so much for our old age when there is so much needed to be done with the money we earn during our working life.


Mr. Munro:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I think he would agree there are very few farmers in Canada who are covered under private pension plans on a co-operative basis as compared with people in, say, business establishments. Private plans really are not designed for them or available to them.

Canada Pension Plan


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree, and that is the fault I find with this bill; it will not include all the farmers.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member agrees that private plans are really not of much help to the farmer. Then as far as the farmers are concerned there is no integration problem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, but the schoolteacher has such a problem; so has the municipal worker and so on. I am not saying the farmer has an integration problem. All I say with regard to the farmer is that he should be more fully covered by this legislation, even though his income might not allow him, in a given year or number of years, to be eligible as the measure now stands.
Let me say once again that I think this is a good plan. The portability feature appeals to me and it will become very effective, possibly, for the next generation. People born in the next generation will, of course, be those who will have to pay for the plan. It seems that once again, as in the case of the old age security measures and certain other measures, we have postponed the debt instead of seeing it is completely paid off. In this respect I am somewhat disappointed in the plan. I think it would be better to pay for it as we go along rather than postpone our liability and place it, as far as cost goes, upon the shoulders of the next generation.


Mr. Aiken:: At the conclusion of my remarks I intend to move a formal amendment to clause 2, and I might explain briefly that the amendment proposes to add a definition of the word "resident" to the clause. The definition will define a resident as a person who fulfils the residence qualifications of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Old Age Security Act.
I should like to explain briefly the reason for moving such an amendment at this time. There is no residence qualification as such in the bill before us. I think the basic reason is that employment has to be in Canada and therefore the question as to residence has not concerned those who drafted the bill. However, we intend to propose later on, certain substantive amendments to various clauses which would add as beneficiaries persons who will have made a smaller contribution than the one envisaged or, in some cases, no contribution at all to the fund. In these circumstances we feel the benefit of such a provision should be limited to residents of Canada as they are defined in the Old Age Security Act. We propose to add

certain benefits. I will list them as four in number. First, we intend to add words to the effect that for the purposes of benefit under this act those who earn less than $600, or $800 as the case may be-the minimum provided by the plan-shall be included. At the present time the minimum amount of $600 in respect of employed persons represents the dividing line. If people earn less than $600 in any year they are not required to make any contribution to the Canada pension plan and are entitled to no credit. But if they earn more than $600 they have to pay only in respect of the amount which exceeds $600. We feel this is unfair to those people who are in the very low income brackets. We feel that in this type of measure there must be a certain element of welfare and we intend to include these people to the extent which our amendments will make clear. Our proposal will be that any person who earns less than $600 in any one year shall be entitled to file a return of his earnings as usual and take credit for the amount of his actual earnings, but will not be required to make any contribution for that year. We feel this will have two results. First, it will help those who consistently earn less than $600 to get a pension and, second, it will keep the average lifetime earnings of those who are earning incomes around the $600 figure at a reasonable amount; in no year would they be classified as having received no earnings where in fact they have earned $400 or $500, for example. We shall include these people as beneficiaries under the plan and we shall pay them when they retire the minimum pension of $25 a month, provision for which is made in one of the later clauses. We feel this group of people cannot in any case afford to make contributions.
We intend, in the second place, to provide minimum pensions of $25 on retirement. As the plan is presently drafted, a person with marginal lifetime earnings might receive at the age of 65 a pension as low as $10 or $15 a month-an income so low in relation to his requirements that he would need assistance from other sources. We feel that if people have paid even minimal amounts into the plan during their working lives, they should be entitled to a minimum pension, and we believe the minimum they should receive is $25 a month. There may be people who have made very small contributions because they have consistently earned less than $600 a year. Nevertheless they will be entitled to the

minimum pension. In this way we intend to bring such people within the pension plan, no matter how small their income, and pay them a minimum of $25 a month. We think this is only fair to those who have made contributions to the national economy all their lives, particularly when their earnings have fallen within the very low income brackets.
We have also decided to provide for minimum pensions for people presently over 70 years of age who would not have the right to benefit from the plan in normal circumstances. We feel that there will be a great gap between those who reach 70 years of age and have been on the pension plan and those who are too old now ever to get on it. We believe that these people are entitled to be classified as contributors to the pension plan by reason of their contribution to the economy of this country in past years. This is why we are moving to bring into this particular clause a residential requirement, because we do not feel that a person should be entitled to come here from another country and take advantage of our minimum pension. He should have made his lifetime earnings in Canada, have resided here and contributed in some way to our national economy.
We are proposing that this minimum of $25 per month should be paid out of the Canada pension plan. In this way we differ to some extent with the proposal put forward by other members who are suggesting an overall increase in old age security. We are also proposing that persons between 65 and 70 who have made no contributions and are unable to do so, or who have made very small contributions for a very short period of time-those persons who may now be approaching the age of 65 and may not be able to contribute in any great amount-also be provided with a minimum pension of $25 per month which will go beyond and above the old age security that has been described. Here again, Mr. Chairman, we feel that this will do something to fill the gap in regard to those people who are now between 60 and 65 and will not have the opportunity of contributing to this plan for any great period of time. If those people who are now 63 contribute for two years, they will be able to draw a pension of roughly $20 per month; if they have contributed for just one year, they will be able to draw a pension of about $10 a month. We intend to include those people in the minimum pension provisions and classify them as contributors. Later on in the proceedings we intend to define the group of people whom I have just described
Canada Pension Plan
as contributors, and they will be deemed to be contributors under the provisions of the Canada pension plan. But this does not come within the clause that we are now considering. As I stated, Mr. Chairman, all these people whom we are adding are people who will derive a greater benefit than would normally be the case with a wage related plan. For that reason we believe they should be Canadians, and for that reason we are adding this definition at this time.
It may be asked, can we afford to pay these funds out of the Canada pension plan as it is presently established? Mr. Chairman, the answer to this question is yes. At a later date, when we make our substantive amendments to later clauses, we will be presenting to the committee our exact amendments and will then be setting out in detail the financial implications of our amendments. But at this moment let me say that we have calculated and have had calculated the effects on the Canada pension fund of all our amendments. In the first few years it will constitute a fairly heavy drain on the funds, but it will at no time overdraw or nearly overdraw the funds. Most of the figures that have been given to the special committee and to the house take the year 1970 as a standard year when the initial transition period will have passed. We find that, even after paying the additional benefits that we are proposing, in that year alone there will be an accumulation of between $75 million and $100 million.
The effect of our amendments will be to slow down the growth of this fund. There will be a transition period of 20 years in accordance with our proposal, and this will have some effect on the fund in the later stages. There is also another feature that we are going to introduce, namely that of collecting from those earnings over $600 a year on the basis of their whole earnings up to the maximum in the bill while not collecting at all from those who earn less than $600 a year. This particular feature will raise, in the year 1970, approximately $107 million to offset the cost of the proposals we are making.
As I stated, Mr. Chairman, the fund will grow more slowly in the early years as the result of accepting our proposals; but it will accelerate in the later years because, first, all those who are now 65 and over who will receive a benefit, without contribution, under our plan, will gradually be replaced by those who have contributed to the fund in the normal way. In other words, our provisions are transitional and will be replaced in due course by people who have contributed to the pension

Canada Pension Plan
plan in the normal way and will draw benefits in the normal way. So that after this transition the fund will start to grow more quickly. Second, our proposal to extend the transition period from 10 to 20 years will not be effective to any great extent in the first few years; that is to say, by 1970. But as the years go on, between the tenth and twentieth years it will have a very substantial effect on the growth of the fund and the fund will continue to grow from those years forward.
I have indicated in a general way that we are satisfied that these proposals can be handled out of the Canada pension fund, at no time putting the fund in danger. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley:
On page 3, amend subclause (1) of clause 2, byadding a new subclause (cc) and re-lettering the following subclause accordingly:
"(cc) "resident" means a person who fulfils the residence qualifications of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Old Age Security Act".
I have copies in English and French.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has been placed before this committee is a very fundamental amendment which would change the nature of the bill before us. It is not just a mere amendment to the definition clause; it is the basis on which subsequent amendments, as indicated by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, will change a piece of social legislation which is intended as a social insurance measure, as my hon. friend from Halifax indicated yesterday, into something quite different, something which would have very serious effects on national unity in Canada, since its application could only apply to that part of Canada which was not contracting out. It would also have very serious effects on the nature of the fund itself.
There are three fundamental ways in which we in Canada, as other modern nations, enact social measures which have generally been described, in a rather confused way, by spokesmen for the opposition as welfare measures. The most ancient of these, one which is very important in our structure, relates to social assistance. When we speak of welfare, traditionally social assistance based on a test of individual means or of income or of resources, or various combinations of those, has been the usual way of approaching it.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the rather touching appeal of the hon. member-and I remember the one made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi yester-

day-concerning poverty in the rural regions. Equally I have learned of the cases of poverty which exist in our urban parts of Canada. I also listened to the hon. member for Northwest Territories who told us of the very deep poverty of many of the native peoples of this country whom he represents in this house. But at that point, Mr. Chairman, I realize that the proper measures to deal with this question must be related to social assistance.
Another method of approach is the universal benefit method, which usually requires a test not of individual resources but of residence. The amendment offered to the committee very significantly deals with residence and does not deal in any way with the concept of public assistance; nor is it related to social insurance as such. Fundamentally this is a measure which defines eligibility not in terms of individual requirements based on case work, not in terms of universal benefits, but in terms of contribution, and contributory records. The purpose of this legislation is to take pensions out of politics. This amendment I suggest would put pensions more deeply into politics than they have ever been in the history of this country.
I think we have seen in recent years the record of competitive bidding between the major political parties, each trying to arrive at some pension level which could be defended in some way as adequate, although governments have wisely refrained from trying to label any benefit method they have chosen as an adequate benefit. In proposing this legislation the government had in mind the fact that in Canada there is the same variation in requirements between urban and rural communities, between highly industrialized provinces and the less industrialized provinces, between those with higher standards of income and the income levels of those with lower standards. The intention clearly was not to deal with the acute problem of rural poverty, for which ARDA, for example, is designed. It was not to deal with the urban poverty problem, which has to be tackled through revision of our public assistance legislation and standards. The intention was to deal with the problem of portable pensions of wage earners in urban and industrialized communities, who obviously needed something in addition to the flat rate benefits of a universal plan if they were to retire with a sense of dignity. This legislation is designed as a measure of social insurance, and hon. members opposite have been attacking it in an attempt to say that the plan has not done the very things it was not intended to do.

It is not an instrument by which we are heading an attack on rural poverty. It is not an instrument by which I submit we race in a cavalier fashion, and I suggest an irresponsible and cynical fashion on the part of members of the opposition who have espoused the doctrine which first came from that corner of the house, and with a good deal more conviction, toward $100 a month at age 65. Members in other parts of the house, in an obvious attempt to gain political capital, are now applying the same doctrine which was used with regard to the unemployment insurance fund, where $1 billion in the unemployment insurance fund was drained away to nothing in a period of six years. They have applied the same philosophy to a measure of social insurance in which the same principle of funding, which is fundamental to such measures, would be adopted.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Does he not feel that a minimum pension of $25 for persons in the low income brackets is a fair addition? It would also relieve those people who earn less than $600 a year from paying the premiums, which would amount to much less than 90 cents a month-hardly worth while collecting?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I presume that is a question. Certainly the government has brought this minimum to $75 a month and has indicated its intention to pay $75 a month to people in this country 65 years of age and over. We are not saying that that figure is adequate, that it is all we can do; but we are saying that that is all which at this point can be realistically put forward, bearing in
Canada Pension Plan mind the various alternatives which have to be considered and the priorities which have been so graphically demonstrated by spokesmen from the other side.
May I call it six o'clock.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the minister. May I ask the minister whether she can assure us that the last report of the minutes, No. 24, will be available tomorrow?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, since that is not in any way my responsibility I am unable to answer the question.


George Louis Chatterton: Then may I ask whether the minister would use her influence to have these important minutes made available to us.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would suggest that the hon. member ask the Clerk of the house.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is showing, with all due respect, a little lack of responsibility. These minutes have not been available to the house. Here we are discussing the bill and we want to get on with the individual clauses. We feel it is the duty of the government to produce a copy of the minutes.


John Carr Munro: You know this is not the government's responsibility.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly it is.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 25, 1965